From Heavy Metals to Exploding L.U.S.T.sThe Environmental Challenges of the Columbia

River and Recommended Solutions for the Public,

the EPA Administrator, the President and Elected NW Officials

Yolanda Wilson Vanveen Vermont Law School

Masters in Environmental Law and Policy Student Vancouver, Washington, USA

October 21, 2013

From Heavy Metals to Exploding L.U.S.T.sThe Environmental Challenges of the Columbia River

and Recommended SolutionsYolanda Wilson Vanveen

October 21, 2013

OutlineA. Introduction

B. Columbia Chain of PollutionSolutions are the GoalWhat Happened to the Hippy Movement?Why People Don't Care About Pollution on the Columbia RiverThe Environmental Problem According To Gus Speth Dirty Air in Longview, Washington

C. The Three Branches of Government1. Executive branch

a. The Executive Office of the President (EOP)b. The cabinet c. Agencies and Corporations.

1. Regulatory agencies. 2. Independent executive agencies. 3. Government corporations.

2. Judicial3. Legislative

D. H.R. 4652 - Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010 Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Action PlanLitigation and Regulation Not DifferentiatedInternational JurisdictionFederal Jurisdiction

E. What About Protection from Pollution under the Constitution?

Where is the EPA when the Columbia River Needs Help?What about the Clean Water Act (CWA)?What about the Clean Air Act (CAA)?ExemptionsSovereign ImmunityCERCLA/SuperfundsCan Insurance Can Pay for Columbia River Pollution?

F. Sources of Pollution on the Columbia RiverRecreational users Pharmaceuticals and personal care productsPesticides, Herbicides and FertilizersIndustrial and Commercial WasteAgricultural waste Port PollutionStormwaterSewageMills MinesNuclear WasteDams

G. Alternative Energies SolutionWindSolarCanola OilCorn OilBiofuels

H. River Temperatures RisingThe Global Waterway Warming Problem Douglas KeyserThe Solution According to Gus SpethColumbia River Toxics Reduction Working GroupThe Corporate State of CongressHow to Influence Congress Without Leaving HomeThe Power of Social Media

I. ConclusionJ. Sources

A. Introduction

"Green Douglas firs where the waters cut through. Down her wild mountains and canyons she flew. Canadian Northwest to the ocean so blue, Roll on, Columbia, roll on!"Roll On Columbia-Words by Woody Guthrie

One of my fondest childhood memories is of attending girl scout meetings and singing the song "Roll on Columbia, Roll on." My hometown of Estacada is located on the Clackamas River which is a tributary of the Willametter River which leads to the Columbia River. I now live in Vancouver, Washington. When my relatives visited from Holland we always took them to Vista House, Bonneville Dam and Multnomah Falls. The autumn leaves through the Columbia River Gorge are an incredible vision. Words can not express the love I have for this area of the world and the disgust I have for the level of pollution in the Willamette and Columbia Rivers.

The Columbia Gorge is the wind surfing capital of the world and is designated a National Scenic Area. Hundreds of thousands of residents and visitors hike, fish, bike, and boat on its waters and along its shores all year long. The Columbia is the fourth largest river in North America and drains 258,000 square miles. Over eight million people live in the Columbia Basin and all depend on it to some degree for their livelihood and quality of life. Over 2,000 species of wildlife live in the lower river during some part of their life. The fourteen hydropower dams on the Columbia provide over 75% of the power for the Northwest, more than any other river in the US. Water from the Columbia irrigates half of the 7.3 million acres of income producing farm and ranch land in Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The river’s five deep water ports are the nation’s primary terminals for several importers of manufactured goods. The river carries 39% of the all the wheat bound for export in the US, and is the major depot for the nation’s bounty of grain.

B. Columbia Chain of PollutionThe chain of pollution on the Columbia River starts on tributaries in Canada and ends in Astoria, Oregon. There has been a great deal of finger pointing for liability but many factors are involved. Everyone has contributed. How have the three branches of government (executive,judicial and legislative) addressed solutions and what are the blocks to removing the toxins? Why do corporations, government agencies, municipalities, mines, mills and citizens contribute to the endless pollution on the river and have been allowed to not follow clean air and water acts when other areas of the country are required to installenvironmental controls?

