Site Review Application - Wood County Health District: Fill & Download for Free

Obstructing waterways is a serious issue.FACT CHECK: Michigan Threatens Beavers Over DamsIn July 1997, one of Stephen Tvedten’s neighbors noticed flooding on his property and traced it back to a dam on Tvedten’s stream. The neighbor complained to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on28 July1997, and five months later the agency responded with a letter to the offending land owner. The letter, from David Price, a local Michigan DEQ official, was blunt: The “construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond” was “unauthorized” because “a permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity.” The letter ordered Stephen Tvedten, the land owner, to “cease and desist” under penalty of “elevated enforcement action”:STATE OF MICHIGANReply to: GRAND RAPIDS DISTRICT OFFICE STATE OFFICE BUILDING 6TH FLOOR350 OTTAWA NW GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503-2341JOHN ENGLER, GovernorDEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYHOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING MI 48909-7973INTERNET: http://www.deq.state.miRUSSELL J. HARDING, DirectorDecember 17, 1997CERTIFIEDMr. Ryan DeVries 2088 Dagget Pierson, MI 49339Dear Mr. DeVries:SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm CountyIt has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department’s files show that no permits have been issued.Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation ofPart 301,Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act,Act 451of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris dams and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the strewn channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later thanJanuary 31,1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that afollow-upsite inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request, or any further unauthorized activity on the site, may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter.Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.Sincerely,David L. PriceDistrict Representative Land and Water Management DivisionMr. Tvedten responded to the Michigan DEQ’s demand with the now widely-circulated “dam letter,” in which he pointed out that the “debris dams” he had been ordered to remove because they were constructed without permission from the state of Michigan were actually built by beavers:Dear Mr. Price:Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm CountyYour certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at2088 Dagget,Pierson,Michigan — Iam the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood “debris” dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize, their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials “debris.” I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation ofPart 301,Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act,Act 451of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.My first concernis — aren’tthe dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said damrepresentation — sothe State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department’s dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the dam stream “restored” to a dam free-flow condition — contact the dambeavers — butif you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter-being unable to readEnglish) — besure you read them their dam Miranda rights first.As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dambeavers — beaware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this damState — Iseriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy, or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green, and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem: bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.Sincerely,Stephen L. TvedtenThe DEQ later claimed they were fully aware the “debris dams” were beaver dams; the issue, they said, was that the beavers who built them had long since abandoned the dams, butMr. Tvedtenhad been continuing to maintain and even build up the dams himself:The letter concerned an enforcement action directed to a tenant on property surrounding Spring Pond, which is located in Pierson Township, Montcalm County, Michigan. The tenant was observed by the downstream complainant, and has since admitted to the complainant, that he artificially built up, and maintained two abandoned beaver dams on the discharge end of the natural pond. Such an activity falls under the jurisdiction ofPart 301,Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act,1194 PA 451,as amended. It is the Department’s position that in the absence of any threat to public welfare, beaver dams should be left in their natural state, that being either actively maintained or abandoned by beaver.The Department conducted an on-site inspection of the dams in August of 1997, accompanied by a Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologist, the Pierson Township Supervisor and the complainant. The tenant’s actions, and a threat to the welfare of the downstream complainant prompted our correspondence of December 1997, instructing the tenant to cease and desist all illegal activity and to restore the stream to its prior condition. The owner of the property took issue with our action, and responded with his own version of the situation. It was this correspondence that has been circulating in the internet.Luis SaldiviaGrand Rapids District SupervisorLand and Water Management Division616-356-0208For his part, Mr. Tvedten claimed that the dams had been “abandoned” because a neighbor had killed the beavers (then filed a complaint with the state because he was concerned that the untended dams would break apart and enter his property) and that no one but the beavers had ever maintained them. And contemporaneous accounts of the brouhaha quoted a Michigan DEQ spokesman as saying the agency hadn’t performed an inspection before firing off their December 1997 letter toMr. Tvedten:Ken Silfven, public information officer at the state Department of Environmental Quality, saidthat …the account was correct. He hastened to note, however, that the case was prompted by a complaint from a neighbor who was concerned about flooding caused by the dams.The department dropped its investigation after an inspection by a DEQ employee.“It probably would have been a good idea to do the inspection before we sent the notice,” Silfven said.After some wrangling the agency ultimately dropped the issue, but not before Stephen Tvedten found an inventive way of quickly pointing out both how ludicrous and humorous the situation was. In a way dusty legal language never could, such a letter serves to drive home the silliness of Michigan DEQ’s intractable posturing. The beavers are likely still ignorant of how close they came to being fined $10,000 a day for dam living expenses.

The Gist:The overall criticisms of theprogram are its inefficiency, inaccuracy, and monetary cost.The inaccuracy claim comeslargely from the fact that risk assessments are subjective, and therefore biased.Scientists use bioassays, which often give conservative estimates ofenvironmental risk. They also use epidemiology, an assay that makes it hard tolink observed risk with cause.[1]One of the biggest controversiesof the program is the liability issue. The EPA states that if negligent andfault is found on the part of the defendant, that they are strictly held to thefunds of cleaning up the site; however, many worry that it actually tax dollarspaying for the doings of these highly profitable companies. One of the uniqueproperties of the Superfund is that companies that dumped waste even before theSuperfund program can be counted for liability. Each of the polluters can beliable for the cost to clean up the entire site.The next controversy of theprogram is that it is inefficient. Critics claim that there are often delays incleaning up the sites, that there are administrative deficiencies, and thatthere are high transaction costs that are ultimately paid for by the EPA andnot the responsible parties. In 2010 alone, the program conducted 261 five-yearreviews, amended 24 cleanup plans, and issued 59 explanations of significantdifferences at 53 sites.