… Yeah … it’s in our backyard too … ask ADEQ … ask ADWR … ask CAP … ask SRP … if you expect the truth and full disclosure you’ll have to make yourself a pest and risk spending time in Joe’s Tent City …

Industrial solvent TCE even more dangerous to people

September 30, 2011 …


EPA finds trichloroethylene causes kidney and liver cancer, lymphoma and other health problems. The decision could raise the cost of cleanups nationwide, including in the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys.

One of the most widespread groundwater contaminants in the nation is more dangerous to humans than earlier thought, a federal agency has determined, in a decision that could raise the cost of cleanups nationwide, including large areas of the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys.

The final risk assessment for trichloroethylene by the Environmental Protection Agency found that the widely used industrial solvent causes kidney and liver cancer, lymphoma and other health problems. That lays the groundwork to reevaluate the federal drinking-water standard for the contaminant: 5 parts per billion in water, and 1 microgram per cubic meter in air, officials said.

Paul Anastas, assistant administrator for the EPA’s office of research and development, said toxicity values for TCE reported in the risk assessment released this week may be used to establish new cleanup strategies at 761 Superfund sites, as well as in aquifers supplying drinking water to millions of residents in the San Gabriel and San Fernando valleys.

The risk assessment had been subject to more than a decade of delays. A 2001 draft assessment that suggested a strong link between TCE and cancer was opposed by the Defense Department, the Energy Department and NASA.

The Pentagon had demanded greater proof that industrial substances cause cancer before raising cleanup costs at more than 1,000 polluted sites.

"This risk assessment is a big deal because it will strengthen protections for people who live and work above TCE plumes — and there are a lot of them — and could force serious rethinking about the extent of cleanup efforts," said Lenny Siegal, executive director of the Mountain View, Calif.-based Center for Public Environmental Oversight, which posted a letter Monday signed by activists across the country, demanding that the final risk assessment be released. It was released Wednesday.

Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the decision "launches new arguments about what the safety standards should be. In the meantime, people impacted by this pollution can now link their disease to it in litigation with more confidence because the science is no longer in dispute. TCE causes cancer."

TCE has been discovered in nearly every state but in none more widely than California. Military bases including Camp Pendleton and Edwards Air Force Base have Superfund sites with TCE contamination.

The Los Angeles metropolitan area overlies a checkerboard of underground plumes of TCE, and has high ambient levels of the chemical in the air. More than 30 square miles of the San Gabriel Valley lie in one of four Superfund sites that contain TCE. The San Fernando Valley overlies a large plume grouped into three separate Superfund sites. The former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro in Orange County sits over a plume several miles long.

Developed by chemists in the late 19th century, TCE was widely used after World War II to degrease metal and electronic parts, and then dumped into nearby disposal pits and storage tanks at industrial plants and military bases, where it seeped into aquifers.

The public can be exposed to TCE in several ways, including by showering in contaminated water and by breathing air in homes where TCE vapors have intruded from the soil. TCE’s movement from contaminated groundwater and soil into the indoor air of overlying buildings is a major concern.

"Vapor intrusion represents toxic exposure which is continuous and difficult to avoid," Siegal said. "It’s not like you can live on bottled air in your own home or school."


Robot Tractors on the Way




Robot Tractors on the Way





WATCH VIDEO HERE … http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/284-0928004836.jpg


"Only experienced tractor operators have the skills needed to work a field with precision. The job of an operator is really quite complex: he observes the tractor’s current position, makes a judgment based on terrain conditions and the route to be followed, and, based on all this, decides the speed and orientation of the tractor."

Read Full Story

… Yes … he lied …


clip_image001…. Yes … I believe Donald Rumsfeld should be held accountable to “we”  (the people) for all of his actions while serving in the capacity as Sec of Defense under President “W’ Bush


Veterans attempt citizens arrest of Rumsfeld in Boston (VIDEO)


WATCH VIDEO HERE … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIX2UiByf58&feature=player_embedded

Posted on 09.27.11 By David Edwards Categories: Activism, Featured

Several members of the group Veterans for Peace were escorted out of the Old South Meeting House in Boston Monday night after they attempted a citizen’s arrest of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“I went down in front and looked Donald Rumsfeld in the eye and said, ‘I’m making a citizen’s arrest,’” protester Nate Goldschlag told WCVB-TV.