The Columbia starts at a Canadian glacier, runs 1,200 miles and drainsa 259,000-square-mile basin that includes land in seven U.S. states and part of Canada. It passes the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and picks up agricultural runoff, effluent from thirteen pulp and paper mills, heavy metals from mines and industries, and sewer outflows fromcities. Northwest Tribes first identified the human health hazards of Columbia contaminants in the early 1990s. [1] The main sources of pollution on the Columbia start in Canada with mines dumping dangerous levels of many metals and municipalities that dump sewage in the rivers because they have few laws to regulate sewage. Canadian mines have added millions of gallons of heavy metalsto the sewage. The Columbia is full of pollution before it even hits the United States border. The hazardous waste has accumulated for more

than one hundred years. Canada is not the only country that doesn't take care about taking care of their own sewage. From Wenatchee to Portland whenever there are heavy rains, sewage flows in the Willamette and Columbia. [2]

Hanford, the most toxic nuclear waste dumping ground is filled with potentially exploding L.U.S.T.s (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks) located near the Columbia River. The mines and mills dump millions of tons of hazardous waster in the Columbia River and in the air with no regulation or compliance with clean air and water acts because they are legally given exemptions at the state level. Homeowners and farmers dump fertilizers, pesticides and even more sewage by using manures in growing crops.

We know the sources of the pollution yet little is being done to stop the pollution cycle on the Columbia River. What all of our rivers needis less sewage, oil spills, heavy metals or L.U.S.T.s and more love. Let's discuss what has been done to stop the distruction of the Columbia River through hazardous waste releases. There are areas wherebribery of government officials has allowed corporations and municipalities to continue to pollute at the expense of taxpayers through Superfund projects. Many industries spew out millions of gallons of toxic hazardous waste in our air and rivers with few consequences. Health problems related to the pollution have been documented. They are a threat to public safety.

Solutions are the GoalEnvironmental controls can be developed. There are studies that say filtering toxic water with cilantro will remove a great deal of heavy metals. Why can't corporations at least filter water first before dumping and start researching alternatives? It cost so much in political donations to allow corporations to continue to pollute. Let's make the insurance companies pay and put the money in environmental controls.

Currently, there are few permits, regulations or reporting systems forhazardous waste spills on the Columbia River. In order to protect the Columbia River, we must start developing and implementing water quality improvement plans for toxics in a number of Columbia River tributaries. The plans address mercury, legacy pesticdes (such as DDT and other organochlorine pesticides), current-use pesticide, PCBs, andarsenic. The goal of the plans is to identify and control contaminant sources to meet water quality standards. [3]

Common toxic contaminants found in the Columbia River system include pollutants like polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs, or flame retardants), DDT and other legacy pesticides, current use pesticides, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, and trace elements. Thesecontaminants can impair water quality, affect aquatic organisms like insects and salmon, and impair enivronmental and human health. [4]

The levels of pollutants in the Columbia River are so bad that fish are not safe for consumption in areas but yet few solutions have been implemented. There are Superfund locations that are costing billions to remediate yet corporations are allowed to continue to pollute on other areas of the Columbia. Phytoremediation (cleaning land and waterusing plants) can be used to filter toxins and there are many nontoxicalternatives that can be considered. When corporations are making billions of dollars in profits each year, setting aside money for environmental improvements is a good goal. They already spend millionson paying off elected officials who in turn allow them to pollute. Whynot spend the money on controls instead?

What Happened to the Hippy Movement ?As a child of the seventies in the Portland, Oregon area, I can't helpthat I still "give a hoot" about our rivers. I took the words of Woodsy the Owl to heart. I was one of the first to tell my friends, "Come on girls and boys, let's stop polluting our rivers" and always cleaned upwhenever I visited a natural area at an early age. My father Bart Vanveen took me to Vortex 1: A Biodegradable Festival Life at McIver Park in Estacada, Oregon during the summer of 1970 (see picture).

In late August 1970, President Nixon was scheduled to speak at the American Legion National Convention in Portland. The Portland-based People's Army Jamboree announced it would hold a concurrent event to protest the Vietnam War. The FBI told McCall he should expect 25,000 Legionnaires and 50,000 anti-war demonstrators to clash in Portland and top the mayhem of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. Fearing that radicals might foment violence against the Legionnaires, a few Portland hippies proposed a free rock festival outside of Portland as an alternative. The hippies asked McCall for a place to hold it. He gave them McIver State Park. McCall, a Republican, was facing a tough a re-election vote later that fall. He won a second term in a landslide.

Vortex 1: A Biodegradable Festival of Life in Estacada, Oregon on the Clackamas River

I understand the reasons why people might not care about the pollutionon the Columbia River. My 79 year old father and I have some very interesting discussions about the subject. He thinks global warming isa joke. I think he forgot that he used to be a hippy. He has survived lung cancer from smoking and still has asbestos poisoning from workingin the cabinet making industry. Two years ago he had half of a lung taken out in emergency surgery. The asbestos is just part of the deal to him. He has no anger or does not blame his company. It is the cost of working in the United States. He smoked cigarettes too so knew the risks that he was taking.

