How will the new Governor Gavin Newsom make any meaningful progress when the regulatory agencies seem to be working for the polluters interests instead of the interests of California?
*Title pun courtesy of Joel Einhorn.
It was when they sent the 2016 request that Christina had made about the same issue --
Why doesn't it ever rain at outfall 2?
In addition to helping the Board prepare to defend against their failure in water quality monitoring, they also provided prior requests for information to insure that the Board would be prepared to silence Walsh's concerns.
"How did that make you feel?" We asked Walsh:
"Well it was more than being prepared." Walsh replied. "They described me as if I was a danger to the public. All of this happened at a public hearing, and then I looked behind me, and it was Brandon Steets, sitting in the row behind me. He's a contractor for Boeing. I looked at the agenda, and Boeing wasn't on it, so why was Brandon there? It seemed clear that he was there to make sure I was effectively shut down and smeared once again." Walsh was frustrated about the descriptions specifically because of recent prior efforts to smear her reputation including filing a false injuction with the City of Los Angeles in District Court. More serious escalations happened recently when the response to RSVP to a DOE invitation that had been sent to her as a "section 106 consulting party." Instead of response, it resulted in a certified letter from the federal government stating that she was now on a federal nuclear list and banned from all federal DOE 'sites and spaces.' The letter also included a statement that her name had been given to law enforcement on that basis.
"I don't know what that means, but I can tell you that I am worried about traveling and I don't know what federal sites and spaces means, but I'm an American citizen, so I really don't understand how all this can happen, like a life sentence, with no process whatsoever," Walsh responded, vowing to seek justice and transparency in government.
It wasn't just getting help with a presentation, it was making sure that the Regional Board looked good and was covered. It appeared as if there was an expectation that Boeing should immediately help defend them. Why would the polluter have such a relationship with the LARWQCB when they identify any ex-party communications? This seemed highly irregular, and even intended to protect the polluter from oversight and scrutiny.
It seemed clear that the Regional Board staff including the Executive Officer, was extremely reluctant to do any enforcing against Boeing, or even to ask any serious questions.
I began to wonder who was working for whom?
Efforts to silence the public have been felt at every level of government from federal partners silencing voices of criticism, to local neighborhood councils run by the same people paid by the federal polluters.
When the Boeings Get Tough...*
When the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board received a request from a citizen to make a presentation about Boeing's Santa Susana Field Laboratory, their response was an unexpected one. Instead of taking the concern that water quality monitoring was not occurring at Outfall 2 seriously, they demanded from Boeing that they 'cover them' so that they appear to be prepared.
Outfall 2 is where most of the water discharges from the site to Bell Canyon Creek. Christina Walsh, a longtime activist involved in working toward site cleanup, expected answers when she asked to make a five minute presentation at the next regional board meeting. Instead, they were prepared with a ready-made powerpoint response from the polluter. What?
The Tough catch Boeing and their federal partners lying.
Simone Bennett 11/16/18
Why is it more important to be prepared to defend Boeing, than to protect water quality?
That's our question to Secretary Matthew Rodriquez of CalEPA
Instead of responding, Ms. Walsh has been banned from communication to DTSC and CalEPA and they have even gone so far in violating her civil rights by creating a special email address she is to communicate with:
firstname.lastname@example.org and that way, there is no accountability for an answer, because there is no such person in the agency. An effective brick wall.