[2]All of these actions, while important to the documentation of the program, takeaway from funds allocated to the actual remediation process.Refutations of the inefficiencyclaim state that the program did not really get off the ground until 1987. Ingeneral, critics tend to focus on the number of sites cleaned up (or not),however, it is really the decrease in health risk that should be emphasized.This focus on number of sites gives the EPA incentive to fix the easiest sitesrather than to take action where the money would have the biggest impact.[3]Still others claim that theSuperfund process is inherently unfair. The superfund cannot equitably fix the fact that some populations aremore exposed to the toxic substances more than others. Although most wouldassume that it is poorer parts of the nation that are impacted more, Superfundsites are actually found more often in wealthier towns. This may have to dowith the fact that industry was settled and made great financial profit for thetown and its workers while simultaneously polluting the area. In areas ofhigher median income, on average it takes more time between the proposal andfinal NPL status. Also, sites are less likely to have removal actions and areassociated with larger planned cleanup obligations.[4]Impacts of the Toxic ReleaseInventory were also felt. It took time and resources for companies to make thereports, and cost them money to change their chemicals. It took governmentresources to make the data public (which was difficult because of technologyavailable at the time). Furthermore, the accuracy of the data was still inquestion since companies were self-reporting. In addition, housing prices inneighborhoods near the plants dropped, effecting homeowners and the housingmarkets of the microcosm economies.[5]There are many shortcomings ofthe program that have to do with the bureaucracy of government. The term “dump-stumping”has been coined to describe when politicians visit a site just to criticize theSuperfund program and get PR. Initially, when the Superfund program wassupported by Republicans, Democrats criticized. The opposite is now true asdemocrats are more likely to support the EPA and its funding than republicans.[6]Nonetheless, there were stillclear benefits of the TRI program. It ultimately led to a change in chemicaluse to those that were less toxic and that stakeholders approved of more. It helpedreporters, journalists, activists, and environmental lobbyists delve deeper andmake more accurate claims. It also lead to the phasing out of ozone depletingchemicals also known as CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons), which had a significantimpact on the “ozone hole”. Thirty-three out of fifty participants in theprogram voluntarily reduced their levels of pollution.[7]Many see the Superfund as a wayto make companies “internalize externalities”.[8]As pollution data goes public, companies reduce their more dangerouspollutants, especially in areas of greater voter turnout. However, pound ofpollution is a bad way to quantify success because different chemicals havedifferent effects. This is something that the general public is usuallyuninformed about and goes unnoticed.[9]The Final Paper:In2011, Forbes rated the Philadelphia area as the most toxic in the United Statesbecause of its concentrations of highly contaminated Superfund sites.[1]However, as Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Anthony Wood said, “MostPhiladelphians wouldn’t know the Superfund from the Super Bowl.”[2]Most Superfund sites look as plain as a gated lot with a small sign indicatingcontamination and risk. Although scarcely known, the Superfund is extremelyrelevant to the Philadelphia area and residents should become informed in orderto ensure the safety of their communities.Inthe summer of 1978, toxic chemicals turned up in basements and yards near LoveCanal, New York. It was soon discovered that the Hooker Chemical Company hadfilled an abandoned site with over 21,000 tons of chemical waste. Hookercovered the site with earth and clay and sold it to the Niagara Falls Board ofEducation for one dollar. Schools and a playground were then built on the siteand a residential community developed in the neighborhood.[3]In1986, two sites per each congressional district were put on the NationalPriorities List to start off the program. CERCLIS, the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, asuperfund tracking database, was created to follow their progress. However, insome districts there were over 50 sites that did not qualify for the program,despite their toxicity.[4]OnDecember 2, 1984, there was a leak at the Union Carbide Plant in Bhopal, Indiathat killed over 20,000 workers and residents. Union Carbide was an Americancompany under the Dow Corporation that had slipped in equipment maintenance anddrastically reduced training time for workers to cut costs. Senior managersnever checked to see if the plant was following safety protocol. In addition,residents were not educated on an emergency situation plan. They accidentally ran in the directionof the wind, increasing their exposure and were also unaware that simplycovering their faces with a wet cloth could have helped immensely. Outragebroke out immediately from both Americans and Indians. Americans were not onlyupset about the needless loss of life but also feared something similarhappening closer to home.[5]This sparked subcommittees and action within the United States’ government. Theoutcome was a bill known as EPCRA, the Emergency Planning and Right to KnowAct. EPCRA is Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA), which was created in 1986.[6]EPCRA showed that citizens had the right to know the chemicals being used bycompanies near them. This led to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), in whichall companies are required to divulge all information about the chemicals theyuse.[7]The State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) was created on a state level tokeep citizens safe and respond to the information provided in the TRI.[8]Republicanand Democratic support for the EPA and the Superfund has gone in waves.Initially, it was Republicans that championed the program and more funding forthe EPA, but by the late 1980s, the political polarity had reversed. From1989-1992, during the first Bush administration, environmentalists tried toexpand EPCRA through legislation, without much success. During the proceedingClinton administration, however, the EPA increased the number of chemicals andindustries that had to report to the TRI. Industry officials took everypossible measure to get out of this, and the subsequent Bush administrationtook input from stakeholders, who believed that companies were losing profitsdue to the regulations, and limited the companies’ burden of reporting.[9]Data was first released in 1989, and was reported on by journalists andreporters. On average, the release led to negative returns on the day’s stockprice by an average of $4.1 million.[10]Throughout the second Bush administration, the project faced gradual budgetcuts, which reduced enforcement and effectiveness.[11]The subsequent Edgar Amendment required facilities to report releases andtransfers of chemicals with acute and chromic effects. This caused a decreasein pollution because the costs of reporting and the public scrutiny thatfollowed were high.