“He lied us into Iraq. He lied about weapons of mass destruction. He lied about Saddam Hussein being involved in 9/11.”

Three of the protesters removed from the event were with Veterans for Peace and a fourth was a member of Code Pink. One protester was arrested outside the event for allegedly using a bullhorn to assault a police officer.

… Yes … he lied …

will be a long time before the “fat-lady” even warms up to rehearse to sing …

… Don’t hold your breath … there will be many, many more hearings on this water issue … it will be a long time before the “fat-lady” even warms up to rehearse to sing …

Battle over big Vegas water pipeline gets hearing


By Sandra CherebThe Associated Press … Mon, 09/26/2011 – 5:28pm …http://www.standard.net/stories/2011/09/26/battle-over-big-vegas-water-pipeline-gets-hearing


CARSON CITY, Nev. — A hearing scheduled to last into late fall began Monday on the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s plans to pump billions of gallons of water from remote valleys along the Nevada-Utah line to quench Las Vegas’ thirst.

In opening statements before the state engineer, critics of the proposal said the water authority’s own data and modeling used to justify the 300-mile, $3.5 billion pipeline are flawed. They say tapping 126,000 acre-feet of groundwater would result in economic and environmental catastrophe for those in and around Spring, Cave Valley, Delamar and Dry Lake valleys.

An acre-foot is the amount of water it takes to cover 1 acre 1 foot deep.

"Under their data, every single spring in Spring Valley will go dry," said Paul Hejmanowski, a Las Vegas lawyer representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which owns the sprawling Cleveland Ranch in Nevada’s White Pine County.

Other opponents include Great Basin Water Network, several Indian tribes and various rural counties in Nevada and Utah.

Pat Mulroy, general manager of the water authority, testified that the agency is only seeking water rights for unappropriated, annual recharge.

Southern Nevada, the state’s population hub, is home to 2 million people and attracts 40 million visitors annually.

Most of the region’s water comes from the overtapped Colorado River, a source shared by seven western states and Mexico.

"There are no easy solutions left on the Colorado River," Mulroy said.

The water authority will have three weeks to present its case to Jason King, the state engineer. Opponents will be given the same amount of time to offer counter-testimony and expert opinions, and public comment will be heard Oct. 7.

A ruling could come early next year.    The agency was granted the permits it seeks once before, but last year, the Nevada Supreme Court sent the matter back for a new round of hearings. The court ruled the state engineer failed to act on the water authority’s applications in a timely manner, and that people who were not part of the original case but have a stake in the outcome should be allowed to participate in the proceedings.

If the authority secures approval of all the rights it is seeking, the pipeline could end up carrying as much as 65 billion gallons of water from the north to the south on an annual basis. Daily flows would total up to 178 million gallons under that scenario — enough to cover an area the size of nearly 500 football fields with a new foot of water each day.

Hejmanowski said his clients don’t object to southern Nevada wanting to develop available, unappropriated water, but they have concerns about the effects the pumping would have on existing water rights holders.

"We are not here to argue against progress or water for Las Vegas," he said, but added, "good intentions are no substitute for good science."

He said the LDS Church is opposed to 12 of the 19 permits SNWA has applied for in Spring Valley. Of the 12, four were denied previously.

Lawyers for Millard and Juab counties in Utah also oppose what critics call a "water grab," fearing that pumping from Spring Valley could alter groundwater flows in Utah’s nearby Snake Valley.

Paul Taggart, a lawyer representing the water authority, said over the past 10 years, Lake Mead’s water level plunged 140 feet because of drought, and the river-supplied water came within 6 feet of a shortage declaration that would trigger tough measures to curtail use.

He said opponents were "blinded by "personal prejudices" against SNWA and "fundamentally opposed to moving water from where it is to where the people need it."

But Simeon Herskovits, with Great Basin Water Network, said the agency’s estimate of perennial recharge is "grossly exaggerated" and its projections on the effects of groundwater drawn down "greatly skewed."

