Would government environazis falsify reports?

[gsvol]

Tell me it isn't so!


Scientific advisor alleges administration intentionally falsified records | BIZPAC Review

Two years ago, the Delta smelt, a tiny, minnow-like
fish, caused a brouhaha. In an effort to save this
fish (which has no commercial value whatsoever),
water supplies to California’s Central Valley were
severely limited. As a direct result, this fertile
agricultural center was quickly turning into a dust
bowl and unemployment soared to almost 40 percent.
Eventually, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed suit
against the federal government on behalf of the
farmers and received a favorable ruling on Dec. 14,
2010, from the trial court. Since then, the matter
has been winding its way through the appellate courts.

Houser served as scientific advisor to the Bureau
of Reclamation, and as such, was closely involved
in the Klamath River project. He now alleges that
data used to support the dams’ removal was
intentionally falsified. "In particular, he says
that, under orders from Ken Salazar, the department
produced a ‘summary’ report that ‘intentionally
distorts and generally presents a biased view of
the Klamath River dam removal benefits," said a
report posted in the blog, The City Square.

This isn’t the first time this administration has
plunged blindly ahead while ignoring danger signs
along the way. The Bush administration recommended
rejecting Solyndra’s request for federal loan
guarantees. The Obama administration nonetheless
loaned the company $535 million to great fanfare,
only to watch it fall into bankruptcy protection
later. It’s done similar acts time and again,
primarily in its pursuit of its green energy policy.

Moreover, the Environmental Protection Agency has
made it clear in recent congressional hearings that
it never considers its rulings’ impact on business.

 

[YorkVol]

Yes, but so would a corporation.

 

[MG1968]

Yes, but so would a corporation.

corporations can be held accountable when they are caught

 

[Scotty's Flat Top]

well of course

 

[n_huffhines]

Yes, but so would a corporation.

Corporations have an incentive to ensure a good reputation. Government has a monopoly on force, so it doesn't really matter what their reputation is.

 

[YorkVol]

corporations can be held accountable if they are caught

fyp, just saying everyone lies to their own benefit, especially when they think they can get away with it.

 

[n_huffhines]

fyp, just saying everyone lies to their own benefit, especially when they think they can get away with it.

The problem is government gets away with it every time.

Honestly, when was the last time a lie cost a politician his job? "No new taxes" in 1988? Basically every politician has been lying ever since, and they face 0 consequences.

 

[Scotty's Flat Top]

The problem is government gets away with it every time.

Honestly, when was the last time a lie cost a politician his job? "No new taxes" in 1988? Basically every politician has been lying ever since, and they face 0 consequences.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

[YorkVol]

The problem is government gets away with it every time.

Honestly, when was the last time a lie cost a politician his job? "No new taxes" in 1988? Basically every politician has been lying ever since, and they face 0 consequences.

I agree with all that, but there is a difference between a campaign speech and a fraudulent report. Government agencies, public and private corporations as well as charities can all be held accountable for fraud, we just have to make sure it happens.

 

[RespectTradition]

I agree with all that, but there is a difference between a campaign speech and a fraudulent report. Government agencies, public and private corporations as well as charities can all be held accountable for fraud, we just have to make sure it happens.

Can the EPA, for example, be held accountable for fraud? How? Pay a fine?

I am not arguing, I am wondering.

 

[gsvol]

fyp, just saying everyone lies to their own benefit, especially when they think they can get away with it.

Who would you say benefits from the two cases I mentioned above?

I would say no one and I could give hundreds more similar examples.

 

[YorkVol]

Can the EPA, for example, be held accountable for fraud? How? Pay a fine?

I am not arguing, I am wondering.

I think the fight to ban DDT is a good example. There is evidence the EPA knew of the harmful affects as early as the 1940s but it wasn't until they were sued in the early 60s that they began to study the effects in earnest. 10 years later it was banned from use nation wide. Was it fraud? Hard to say, but there was enough misinformation in the mix to make a case for it.

The effect of lawsuits on government agencies would not result in the agency paying a fine per se, but they could be forced to compensate victims, change regulations and if there is serious negligence I could see someone going to jail.

Sewer Gate and Rita Lavelle are a case in point specifically regarding the EPA:

Environmental conviction
Lavelle and a partner owned NuTECH Enterprises, Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Oceanside, California. Lavelle and Robert V. Cole, a part owner of Denova Environmental, Inc., a hazardous waste storage facility in Rialto, California, forged documents that purportedly bore the signature of Joseph Bertelli, the owner of Lemco Corporation in South Los Angeles, to make it appear that Bertelli owed Cole's company more than $52,000 for the removal and storage of hazardous waste. Those documents were used to obtain $36,441 from Capital Partners USA, Inc. Only when Capital Partners attempted to collect from Bertelli did it realize that Bertelli had neither signed the documents nor agreed to the bill, and Denova had never removed hazardous waste for Lemco.[citation needed]

On September 24, 2004, a jury in Los Angeles federal court found Lavelle guilty of one count of wire fraud and two counts of making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Cole pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and was sentenced on December 16, 2004, to one year of probation and was ordered to pay a $3,000 fine. Lavelle was sentenced on January 10, 2005 to 15 months in federal prison.[4]

wikipedia

 

[YorkVol]

Who would you say benefits from the two cases I mentioned above?

I would say no one and I could give hundreds more similar examples.

I would agree that no one benefits and am certain that is why there are laws against it.

 

[MG1968]

I think the fight to ban DDT is a good example. There is evidence the EPA knew of the harmful affects as early as the 1940s but it wasn't until they were sued in the early 60s that they began to study the effects in earnest. 10 years later it was banned from use nation wide. Was it fraud? Hard to say, but there was enough misinformation in the mix to make a case for it.

The effect of lawsuits on government agencies would not result in the agency paying a fine per se, but they could be forced to compensate victims, change regulations and if there is serious negligence I could see someone going to jail.

Sewer Gate and Rita Lavelle are a case in point specifically regarding the EPA:

wikipedia

DDT is harmful? I heard that alar was as well, so much so that I think Merrill Streep testified before Congress.