[12] In thecurrent political atmosphere, Republicans argue that the budget for the EPA istoo large and that the EPA stifles companies from free production and,therefore, harms the economy. Democrats see the EPA as necessary to protect ourcountry for pollution.TheSuperfund process has many multistage steps. The first part of the process isidentifying a contaminated site. From there, the identifiers determine if itwould be a good candidate for Superfund funding. The next step is the extensiveapplication process. Ifpreliminary assessment reveals that the site is significantly contaminated, it willbe listed on National Priorities List (NPL) and ranked according to the HazardRanking System (HRS), a key part of the EPA’s system. Next are remedial investigation and a feasibility study,remedial design, construction, NPL deletion, and finally site reuse. Manyexperts are part of each of these steps. The Remedial Project Manager overseesthe entire project and works with specialists and attorneys to find potentiallyresponsible parties. Hydrogeologists, work on the soil and water contaminationissues to make sure that they are contained as much as possible. Civilengineers locate potentially responsible parties for liability litigation. The Centerfor Disease Control (CDC) works to make sure that public health issues are keptunder control. Toxicologists and biologists assess and minimize the harm doneto nature. The Community Involvement Coordinator has one of the biggest roles –bridging the communication barrier between the public and the experts. Throughout,detailed records of decisions are kept and can be viewed by the public on theEPA’s website.Thereare debates on how the Superfund should be funded; however, most agree that itshould be funded with taxes on industry and directly by the companies thatcaused the damage. Originally in 1980, funding for the Superfund program was$1.6 billion, however, the amendments made in 1985 cut its funds.[13]The Downey Amendment created a $10 billion taxes on polluters, $3.1 billion onpetroleum, $2.1 billion on chemicals, $2 billion on hazardous waste disposal,and $1.6 billion in general revenues.TheSuperfund’s budget currently comes from a variety of sources including theRecovery Act, responsible parties, and state cost-share contributions. In thefiscal year 2010 report, the Superfund “obligated $443 million in appropriatedfunds, state cost-share contributions, and potentially responsible parties…”for construction on Superfund sites. Three of the 18 sites that completed theconstruction phase in 2010 received money from the American Recovery andReinvestment Act of 2009[14],the act signed by President Obama in an attempt to fix the economic crisis,create jobs, and spur the economy. It is a fund that has a total of $787 billion.[15]Allocation of Superfund resources is determined by a high HRS score and lengthof time on the NPL. In addition, state prioritization, non-federal sites, andfederal fund-lead sites have automatic priority.[16]Costs / Benefits of Superfund: Theoverall criticisms of the program are its inefficiency, inaccuracy, and inequity.Criticsclaim that the process is inefficient because delays in cleaning up the sites,administrative deficiencies, and high transaction costs that are ultimatelypaid for by the EPA and not the responsible parties. In 2010 alone, the programconducted 261 five-year reviews, amended 24 cleanup plans, and issued 59explanations of significant differences at 53 sites.[17]All of these actions, while important to the documentation of the program, takeaway from funds allocated to the actual remediation process. One of the root causes of theinefficiency stems from the intensely bureaucratic government. The term “dump-stumping”has been coined to describe when politicians visit a site solely to criticizethe Superfund program and get PR. Initially, when the Superfund program wassupported by Republicans, Democrats criticized it. The opposite is now true asdemocrats are more likely to support the EPA and its funding than republicans.[18]Refutationsof the inefficiency claim state that the program did not really get off theground until 1987, which can explain deficiencies in the number of totalSuperfund sites remediated. In general, critics tend to focus on the number ofsites cleaned up (or not), however, it is really the decrease in health riskthat should be emphasized. This focus on number of sites gives the EPAincentive to fix the easiest sites rather than to take action where the moneywould have the biggest impact.[19]Theinaccuracy claim comes largely from the fact that the inventories areself-reported by the companies, which have a negative incentive in the directand indirect financial burdens.. In addition, risk assessments are subjective,and therefore biased. Scientists use bioassays, which often give conservativeestimates of environmental risk. They also use epidemiology, an assay thatmakes it hard to link observed risk with cause.[20]Nonetheless,there were still clear benefits of the TRI program. It ultimately led to achange in chemical use to those that were less toxic, largely because ofstakeholder pressure. It helped reporters, journalists, activists, andenvironmental lobbyists delve deeper and make more accurate claims. It alsolead to the phasing out of CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons), an ozone depletingchemical that was the main cause of the “ozone hole.” The remediation of thishole was one of the greatest environmental successes of the 20thcentury. Thirty-three out of fifty participants in the program voluntarilyreduced their levels of pollution.[21]Manysee the Superfund as a way to make companies “internalize externalities”.[22]As pollution data goes public, companies reduce their more dangerouspollutants, especially in areas of greater voter turnout. However, pound ofpollution is an inaccurate way to quantify success because chemicals have awide range and intensity effects. This is something that the general public isusually uninformed about.[23]Impactsof the Toxic Release Inventory were also felt. It took time and resources forcompanies to make the reports, and cost them money to change their chemicals.It took government resources to make the data public (which was difficultbecause of technology available at the time). Furthermore, the accuracy of thedata was still in question since companies were self-reporting. In addition,housing prices in neighborhoods near the plants dropped, effecting homeownersand the housing markets of the microcosm economies.[24] Effects of the project are felt allaround, and the question ultimately becomes – is the Superfund worth it?Stillothers claim that the Superfund process is inherently unfair. The superfund cannot equitably fix thefact that some populations are more exposed to the toxic substances thanothers. Although most would assume that this refers to poorer parts of the nation,Superfund sites are actually found more often in wealthier towns. This may haveto do with the fact that industry was settled and made great financial profitfor the town and its workers while simultaneously polluting the area. It couldpotentially also be contributed to the fact that wealthier areas tend to spendmore money looking for contaminated sites and are more proactive in pushing forSuperfund status. In areas ofhigher median income, on average it takes more time between the proposal and finalNPL status. Also, sites are less likely to have removal actions and areassociated with larger planned cleanup obligations.[25] This may also be attributed togreater citizen involvement.Oneof the biggest controversies of the program is the liability issue. The EPAstates that if negligent and fault is found on the part of the defendant, theyare strictly held to the funds of cleaning up the site; however, many worrythat it actually tax dollars paying for the doings of these highly profitablecompanies. One of the unique properties of the Superfund is that companies canbe found liable even for actions that took place before the Superfund wascreated. Each of the polluters can be liable for the cost to clean up theentire site.The Superfund’s performance measures including the following:· Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)· Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU)· Human Exposure Under Control (HEUC)· Groundwater Migration Under Control (GMUC)· Final Assessment Decision (FAD)· Construction Completed (CC)· EPA Strategic Plan[26]The latestSuperfund accomplishments report was issued after the fiscal year 2010 andshows a long list of the programs successes. In 2010, the Superfund reducedhuman exposure to harmful chemicals at 18 sites, exceeding the annual goal,which was set at ten, and mitigated contaminated ground water by 18 as well,surpassing the annual goal of 15. They claim that this brings the total numberof significantly remediated Superfund sites to 1,338! It is estimate that 1.3million acres of land have been remediated to the point of safety to people andthat over 455,800 acres are ready for use. The construction phase was finished at18 sites, bringing the total for that to 1,098, or 67.5% of all NPL sites. Bythe end of 2010, there were 1,627 final and deleted sites.