EPA files 13 enforcement actions against Idaho companies and governments

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took 13 enforcement actions in Idaho in 2012.

EPA’s Region 10 said in filed nearly 40 enforcement actions in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington to protect communities and the environment. The largest action in Idaho was filed against Valley Paving & Asphalt, Inc. in Cottonwood for operating an asphalt plant without an air permit. It was fined $36,360.

“Enforcing environmental laws is one of EPA’s fundamental responsibilities and helps keep our water safe, our land clean, and our air clear,” said Ed Kowalski, director of EPA Region 10 Compliance and Enforcement.

The Sky is Falling!!!!

Liberalism at its best. Wonder how many more folks will apply for foodstamps this year in the great economic recovery. My guess is another 5 million.

Keep printing Helicopter.

I guess we need more green energy businesses that can go broke later?

haters will hate

check back when you have something of value to add.

No hate at all. Just today's reality.

Check back when you can accept the truths of today. The EPA needs to do their work, but too much intrusion is forcing many more businesses overseas. We need economic growth on a Reagan scale, not the printing press.

"economic growth on a Reagan scale"?

It amazes me how many people still worship the failed policies of Reagan. Here's the truth: Reagan Revolution Home To Roost — In Charts


You need to read more. Reagan's growth was real and he stopped

the 22% interest rates and the $1T plus debt he inherited.

FYI. Bush1 and Bush2 were not good for our economy. Now we have one worse than those two put together.

You can believe what you want. But we really do have a mess on our hands, and no-one is fixing it.

The EPA needs to do their job of monitoring environmental quality, but I am not really sure what their methods are anymore.

PS. Buy some silver if you have some spare change.

Enforcing or tax collecting

It sometimes gets fuzzy

Pay to Pollute

"EPA’s fundamental responsibilities and helps keep our water safe, our land clean, and our air clear,” said Ed Kowalski"

What a bunch of krap!

It doesn't keep the air clean, it just enforces the PAYMENT of a permit to pollute. You can pollute, you just have to pay for this permit. Or the in the future it will be pay per pound of carbon of pullution. That way they can continue to pay their salaries.

40 citation in the Northwest?
At what cost of enforcement, administrative cost to business and individuals?

Then don't

turn on your tap today to take a drink of water. Unless you have your own well, it's those nasty EPA regs that make sure you don't get sick from your own water. What would be your complaint there?

saved by the EPA

So United Water provides clean water ONLY because of the EPA regs?

They couldn't do it based on their own standards or State regs or city regs... or customer demand???

We would all die if we didn't have the EPA, right?

Well, yeah

The water in this country was atrocious before the EPA, and the technology to fix it and the rules to keep it fixed weren't gonna get invented on their own without the government telling them to. I agree with you that their basic function at this point is to issue pollution permits, though. I think there are a lot of new technologies that, widely adopted, could change a lot of things about how the EPA functions, but the bureaucracy is stuck in place. I suppose Nixon probably warned us this would happen at some point. I have no idea how to fix it, since this is one area in which the private sector has, historically, failed to consider the overall well being of local populations and economies before the bottom line.

Your pal, Pskip


That's exactly right. There are no city regs, or state regs under the Safe Drinking Water Act. How could either the city or the state afford to do the research of which contaminants are safe or not and at what levels?

I can't answer your hypothetical other than to say most likely people would die. Or at least a whole bunch would be sicker more often. That's for sure. Our rivers would be more polluted. Our drinking water, which we take for granted, would be less safe.


Most of our drinking water comes from the Boise river around here. (Directly or indirectly) One of the large gold mines up stream wants to dump their tailings into the river.

Those tailings include pretty large amounts of arsenic. In case you weren't aware arsenic is highly toxic and has been linked to increased mortality rates of cancer and other diseases. Additionally, in large enough doses it can be lethal in and of itself. Arsenic poisoning is a pretty nasty way to go.

The EPA refused to allow the mines to dump the arsenic. Now, that made it more expensive to mine the gold, prohibitively so in some cases. But in the grand scheme of things I think we can agree that it was the right move.


Your summary is a bit different than reality and the actual legal complaint filed by ICL against Atlanta Gold.

It was okay to have some arsenic and iron within the "Permit to Pollute". Seems there was a case that the mine was exceeding that limit however.

Arsenic is a naturally occuring element.
It is possible to remove it from municipal water systems.
It is estimated over 20% of the wells in some areas have levels over the EPA levels.
Those "safe" EPA levels are in contention.
Soda pop is a carcinogenic too, if you drink enough of it. Thank goodness for Mayor Bloomberg saving all of New York now.

Iron? That's called mineral water.

I'm pretty sure if the EPA disappeared tomorrow we would all be just fine.

Where's the limit?

No doubt we'd survive a single mine's arsenic, but only if that were the only exception being made. You really don't seem to understand exactly how polluted was was before the EPA, how much better it's gotten, and how important it is to keep it safe. Boise would have no problem removing the arsenic from its water, but what about small towns? What about irrigation? What about recreation while the water's still in the river, or the reservoir? Would the mine be allowed to leave sinkholes open on the site once it ceased operating? Who would clean up the concentrated waste directly at the mine? You're free to hate the government all you want, but I hope every time you take a dip in the river and don't see any five headed frogs or dead livestock you remember it isn't private industry that keeps it so nice.

Your pal, Pskip

If You Enjoy Clean Water, then you need to thank....


Public Good

Given the profit motive and humans' - particularly business' - tendency for short-term thinking - I would never leave environmental regulation and enforcement up to the private sector "self-policing." I gladly accept enforcement and administrative costs in my and your taxes for helping safeguard air and water for the long term, for everyone.

How do fines

save the environment?

Good question!

They go toward cleanup and compensation costs. Not all of the fined parties are recalcitrant scofflaws...or whatever. Some take the fines seriously and work to improve their operations and philosophies.

If some want to take the 'green meanie' line (sorry, Fab Four), FINE. Let them be the punitative pundits. They likely has a lot to be afraid of. FINE.


People are broad-minded. They'll accept the fact that a person can be an alcoholic, a dope fiend, a wife beater and even a newspaperman, but if a man doesn't drive, there's something wrong with him.