He said pumping the water would cause economic and environmental harm by eliminating plant communities and take a toll on wildlife.

"We believe the state engineer will not be able to legally grant the applications," he said.



I will start from the beginning


clip_image002… USDA … America’s newest incarnation of Hitler’s Nazi Germany Gestapo … We have your back …

The ‘Lemon Tree Lady’ Speaks Out About USDA Threats Over TREE (this is NOT satire)


Lois Rain, Contributing WriterActivist Posthttp://www.activistpost.com/2011/09/lemon-tree-lady-speaks-out-about-usda.html

When life hands you a lemon tree . . . the USDA takes it away! And don’t even think of making lemonade with any more trees – they’ll take those too.

A special HFA interview with Bridget Donovan, aka “The Lemon Tree Lady,” USDA’s Most Wanted. Or rather, her little beloved lemon tree was. Last week, we reported the story of the USDA demanding her tree three years after a quarantine, but the real USDA mode of operation is in the details below — we can’t make this stuff up!

Did you know she was facing fines up to $60,000 and a federal raid if she did not comply? (Remember the USDA’s $4 million dollar bunnies?) They invaded her privacy, tracked her down through her purchases, and sternly warned they would get that tree one way or another. It appears she is on a “citrus watch list.”

Please read the details below –  it will help you if you ever face such a situation. Bridget was no pushover — she did her very best to keep her tree and we wanted to know more. The USDA knows that most people will crumble under such threats and don’t have the funds to fight. And just how far is someone willing to go over a lemon tree? Thanks to “The Lemon Tree Lady,” we know that scores of others face similar situations and that the USDA spies on our purchases, yards, and even into windows! This is by their own admission. Find out below what happened when people purchased new lemon trees that were compliant.

Most of our readers will detect that this was not an issue of environmental safety — her personal tree was healthy and posed no danger. The USDA wouldn’t even allow for that — they destroyed it and disrupted Bridget’s life. This is a matter of force and personal property. They think they have the authority to watch and revisit people to try to catch them in a lie (for instance, if they say their trees died).

Does anyone know of the right department to contact about this? Please share this incredible story with friends and family. All emphasis below is HFA’s. 

So what happened? What exactly did the USDA want from you? Why was your lemon tree on a terrorist hit list?

I will start from the beginning.    Three years ago, I read an article in the local newspaper about Meyer Lemon Trees. It said how easy they were to grow inside, and how they brightened up the winters with sweet smelling flowers and fruit. I love gardening, my young niece shares my love of gardening, so it seemed the perfect thing to buy. I looked online, and found the company, meyerlemontree.com. It listed the states they could not ship to, and since Wisconsin was not one of them, I felt safe in ordering. It was clearly a big company, and I did not in a million years think anything was wrong in buying from them.

The tree arrived in great shape, and it just took off. My whole family enjoyed the flowers and the sweet smell, and it was very exciting to watch the lemons as they grew. I spent a lot of time on this tree. It clearly paid off because it was a very healthy tree. Then, three years later, out of the blue, I received a letter from the USDA.

It Included a flyer stating that my tree would be seized, I would not be compensated by the government, and that it would be destroyed. The fact sheet also said they verified, with federal law enforcement databases, that I was at the current address. It went on to state that while I would not face any penalties “at this point” if I were found to be in possession of regulated citrus again, I could face a fine of $1,100 to $60,000. The letter asked me to call the agent from the USDA to discuss this matter. It stated the issue was with citrus greening and citrus canker.

I truly thought this was a joke, so I looked it up online. I was shocked to discover how many other people had had their trees seized, and many without any warning. The feds just showed up at their doors.

One woman had written that hers was seized, and then she was told by the USDA the replacement tree offered by the company was compliant. Then the USDA turned around and seized that, too. I bring this up because I mentioned it to the USDA officer when I spoke with her (more on that in a moment).

Since this letter arrived on a Saturday, I gave much thought as to what to do. I thought about trying to take it to a friend’s house. I had spent a lot of time and money on this tree, and it upset me that the government could just tell me they were taking it.