[27]On the other side of the spectrum, the Superfund is a continuing andever-growing process. In 2010, 20 new sites were added to the NPL. There are also many contaminated sitesthat are not listed and more that have yet to be discovered.There are forty Superfund sites listed in the city of Philadelphia, andmany more in the greater Philadelphia area. Philadelphia was rated the mosttoxic urban area by Forbes magazine in 2011[28]and was on the bottom of Sperling’s water rating list with a score of just 13%.[29] Many of the superfund sites in the Philadelphia area areformer landfills that did not have proper containment and liner systems. Somesignificant sites include the Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services, which was listedin 1984 and is currently in the final fazes; the Ryeland Road Arsenic, a sitelisted in 2004 at which ferns were used for bioremediation; and the VinelandChemical Company, Inc., which was funded by the Recovery Act. The PalmertonZinc Superfund Site[30] is one ofthe relative success stories of the Philadelphia area. The area in CarbonCounty, PA along the Appalachian Trail at the top of Blue Mountain wasre-vegetated and is on track to return to its natural habitat.TheEast Tenth Street superfund site is a 36-acre plot in an industrialized area ofMarcus Hook, PA, which was proposed to the NPL in January of 1994. The site wentthrough multiple stages of ownership starting in 1910 when the American ViscoseCompany produced Rayon and then switched to cellophane in 1958. From 1963-1977,the FMC Corporation produced cellophane as well and then handed a parcel of theland over to Envirosafe Services. The parcel was then purchased by the Marcus Hook Processing Inc., a subsidiaryof Envirosafe. This 4.25 acres of contaminated land has now gone throughmultiple environmental assessments. One of them, conducted by the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources (PADER), found employees excavating anunderground solvent storage tank farm that consisted of thirty tanks anddisposing of the contents on the bare soil of the site.A 1990 investigation showed tanks, leaking transformers, and asbestos withinand outside of the site’s buildings. In 1990, an EPA evaluation revealedasbestos, PCBs, and other hazardous materials that had been mishandled duringthe demolition. They also discovered a sludge filled tunnel on one of the lots.The soil contains PCBs, asbestos, heavy metals, and other organic contaminants,the sludge filled tunnel contains chloroform, cadmium, and mercury, andsediments in the creek contain PCBs. The EPA website concludes that “Touchingor ingesting contaminated groundwater, soils, surface water, or sediments posesa health risk.”[31] Despite thefact that the site is located next to the Marcus Hook Creek, a state-designatedarea for the protection of aquatic life, the site is still not listed on theNPL and hardly any remediation has been done. This site represents a failure ofthe Superfund program. Attempts to talk to the EPA site’s listed CommunityInvolvement Coordinator failed and other sources told me that it was notpossible to receive any further information on the site.Onthe other end of the spectrum, the most recent NPL listings is the former MetroContainer Corporation in Trainer, Delaware County, which was added on March 13,2012. The site has a lagoon that was used for industrial purposes for severaldecades by multiple companies. The property is now owned by an industrialpainting company, Trainer Industries, which uses it for storage[32].It has been an industrial site since the19th century. From 1920 to1959, the site was used as a chemical manufacturing plant by Stauffer ChemicalCompany. In 1991, owners of theMetro Container Corporation, a steel drum reconditioning plant, pled guilty tocharges that they had dumped hazardous waste and discharged contaminated waterinto Stoney Creek.[33] However,Metro had filed for bankruptcy in 1987, so liability funding for the site iscomplicated. The unlined lagoonwas filled with soil and artificial fill materials, which did nothing toprotect the surrounding area from contamination. The soils are now contaminatedwith PCBs, inorganics, PAHs (Polyaromatic hydrocarbons), and VOCs (volatileorganic compounds). Assessment reveals that there is potential to contaminatethe tidal flats of the Delaware and the river itself.AlexMendell, the Community Involvement Coordinator for the Metro ContainerCorporation Superfund site in Trainer described himself as the liaison betweenthe scientists and community members, a translator of sorts between thetechnical and laymen terms. He finds his job “rewarding, although oftendifficult because I does my best to remain transparent to the communitymembers.” When asked whether there was a community push to put the site on theNPL, he responded, “The public is always a part of the process – we visited thesite a number of times and communicated with members of the community duringthe proposal.” He emphasized the value of one-on-one communication and wentdoor to door to talk with as many residents as possible. In Trainer, the mayorlives right in the community, which, Mendell says, made communication easier.He made fact sheets and hosted open houses. They also use a CIP – CommunityInvolvement Plan, a comprehensive plan that highlights questions about bettercommunicating information to the community. His thoughts on efficiency includedthe importance of social media and learning how to better engage with it in thefuture. Overall, Mendell has seenthat the public is relatively aware of the project’s details, the site, and theremediation plan – thanks in most part his own outreach efforts.[34]Oneof the best measures of success is the public perception of the program,especially since the Superfund was born from public discontent with governmentresponse to hazardous materials. The Joel Best sociological model of framing separates a topicinto four main components: experts, activists, media, and politicians, and thenanalyzes the issue from each of these angles. All four of these then influence the general publicperception of the issue. Experts believe that the Superfund is a thoroughprocess. Activists generally believe that it is too slow, however, this isinherent in the role of activists, because people only stand up when they feelsomething is wrong. The media hardly gives the Superfund any attention becauseit is such a slow moving issue. When there is a dramatic change or if theactivists make a big enough splash to garner some attention it is generallycovered with a negative tilt. Asfar as politicians, currently democrats are in favor of the EPA, andextrapolating would be in favor the Superfund, while republicans are againstit, saying that it hurts business and that the EPA is overfunded. These fourperspectives reveal the two common sentiments of the general public – ignoranceand negativity.Inan interview with “Chris,” a responder for the Superfund General InformationHotline, they receive a “decent number of calls from citizens, who are motoften looking for information on sites in their community.” When asked aboutthe average level of knowledge possessed by callers, her responded that“Education varies, some have done a significant amount of research and want toget involved, and others have just found out that there is a site in theircommunity and are curious to learn more.” However, he also mentioned that thehotline does not have any additional information from what is on the extensivepublic EPA Superfund branch of their website. He did also indicate that,despite this fact, the hotline is efficient because many citizens do not knowhow to navigate the website and it is a useful venting location for people whoare frustrated and want to complain.