Last week he told me he saw on the news that the fish are so toxic around Bonneville that people can't eat them. This week he says I am making a big deal out of nothing and there is plenty of water in the Columbia to flush all the toxins out to the Pacific Ocean. We all knowthat the Pacific is an endless ocean. We are safe from Fukushima too with that rationale. Am I the only one that cares about the future of our rivers, oceans and planet?

Why People Don't Care About Pollution on the Columbia RiverMy father did have some good insights. Why don't people want to get involved in cleaning up the Columbia River?1. People are dependent on jobs at the factories, municipalities and government agencies that pollute. They worry that if their industry isregulated, their jobs may be in jeopardy. The filthy air and water is just a price to pay for industry. 2. There are many toxins around us each day. If you are that worried

about pollution, you couldn't eat anything or go anywhere without having a "risk of cancer."3. The Earth and the jet streams have always changed. The Northwest was tropical at one time with palm trees and tropical plants. We can'tstop it.4. Yes, we may be speeding up the global warming with all of our pollution, but Earth will dry out eventually like Mars. No planet has lived forever. 5. Plants will have to moved to higher elevations to survive, fish will die as rivers warm up and dry out. There is not a lot we can do about it but keep moving them to higher and colder climates. Should weeven bother?6 We live in a free country so should have no regulations. Banks should be free to charge us 29% interest on credit cards and take our homes on loans for $300,000 and turn around and sell the homes for $175,000. 7. Corporations should be free to outsource our jobs and economy. Corporations should be free to pollute. 8. CEOs should be paid huge amounts of money each year and place all the company money in personal offshore accounts when they go bankrupt.9. Government officials can be bribed by corporations to make decisions for their interests and not the environment. 10. It is a free market economy so citizens and corporations should not be regulated in any way. 11. Taxpayers should pay for Superfund locations for large corporations that are currently in business so that jobs are protectedeven when they make millions in profits.12. Importing goods from China at elevated currency exchange rates (against agreement) and not exporting products is fair because it is cheaper to buy items at the dollar store from China than items produced locally at a higher price.13. Industries that are considered high risk now that all must be imported should be eliminated so that the large corporations that control the imports can control the industries.14. Banks can change their policies at any time. Interest rates for business loans in "high risk" industries (any that has been outsourced) can be 29% even with good credit. They are not regulated so the Columbia River should not be regulated.15. Health insurance rates for the self employed has increased substantially since Obamacare. Only large corporations can afford health insurance for their staff. Preventative health is not encouraged so that health issues as a result of the pollution on the Columbia River are expected.

16. Many people are just trying to pay their bills each month and keepa roof over their head. Pollution is not a high priority for them. 17. Many industries are trying to compete in an international market. Pollution control expenses will not allow them to compete.

The Environmental Problem According To Gus Speth In the book, "Towards a New Economy and a New Politics," Gus Speth [5] explains that, "the prioritization of economic growth and economic values is at the root ofthe systemic failures and resulting crises America is now experiencing." He believes America should begin to move to a post-growth society where "working life, the natural environment, our communities, and the public sector are no longer sacrificed for the sake of mere GDP growth and where the illusory promises of continuous growth no longer provide an excuse for neglecting to deal generously with compelling social needs."

The Columbia River environmental crisis is a prime example of Speth's points. Pollution on the Columbia River is reducing the river’s capacity to support life and accelerating environmental deterioration.The Columbia River is not the only area of the world affected by polluton. Speth explains in his book that about half the world’s wetlands and a third of the mangroves are gone. He also notes that:

"An estimated 90 percent of the large predatory fish are gone, and 75 percent of marine fisheries are now overfished or fished to capacity. Species are disappearing at rates about 1,000times faster than normal. The planet has not seen such a spasm of extinction in 65 million years, since the dinosaurs disappeared. Over half the agricultural land in drier regions suffers from some degree of deterioration and desertification. Persistent toxic chemicals can now be found by the dozens in essentially each and every one of us."http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/619

The policy on the Columbia River has been an unquestioning society-wide commitment to economic growth at almost any cost:1. Powerful corporate interests whose overriding objective is to grow by generating profit, including profit from avoiding the environmentalcosts they create and from replicating technologies designed with little regard for the environment; 2. Markets that systematically fail to recognize environmental costs unless corrected by government; 3. Government that is subservient to corporate interests and the growth imperative; 4. Economic activity now so large in scale that its impacts alter the fundamental biophysical operations of the planet—all combine to deliver an ever-growing world economy that is undermining the ability of the Columbia River to sustain life. The commodities are shipped on

the Columbia to and from ports all over the world.