However, the tree required a fair amount of attention, and I didn’t want to burden someone else with that, or stick them in the middle of this. I was very angry and upset. I have never had any contact with the federal government, other than the every day things like paying taxes and such, and could not believe a tree purchased legally, three years ago, would elicit this sort of action. I thought about ignoring the letter, but based on others’ experience of having them show up announced, I knew that wouldn’t work, either.

I called the agent Monday, and she explained they had to seize the tree because the company obtained it from a vendor that had gotten it from Florida. However, I never did get a straight answer as to when/if all parts of Florida are quarantined, and how we are to know when they deem that to be. She said they seized my information from the company that sold this tree, and were tracking everyone down. I told her if this was such a threat, I didn’t understand what took three years.

What do you think of the USDA waiting 3 years after the quarantine to demand it back?    That is really what ticks me off the most — it’s not like this tree just arrived, and I was contacted about a problem. This is three years later. If the government thought this was such a risk, it’s doesn’t say much that it took them three years to do anything about it. This officer stated that I could get a replacement tree from the company.

At that point I brought up that I had read that other people had done that, had been assured those were “compliant” trees, and then they were seized. This agent did admit that happened.

I mentioned the fine I was threatened with, and she said it was on a case by case basis, and that they really weren’t going after the consumer. I asked if I got the replacement tree, how was I to know the feds wouldn’t be knocking on my door again in three years, and she said she didn’t know what to tell me. I voiced my disgust with the way in which this flyer was written, and she said it was done by the national USDA PR people and she had no control over that. I asked if they had a warrant in order to obtain this tree, and she said no.

I asked what would happen if I declined to give it up, and she said no one had ever done that before and she would have to talk to her supervisor. I asked her to do so.

I called back the next day, and she told me that while they were hoping I would voluntarily give up the tree, it wasn’t a choice, it was an order.

I again asked what would happen, and she said she would have someone call me back. A supervisor did, and she told me that they were going to get the tree one or way or the other, and if I refused, they would quarantine it, obtain a warrant, and bring federal law enforcement officers to my house to take the tree.

She told me 2-3 times that If that tree disappeared while it was under quarantine I would be in violation.

What happens if someone informs the USDA that the tree has died – what do they do?

When I pressed her about the time I had had this tree, and what they did if other people said theirs had died, she told me they made repeat visits back, “surveyed” yards, and spotted many in people’s front hallways. She told me they wanted this wrapped up that week, and that if I was going to refuse, I had to tell them so they could get going on the quarantine and warrant. Oh, she also mentioned she could count one hand how many times they had to do that sort of thing, as most people relented and gave them their tree.

Did this situation disrupt your life? Did it feel like a violation?

I was so torn. I am not a quitter by nature, but at the same time I did not want my family members to be at home when law enforcement showed up with this warrant to storm in and seize the tree.

I do not have the money, either, to try to fight the government in court (which I did point out to the one agent, that they clearly knew they held up the upper hand). With utter anger I relented, and said I would give it up.

The original agent wouldn’t make an appointment after 3:00, so I had to bring the tree to work. She came into my workplace with a red hazmat bag, but my tree was so big and healthy it didn’t fit, so she took it in my garbage bag. I did snap a picture of her doing so, which I told her I was going to do. I had also contacted our local newspaper the day before, and they did a story on it.

Did you realize at the time that you were basically threatened with a federal raid if you did not comply? Because, you were…

Yes, I did feel threatened with a federal raid. I think being told they were going to get the tree one way or the other leaves little choice.

I felt utterly violated, angry, and upset. I pay my taxes, I obey the law, and this is how I was treated? I did nothing wrong. I would expect these actions toward someone running a drug house, not someone who owned a lemon tree.

I don’t know for a fact they had driven by before sending that letter, but it seemed a little odd the supervisor would tell me they “survey” yards looking for the trees.

Do you believe their actions are really motivated by environmental safety?

In my own mind I do not believe they took this tree because of this citrus disease. I am not certainly selfish enough to have wanted to keep a tree if I thought it were a hazard to the nation’s citrus crops.

That disease doesn’t affect humans or animals, according to the literature they sent me. It causes misshapen fruit and yellow leaves, neither of which my tree had. And even if my tree were sick, it had been here three years – it’s a little late for them to be so hysterical over it, especially in the cold climate of Wisconsin.