[35]There is no formal tracking devise for complaints, so the public may see thehotline as a waste of taxpayer dollars.Thenext interview was conducted with “Dawn,” a librarian for the Superfundprogram. She was willing to share her personal opinion on the Superfund. Hermain points were that funding is not always available and that many sitesinvolve significant controversy stemming from residents skepticism ofremediation’s interference and the slow speed of the program. She stresses thateach site is different: often funding is not available and communities vary intheir involvement. There is also significant difference between federal sitesand those that are privately owned.Overall,the documentation of the Superfund Program, and the incredible about of detailavailable to the public, is remarkable. The website and hotlines keep theprocess as transparent as possible – a major feat for a government-run program.However, there are several components that could be made more efficient.Streamlining of the litigation and liability process, while difficult, wouldsave a significant amount of money and time. In addition, the national generalhotline is likely repetitive and a waste of resources. Overall the program issuccessful at doing what it was set up to do – remediate sites – however, thisdoes not solve the ever-growing problem of industrial contamination. Stricterregulations must be put on companies to prevent further damage to the UnitedStates. A major coup of industrial lobbyists in Washington is absolutelycrucial to making sure that the Superfund is a success. The Superfund is worthit, but it should not be paid for by American tax dollars. Public sentiment isgenerally negative because news stories generally only focus on this angle, butmost community involvement is more positive.Bibliography / Works CitedAssociated Press. "EPA Approves Philly-area Plant forSuperfund List." York Dispatch. Media News Group, 13 Mar. 2012.Web. 17 Apr. 2012.<http://www.yorkdispatch.com/penn/ci_20163802/epa-approves-philly-area-plant-superfund-list>.Barnett, Harold C. Toxic Debts and the Superfund Dilemma.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1994. Print."East Tenth Street." EPA. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Jan. 2008. Web. 2 Mar. 2012.<http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/npl/PAD987323458.htm>."Bhopal: India Wants Compensation Doubled." BBCNews. BBC, 3 Dec. 2012. Web. 5 Mar. 2012.<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11911828>.Hamilton, James. Regulation through Revelation: TheOrigin, Politics, and Impacts of the Toxics Release Inventory Program.Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print.Hird, John A. Superfund: The Political Economy ofEnvironmental Risk. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1994. Print.Revesz, Richard L., and Richard B. Stewart. AnalyzingSuperfund: Economics, Science, and Law. Washington, DC: Resources for theFuture, 1995. Print.Seneca, Roy. "Advanced Search." AerialRe-vegetation Resumes on Appalachian Trail Portion. United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.<http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e51aa292bac25b0b85257359003d925f/76b8839afee7b85a852579c2005eaf8e!OpenDocument>.United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office ofSolid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Superfund NationalAccomplishments Summary Fiscal Year 2010. Environmental Protection Agency,2011. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/numbers10.htm>.United States. Washington State Department of Ecology. WhatIs the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)? AccessWashington. Web. 1 Mar. 2012. <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/epcra/whatis.html>.Wood, Anthony R. "Trainer Site Makes EPA SuperfundList; Who Pays?" Philly.com. Philadelphia Inquirer, 13 Mar. 2012.Web. 13 Mar. 2012.<http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-13/news/31160150_1_epa-superfund-list-federal-cleanup-industrial-history>.[1] Brennan,Morgan. "America's 10 Most Toxic Cities." Forbes. ForbesMagazine, 2 Feb. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.<http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/28/most-toxic-cities-personal-finance.html>.[2] Wood, A.(2012, April 11). Email interview.[3] Hamilton,James. Regulation through Revelation: The Origin, Politics, and Impacts ofthe Toxics Release Inventory Program. (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005), 16.[4] Hamilton,18.[5] "Bhopal: India WantsCompensation Doubled." BBC News. BBC (3 Dec. 2012) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11911828>.[6] UnitedStates. Washington State Department of Ecology. What Is the EmergencyPlanning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)? Access Washington.<http://www.ecy.wa.gov/epcra/whatis.html>.[7] Hamilton, 10[8] UnitedStates. Washington State Department of Ecology. What Is the EmergencyPlanning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)? Access Washington.<http://www.ecy.wa.gov/epcra/whatis.html>.[9] Hamilton, 176[10] Hamilton, 73[11] Hamilton, 176[12] Hamilton, 17[13] Hird, 14[14]http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx[15]http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/numbers10.htm[16] Hird,John A. Superfund: The Political Economy of Environmental Risk.(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1994), 138.[17]http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/numbers10.htm[18] Hird, 31[19] Hird, 31[20] Hird, 56[21] Hamilton, 241[22] Hamilton, 114[23] Hamilton, 114[24] Hamilton, 241[25] Hird, 138[26] UnitedStates. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse (OSWER). Superfund National Accomplishments Summary Fiscal Year2010. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Web.<http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/numbers10.htm>.[27] UnitedStates. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse (OSWER). Superfund National Accomplishments Summary Fiscal Year2010. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Web.<http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/numbers10.htm>.[28] Brennan,Morgan. "America's 10 Most Toxic Cities." Forbes. ForbesMagazine, 2 Feb. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.<http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/28/most-toxic-cities-personal-finance.html>.[29] "Sperling'sBest Places to Live." Best Places to Live. Web. 5 Apr. 2012.<http://www.bestplaces.net/>.[30]Seneca,Roy. Aerial Re-vegetation Resumes on Appalachian Trail Portion,<http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e51aa292bac25b0b85257359003d925f/76b8839afee7b85a852579c2005eaf8e!OpenDocument>(12 Mar. 2012).[31] "EastTenth Street." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, (Jan. 2008)<http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/npl/PAD987323458.htm>.[32] AssociatedPress. "EPA Approves Philly-area Plant for Superfund List." YorkDispatch. Media News Group, (13 Mar. 2012)<http://www.yorkdispatch.com/penn/ci_20163802/epa-approves-philly-area-plant-superfund-list>.[33] Wood,Anthony R. "Trainer Site Makes EPA Superfund List; Who Pays?" Philly.com.Philadelphia Inquirer, (13 Mar. 2012)<http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-13/news/31160150_1_epa-superfund-list-federal-cleanup-industrial-history>.[34] "Alex Mendell." Telephone interview. 13 Apr. 2012.[35] “Chris onthe Superfund Hotline”