Dirty Air in Longview, WashingtonWatching my dad suffer from asbestos poisoning makes me not want the same future for my children. When I lived in Kalama, Washington I learned from experience that the paper industry in Longview, Washington has very few environmental controls. I went shopping often on days that the air was so thick that I could not see across the street and it was worse than Beijing, China.

My son Ethan started throwing up for an hour and my son James had a bloody nose that night that wouldn't stop. The area has one of the highest occurences of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) in the country. A reasonable person could assume that the high levels of hazardous materials in the air in Longview, Washington could contribute to this sad fact. We moved 60 miles away from Longview, Washington two years ago and the number of incidents of bloody noses has reduced but not stopped. My son James has a bloody nose currently at least twice a month.

The EPA has predicted that there are 14 air toxics in Cowlitz County at concentrations that could potentially cause adverse health effects (cancerous or noncancerous) including Acrolein, Benzene, Bis(2-ethylhexyl), phthalate, Butadiene, Carton, Tetrachloride, Chloroform, Chromium VI, Diesel Particles, Ethylene, Dibromide, Formaldehyde, Napthalene, Quinoline, Tetrachloroethane, and POM Group 1. There are five air toxics that exceeded one or more of the health screening levels: Acetaldehyde, Arsenic, Benzene, Formaldehyde, and Manganese. [6]

The contamination in the Columbia River basin poses an "unacceptable risk" to people, fish and wildlife, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [7] said after issuing its first comprehensive report on toxic pollution in the massive Columbia system back in 2009. Why then has little been done to stop the continued pollution? There is increasingsocietal awareness and concern about toxics in our environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that there are between80,000 and 100,000 chemicals in use in our personal lifes, in businessand in commerce. Many of these chemicals are making their way into themagniicent Columbia River Basin and affecting the ecosystem and the fish that tribal people have consumed for 10,000 years or more.

C. The Three Branches of Government

To understand how environmental issues fit in government, it is important to understand the three branches that are players in the environmental game and how they connect with each other.

1. Executive branch The Executive Branch [8] is responsible for the administration of laws. Today, the executive branch consists of well over three million people who work in one of three general areas: the Executive Office ofthe President (EOP); the cabinet and 15 executive departments; and an extensive collection of federal agencies and corporations responsible for specific areas of the government, such as the Environmental Protection Agency. The Constitution makes no specific reference to a president's cabinet; rather, the cabinet is an institution that has evolved over the years.

a. The Executive Office of the President (EOP) is not a single office or department, but a collection of agencies that are all directly responsible for helping the president to interact with Congress and to manage the larger executive branch. Specific elements have changed over the years; currently, the EOP consists of nine separate divisions: the White House Office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Council of Economic Advisers, the National Security Council (NSC), the Office of Policy Development, the office of the U.S. trade representative (USTR), the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Office of Administration.

b. The cabinet consists of the president, the vice president, theheads of the 15 executive departments, and any other government officials the president wishes to include, such as the head of the OMBor the head of the NSC. In theory, cabinet members serve as expert advisers to the president, but in practice they more often operate as advocates for their departments and are seldom involved in actual presidential decision making.

c. Agencies and Corporations. The executive branch includes a large number of agencies for which the president is responsible. Some of these agencies function independently; others are connected to an executive department but still may function as largely autonomous units. These agencies manage specific areas of government operations and have little in common except that they lie outside of the traditional management structure of the executive departments. In general, they come in three types:

1. Regulatory agencies. Regulatory agencies and commissions control certain economic activities and consumer affairs. They includethe Securities and Exchange Commission and the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration. Regulatory agencies and commissions are createdby Congress when members believe that certain economic or commercial activities need to be regulated. They accomplish the task of regulation in various ways, depending on their mandate from Congress. Typical methods of regulation include requiring licensing for specificprofessions and requiring products to be labeled accurately. Some regulatory agencies operate independently, some are governed by bipartisan commissions, and some report to an executive department. Solution: Ask the EPA to promulgate clean air and water act rules. If EPA promulgates a rule, however, will it withstand judicial scrutiny? Courts have decided against the EPA many times stating they do not have the authority to make decisions concerning pesticides or the Clean Water Act.

2. Independent executive agencies, Independent executive agencies are not part of any executive department; rather, they reportdirectly to the president. These agencies include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the General Services Administration. Frequently, Congress makes such agencies independent so that they can operate without the burden of bureaucratic regulations or the influence of particular executive departments.