What did your family and friends think of it? What did they say when you thought you might push harder to keep your tree?

My family and friends were quite shocked. I have heard from quite a number of people who read the article, and it amazes me how afraid people are — they think the government is reading our e-mails, listening to our calls, etc. It is a shame in the land of the free that people have to feel this way.

What would you say to those who stand by the USDA’s heavy actions in the name of environmental safety?

And to those who think it’s not a big deal, I ask them how they will feel when the government decides to seize something they own and value.

Would you do anything differently if it happened again?

I don’t know what what I would do it if I had to do it over again. I would like to think I would push it and demand a warrant as is my right, but I knew the tree was going one way or the other. I pushed and questioned it as best as I did, but in the end, these people, paid with our tax dollars, treated me like a common criminal.

Thanks for asking for the details. Please let me know if you have any other questions.


… The fate of one individual is of NO consequence to Phoenix City government officials and its elected leaders …


… I suggest Ms. Roberts although I concur with you


… the Angela Dominguez clause only matters providing the City of Phoenix bidding process is ethically applied…

… The fate of one individual is of NO consequence to Phoenix City government officials and its elected leaders …



Sorry … Mr. President … but you are now engaged in that same deceptive game as your predecessor George W Bush did following the debacle on his watch 11 Sept 2001 …

BULL SHIT … Mr. Obama … release all documents and pictures put an end to government deception and cover ups … time to end all of our “black-ops” …

WASHINGTON — Public disclosure of graphic photos and video taken of Osama bin Laden after he was killed in May by U.S. commandos would damage national security and lead to attacks on American property and personnel, the Obama administration contends in a court documents.

In a response late Monday to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group seeking the imagery, Justice Department attorneys said the CIA has located 52 photographs and video recordings. But they argued the images of the deceased bin Laden are classified and are being withheld from the public to avoid inciting violence against Americans overseas and compromising secret systems and techniques used by the CIA and the military.

The Justice Department has asked the court to dismiss Judicial Watch’s lawsuit because the records the group wants are "wholly exempt from disclosure," according to the filing.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, accused the Obama administration of making a "political decision" to keep the bin Laden imagery secret. "We shouldn’t throw out our transparency laws because complying with them might offend terrorists," Fitton said in a statement. "The historical record of Osama bin Laden’s death should be released to the American people as the law requires."

The Associated Press has filed Freedom of Information Act requests to review a range of materials, such as contingency plans for bin Laden’s capture, reports on the performance of equipment during the May 1 assault on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and copies of DNA tests confirming the al-Qaida leader’s identity. The AP also has asked for video and photographs taken from the mission, including photos made of bin Laden after he was killed.

The Obama administration refused AP’s request to quickly consider its request for the records. AP appealed the decision, arguing that unnecessary bureaucratic delays harm the public interest and allow anonymous U.S. officials to selectively leak details of the mission. Without expedited processing, requests for sensitive materials can be delayed for months and even years. The AP submitted its request to the Pentagon less than one day after bin Laden’s death.

In a declaration included in the documents, John Bennett, director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, said many of the photos and video recordings are "quite graphic, as they depict the fatal bullet wound to (bin Laden) and other similarly gruesome images of his corpse." Images were taken of bin Laden’s body at the Abbottabad compound, where he was killed by a Navy SEAL team, and during his burial at sea from the USS Carl Vinson, Bennett said.

"The public release of the responsive records would provide terrorist groups and other entities hostile to the United States with information to create propaganda which, in turn, could be used to recruit, raise funds, inflame tensions, or rally support for causes and actions that reasonably could be expected to result in exceptionally grave damage to both the national defense and foreign relations of the United States," Bennett wrote.

Navy Adm. William McRaven, the top officer at U.S. Special Operations Command, said in a separate declaration that releasing the imagery could put the special operations team that carried out the assault on bin Laden’s compound at risk by making them "more readily identifiable in the future." Before his current assignment, McRaven led the Joint Special Operations Command, the organization in charge of the military specialized counterterrorism units.


…The only reason releasing data leads to attacks against Americans is IF the information released provides proof of our propensity to engage in our own acts of state sponsored terrorism …