Three Strikes laws are shortsighted and contribute to more problems in our legal system instead. Our laws and our choices about incarceration need to be based on intelligent, informed assessments of the crimes committed and the people involved. It's absurd that we consistently lock up far more nonviolent offenders than violent ones, and that we in fact are consistently releasing violent and even predatory offenders in order to make more room for nonviolent offenders.One glaring point that helps demonstrate the flaws in Three Strikes laws, is that very often there is an intentional choice to charge someone with a more serious offense specifically to make Three Strikes laws apply, whereas in other cases a lot of people might plead their more serious cases down and avoid falling under Three Strikes laws for a longer period of time. The result will be the cliched but very real examples of someone going to prison for a longer period of time for eating a piece of pizza off another person's table at a pizza joint, than someone who rapes or murders someone. Literally, that can and does happen under Three Strikes laws.If we had rational sentencing for offenses in general to begin with, so that we weren't giving longer sentences for drug crimes than (for one glaring example) for violent sex crimes against children, and if we instead focused on locking up violent offenders for longer periods of time and focused on rehabilitation and education for nonviolent offenders, we could solve many problems of repeat offenses and dramatically reduce our prison population.Three Strikes laws are an example of one of the most typical problems in this nation's broad social behavior -- laziness in dealing with problems, and a desire to just apply some reactionary simplistic response in order to claim to have taken some action, rather than doing the serious, harder work of thinking about the issue and applying a rational, long-term solution. We do this all of the time, getting angry about something and making a stupidly gross overreactive choice and then pretending we solved the problem and can now promptly ignore it and just complain and get angry without having to further consider and work on the real, more nuanced, harder issues involved.Drug law reform that eliminates the obviously failed and morally bankrupt prohibitions against marijuana and other drugs; reforming and tightening laws against violent offenses such as rape (seriously, if any crime beside premeditated homicide needs to result in a life sentence, it's sex crimes); and dealing with basic economic and educational inequalities that we all know contribute directly to crime, are just a few examples of the ways we need to more reasonably change our approaches to law enforcement and incarceration. Allowing jails and prisons to be treated as some sort of industry to address job creation is absurd and speaks to a moral failing of our approach not only to crime and justice, but to economic stimulus as well.But that's part of the difficulty in getting everyone to be honest about these issues and look at them seriously and intelligently -- vested interests abound, including the private prison industry, companies that supply services to jails and prisons, the fact local police departments get large amounts of extra money and resources and militarized weapons and training due to continued drug prohibition, and so on. That these are all ultimately false "benefits" and that we lose far more as a society as a whole is lost amid the propaganda from the small select groups who benefit from keeping things the way they are in our justice system and who in fact promote even harsher, less intelligence-based choices and regulations and laws.Whomever benefits from California's Three Strikes law, for example, their financial interests pale in comparison to the fact marijuana alone generates more than $100 million in sales tax alone from dispensaries for approved medical patients -- when you add business licenses, personal income taxes, payroll taxes, and other revenue, California is benefiting to the tune of more than a quarter of a billion dollars every year just from medical marijuana dispensaries. That's not to mention the role in job creation played by the hundreds of dispensaries, too. Imagine if this was expanded in a full tax-and-regulate program for marijuana. Then imagine if we just rationally took all recreational drugs, put them into private business models, applied FDA standards for purity levels and preventing tainting with other drugs etc, and then sold them in limited specialty shops that only let adults come in, that required ID, that were heavily taxed and regulated like tobacco and alcohol, and then we treated addiction as a health care problem instead of a criminal justice problem. We'd remove most of the secondary problems associated with illicit drug use, we'd be able to treat addiction a lot easier and with better results, we'd reduce access to drugs for young people and kids, and we'd generate BILLIONS of dollars in revenue and create a large number of jobs, and we'd massively reduce state and federal expenditures for crime and punishment.Compare that to whatever benefits people mistakenly believe we get from Three Strikes laws. If drugs were taken off the table as an issue, you'd in fact remove most of the crimes that are part of Three Strikes sentencing. We'd cut our jail and prison populations by more than half. Meaning we'd be able to sentence violent criminals to much longer sentences, allowing judges to listen to the details of the crimes and consider the defendant's behavior and attitude and background and other factors, and then make a reasoned determination about sentencing.It's not exactly the same thing in every respect, but Three Strikes fits into the broader category of sentencing requirements like mandatory minimum sentencing, which is something I've been mostly against for a very long time. I say "mostly" because I do in fact think that certain violent crimes with specific kinds of context should result in sentences that ensure the offender cannot threaten the victim or society any more -- sexual assaults, for example, are crimes where by definition there's no "defense" to explain and justify having committed the crime, as compared to a beating or physical assault where a person might claim self-defense or having been overcome with rage against what they thought was another person who did something that might itself be considered a crime (if you see someone beat their child, you might be enraged to the point of punching that parent, as an extreme example). I think that even with murder and manslaughter cases, we can all think of hypotheticals and real-life examples where it would be reasonable to say that a harsher sentence might not be the best choice and where there are mitigating circumstances; but with sexual assaults and similar sex crimes, there is no real mitigating circumstance -- if someone committed a rape or molestation, then they need to be punished very severely and locked up for a long time.But anyway, for MOST crimes, that kind of narrow context doesn't apply, and I think mandatory minimums should be abolished. A lot of -- probably most of -- the points against mandatory minimum sentences tend to generally apply to Three Strikes laws as well, so it's worth considering some quotes from experts and other with experience related to mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Here are a few from the Web site of the excellent organization Families Against Mandatory Minimums...AcademicsCharles Ogletree, Harvard professor“The criminal justice system is devouring our resources; putting people who have committed low-level offenses, who are perfectly capable of being rehabilitated, away for lengthy sentences and turning them into hardened criminals; destroying families and communities; and callously throwing away lives. We cannot afford to continue to invest in such a system.”- Written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, June 11, 2009.Roger K. Warren, National Center for State Courts"State sentencing statutes, rules, and guidelines should provide sufficient flexibility so that sentencing judges can craft orders designed to reduce the risk of recidivism in appropriate cases, and should avoid overly broad, strict, or arbitrary sentencing mandates that interfere with more appropriate sentencing options. Principal examples of interfering mandates are provisions that prohibit judges from granting probation, require disproportionately long periods ofincarceration, or set mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment where neither the seriousness of the particular offense nor the risk factors presented by the particular offender warrant such restrictions."- Roger K. Warren, President Emeritus, National Center for State Courts, “Arming the Courts with Research: 10 Evidence-Based Sentencing Initiatives to Control Crime and Reduce Costs,” Pew Center on the States, Public Safety Policy Brief (May 2009)ConservativesGrover Norquist“The benefits, if any, of mandatory minimum sentences do not justify this burden to taxpayers. Illegal drug use rates are relatively stable, not shrinking. It appears that mandatory minimums have become a sort of poor man’s Prohibition: a grossly simplistic and ineffectual government response to a problem that has been around longer than our government itself.”- Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, House Committee on the Judiciary, July 14, 2009.David A. Keene“[M]y opposition to mandatory minimums . . . is rooted in conservative principles; namely, reverence for the Constitution and contempt for government action that ignores the differences among individuals. . . . James Madison, for one, believed that a clear separation of powers was more vital to protecting freedom than the Bill of Rights. Yet mandatory minimums undermine this important protector of liberty by allowing the legislature to steal jurisdiction over sentencing, which has historically been a judicial function. The attempt by legislatures and the Congress to address perceived problems in the justice system by transferring power from judges to prosecutors and the executive branch violate these principles and have, in the process, given prosecutors unreviewable authority to influence sentences through their charging decisions and plea bargaining power.”- David A. Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union, written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (July 14, 2009)Pat Nolan, Justice Fellowship“When judges mete out sentences for certain crimes, mandatory minimum laws prohibit them from weighing the relative harm caused by the crime or the relative culpability of the defendant. Mandatory minimum sentences are “one size fits all”. These laws offend the very notion of justice, which requires that the severity of the punishment match the harm done by an individual criminal. In Exodus 21:24, we are told that our judgments should exact an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” This verse limits punishment by requiring that offenders pay back “value for value.” The Bible calls for proportionality in punishment, and stresses that penalties should match the injury.”- Pat Nolan, President, Justice Fellowship, “Mandatory Minimums, Unjust and Unbiblical”Ed Meese, former U.S. Attorney General for President Reagan“I think mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders ought to be reviewed. We have to see who has been incarcerated and what has come from it.”- Ed Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan and Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, quoted in Texas Public Policy Foundation, “What Conservatives are Saying About Criminal Justice Reform” (Jan. 2010)Pat Robertson, Christian Broadcasting Network"[O]ur government [should] revisit the severity of the existing laws because mandatory drug sentences do harm to many young people who go to prison and come out as hardened criminals. ... [T]hese mandatory sentences needlessly cost our government millions of dollars when there are better approaches available."- Thoughts of Pat Robertson, Founder and Chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network, as delivered by CBN spokesman Chris Roslan on Dec. 23, 2010Drug czarsGeneral Barry McCaffrey, U.S. drug czar for President Clinton"I am unalterably opposed to the system of mandatory minimums. I think we need to give this authority back to the judges.”– Barry McCaffrey, former U.S. drug czar in the Clinton administrationElected officialsU.S. Representative Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)“Mandatory minimums wreak havoc on a logical system of sentencing guidelines. Mandatory minimums turn today’s hot political rhetoric into the nightmares of many tomorrows for judges and families.”- Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), statement for press release, “New Poll: Americans Oppose Mandatory Minimums,Will Vote for Candidates Who Feel the Same,” (Sept. 24, 2008)U.S. Representative Bobby Scott (D-Va.)“Mandatory minimum sentences have been studied extensively and have been shown to be ineffective in preventing crime. They have been effective in distorting the sentencing process. They discriminate against minorities in their application, and they have been shown to waste the taxpayers’ money.”- Rep. Bobby Scott, statement before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, House Committee on the Judiciary, June 26th, 2007.U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (R-Ill.),1994“It doesn’t make sense to put away everybody, no matter how peripherally involved in drug dealing, for five years or 10 years. Not only are such sentences morally troublesome, they threaten to sap the willpower we must maintain to deal with the true threats to society.”U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), 1998“I do…understand that some first-time, nonviolent offenders have been given mandatory minimum sentences, and I would consider supporting legislation to give judges flexibility in such cases.”Presidents of the United StatesPresident George W. Bush“I think a lot of people are coming to the realization that maybe long minimum sentences for first-time users may not be the best way to occupy jail space and/or heal people from their disease. And I’m willing to look at that.”– George W. Bush on CNN (Inside Politics), January 18, 2001, three days before his inauguration as President of the United States.President Bill Clinton“I think the sentences in many cases are too long for nonviolent offenders… . Most judges think we should [do away with mandatory minimum sentences]. I certainly think they should be reexamined. And the disparities are unconscionable between crack and powdered cocaine….Our imprisonment policies are counterproductive.”– President Bill Clinton, Rolling Stone, December 28, 2000President George H.W. Bush“[Eliminating mandatory minimums] will result in better justice and more appropriate sentences.”– President (then Representative) George H.W. Bush, in 1970 speaking about a successful bill to eliminate mandatory minimums.U.S. Supreme Court justicesJustice Anthony Kennedy“I'm against mandatory sentences. They take away judicial discretion to serve the four goals of sentencing. American sentences are eight times longer than their equivalents in Europe. California's 3-strikes law emanated from the electorate, and the sponsor of the initiative was the correctional officers association—and that is sick. California has 185,000 people in prison, and the cost is astounding.”- Justice Anthony Kennedy, William French Smith Memorial Lecture, Pepperdine University, February 3, 2010."If you were asked to design a penal system that would win the prize for the worst system, the one you’ve got would at least be runner-up... If cost is a way to activate human compassion, I’ll take it. We are squandering our resources and spending them in the wrong way.”- Justice Anthony Kennedy, speech to the Forum Club of Palm Beaches and the Palm Beach County Bar Association, West Palm Beach, Fla., May 14, 2010.“I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust. . .The legislative branch has the obligation to determine whether a policy is wise. It is a grave mistake to retain a policy just because a court finds it constitutional. Courts may conclude the legislature is permitted to choose long sentences, but that does not mean long sentences are wise or just…A court decision does not excuse the political branches or the public from the responsibility for unjust laws.”– Justice Anthony Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court justice at annual meeting of the American Bar Association, 2003“Mandatory minimums are harsh and in may cases unjust.” If the hypothetical example of an 18-year-old gets caught growing marijuana in the woods and happens to have a hunting rifle in his truck when arrested, he could face a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years. Now he shouldn’t be doing that, (but) an 18-yearold doesn’t know how long 15 years is.”– Anthony Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court justice, in Congressional testimony, 2003Chief Justice William Rehnquist“These mandatory minimum sentences are perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences. There is a respectable body of opinion which believes that these mandatory minimums impose unduly harsh punishment for first-time offenders…mandatory minimums have also led to an inordinate increase in the federal prison population and will require huge expenditures to build new prison space...they frustrate the careful calibration of sentences, from one end of the spectrum to the other, which the sentencing guidelines were intended to accomplish.”- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, "Luncheon Address," in U.S. Sentencing Commission, Drugs and Violence, 2005."Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long."– William H. Rehnquist, former chief justice of U.S. Supreme Court, at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Bar AssociationJustice Stephen G. Breyer[More statutes containing mandatory minimum sentences are] “not going to advance the cause of law enforcement in my opinion and it’s going to set back the course of fairness in sentencing. . . . There has to be room for the unusual or the exceptional case.”– Stephen G. Breyer, associate Supreme Court Justice, at a John F. Kennedy Library and Museum, 2003Federal judiciaryHonorable Judge Julie E. Carnes“Unjust mandatory minimums . . . have a corrosive effect on our broader society. To function successfully, our judicial system must have the respect of the public. The robotic imposition of sentences that are viewed as unfair or irrational greatly undermines that respect. . . [S]ome of these statutes do not produce merely questionable results; instead, a few produce truly bizarre outcomes.- Honorable Judge Julie E. Carnes, Chair of the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, statement before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, July 14, 2009.Professor David Zlotnick, Roger Williams School of Law, Rhode Island, created a set of case studies of federal sentencings that captures judicial dissatisfaction with the sentencing laws in effect during the mandatory Guidelines era . After corresponding with hundreds of inmates, he gathered sufficient documents to write detailed profiles of forty Republican appointees and at least one case in which each of these judges stated their disagreement with the sentence required by law from the bench. Only cases where reliable documents, such as the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) and the Sentencing Transcript, were available were considered. Read the studyU.S. District Judge Paul Cassell“I express no view on mandatory minimum sentencing schemes in general. But …one particular feature of the federal scheme – the ‘count stacking’ feature of § 924(c) for first-time offenders – has lead to an unjust result in this case and will lead to unjust results in other cases….The 55-year sentence mandated by § 924(c) in this case appears to unjust, cruel and irrational.”– U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell in sentencing first-time offender Weldon Angelos to 55 years in prison, 2004. Nominated by President George W. Bush, 2001.Honorable Robert Cindrich"When the law provides a result that is repugnant, we must still follow the law. And you can only do that so many times before you start to wonder, 'How many more times am I going to put my name on this sentence that I don't believe in?'”– Robert Cindrich, who resigned from the federal bench, partially in protest of federal sentencing guidelines, 2004. Nominated by President William J. Clinton, 1994.Honorable John S. Martin Jr.For most of our history, our system of justice operated on the premise that justice in sentencing is best achieved by having a sentence imposed by a judge who, fully informed about the offense and the offender, has discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory limits. Although most judges and legal scholars recognize the need for discretion in sentencing, Congress has continually tried to limit it, initially through the adoption of mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. . . . For a judge to be deprived of the ability to consider all of the factors that go into formulating a just sentence is completely at odds with the sentencing philosophy that has been a hallmark of the American system of justice.– John S. Martin Jr., federal district judge in Manhattan, retired in protest of restrictions on federal judicial discretion, 2003. Nominated by President George H.W. Bush, 1990.Honorable J. Spencer Letts“Statutory mandatory minimum sentences create injustice because the sentence is determined without looking at the particular defendant…. It can make no difference whether he is a lifetime criminal or a first-time offender. Indeed, under this sledgehammer approach, it could make no difference if the day before making this one slip in an otherwise unblemished life the defendant had rescued 15 children from a burning building or had won the Congressional Medal of Honor while defending his country.”– J. Spencer Letts, U.S. district judge, Central District of California, senior status 2000. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, 1985.Honorable Leon Higginbotham“We must remember we are not widgets or robots, but human beings. Defendants should be sentenced within the spectrum of what most judges would consider fair and reasonable.”—Leon Higginbotham, judge, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Nominated to the circuit court by President Jimmy Carter, 1977.Honorable David Doty“I think that a lot of people do not understand what is going on until, all of a sudden, they are caught up in the system; and they find out that people have been mouthing all kinds of slogans, and when the slogans all come down to rest, they sometimes come to rest very hard on the shoulders of the individual.”—David Doty, U.S. district judge, Minnesota, senior status 1998. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, 1987.Honorable Paul A. Magnuson“…I continue to believe that sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment under the circumstances of this case is unconscionable and patently unjust….[the defendant] will be sacrificed on the altar of Congress’ obsession with punishing crimes involving narcotics. This obsession is, in part, understandable, for narcotics pose a serious threat to the welfare of this country and its citizens. However, at the same time, mandatory minimum sentences – almost by definition – prevent the Court from passing judgment in a manner properly tailored to a defendant’s particular circumstances.—Paul A. Magnuson, U.S. district judge, Minnesota, senior status 2002. Nominated by Ronald Reagan, 1981.Honorable Joyce Hens Green“As a consequence of the mandatory sentences, we (judges) know that justice is not always done…[Y]ou cannot dispense equal justice by playing a numbers game. Judgment and discretion and common sense are essential.”—Joyce Hens Green, U.S. district judge, District of Columbia, senior status 1995. Nominated by Jimmy Carter 1979.Honorable Stanley Sporkin“We need to deal with the drug problem in a much more discretionary, compassionate way. We need treatment, not just punishment and imprisonment.”—Stanley Sporkin, U.S. district judge, District of Columbia, retired 2000. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan 1985Other notablesMartha Stewart“. . .So many of the women here in Alderson will never have the joy and wellbeing that you and I experience. Many of them have been here for years -- devoid of care, devoid of love, devoid of family. I beseech you all to think about these women -- to encourage the American people to ask for reforms, both in sentencing guidelines, in length of incarceration for nonviolent first-time offenders, and for those involved in drug-taking. They would be much better served in a true rehabilitation center than in prison where there is no real help, no real programs to rehabilitate, no programs to educate, no way to be prepared for life ‘out there’ where each person will ultimately find herself, many with no skills and no preparation for living.”– Martha Stewart, December 2004