3. Government corporations. Government corporations are a unique type of agency in that they function like businesses, providingnecessary public services that would be too expensive or unprofitable for private companies to provide. They include the U.S. Postal Serviceand Amtrak Corporations have more independence than do agencies of anyother type. They can buy and sell real estate, and they can sue and besued. They are not dependent on annual appropriations from Congress, and they retain their own earnings. Congress does provide long-term funding for government corporations, however, so it retains a certain amount of control over their operations.

The relationship between judicial court cases (toxic torts) and

legislative branch (regulations) is fascinating. They go hand in

hand.

2. Judicial branch-The judicial branch is composed of the federal courts, which are responsible for ruling on the validity of the laws that Congress passes and applying them in individual cases. Solution:File a lawsuit to challenge a rule or a statute (In this case concompliance of clean air and water acts based on health damages) What are the consequences of losing in court? The Appeals courts holdthe cards on many environmental issues. These cases sometimes go very badly for environmentalists. In October of 2012, after a 2-1 D.C. Circuit majority overturned EPA’s “Good Neighbor” rule — which constrained individual states’ contributions to air pollution in neighboring downwind states. As a result, the "Good Neighbor" rule canno longer be associated with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution when it comes to air pollution. The Constitution which had previously been used to create solutions when it comes to interstate air pollution, now creates an impasse in enforcing environmental laws. Congress derives much of its power to legislate in the area of environmental protection from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution,which grants power to Congress to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several states." [9]

Toxic torts, interpretations of bills and other environmental cases are decided through the court systems.*Ex post policies (exposure to tort liability, toxic torts, civil law suits) for correcting externalities. *Occurs following a toxic tort event not before. *Prevents future pollution through financial awards to those receivingcompensation for damages as a result of exposure to toxins.*Compensates action *Creates and sets precedents *Serves those who have been damaged monetarily and a reduction incentive is introduced *Has minimal transaction costs if there is out of court arbitration *Administered by reasonable and fair individuals *The efficiency of the court systems in civil toxic torts questioned*The wealth of injurers-Wealthy defendants can tie up in court and wealthy plaintiffs can file and win toxic torts with funding. *The less advantaged who live in the more toxic areas of the country do not have the advantages of those with wealth to file toxic tort cases.*Litigation creates a higher level of care in society *Liability is inefficient due to injurers’ limited wealth large non-profit and for-profit environmental agencies that support legal suits and will assist with filing

*Polluters can hire lawyers that specialize in the defense of toxic torts for insurance and corporate accounts which gives them an unfair advantage*Litigation creates precedents or examples *Coase theorem would side with litigation because there is a possibility of arbitration between the two parties involved. However, there are no set $ amounts. The Coase theorem suggests that to be efficient when combining economics with law, issues should have only two parties involved with set fees.

Vermont Law School instructor Matthew Carluzzo noted in a course discussion that courts can certainly play a critical role in the process.

"A line of questioning I always try to ask when evaluating the legal landscape of any issue, namely, is the government the best and/or the only entity by which to achieve a desired result? If so, is the government effective in achieving the desired result? Presumably you believe the answer to the first question is "yes," and the second, "no" (appreciating of course that there is no “right” answer to such questions). The question then of course becomes, "What is a better alternative, whether structural, procedural, or otherwise, that would create a better result?” When I began asking these questions about our adversarial judicial system during law school, I ultimately concluded that we are apparently trying to create and maintain a "least-flawed, inherently flawed judicial system," which – when you consider the possible alternatives – is no small feat." [10]

Stormwater runoff is federally regulated as a major source of water pollution. The Constitution does not direct the states to follow federal rules but does allow citizens to file lawsuits for damages as a result of a state not abiding by federal laws. If no citizens complain, pollution continues.A citizen group did file a suit and in June of this year and a federal judge ruled that Clark County, Washington violated the Clean Water Act for three years from 2008 to 2011 and will be liable for damages, which have yet to be determined. But of course there is an impasse looming. The Clark County commissioners could appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has the power in our country when it comes to environmental and constitutional issues. [11] They have a record of not making decisions that benefit the environment.

3. Legislative-Congress can introduce acts that amend current laws or create new laws following winning toxic tort cases. The legislative branch consists of the U.S. Congress, which is responsible for creating laws. [12]

*Ex ante regulations (safety standards, Pigouvian fees, common laws) that regulate an activity before an accident *Prevents future pollution through fines *Compensates action*Introduced following precedents*Serves those who have been damaged if a reduction incentive is introduced*Transaction costs in administering fine collections*Has minimal transaction costs because there is a set fine*Administered by reasonable and fair individuals-Do corporate donations to politicians make it fair?*The wealth of injurers not applicable *Influenced by corporate and industry lobbyists *All equal cases because there are set fines*Regulations create a higher level of care in society *Regulation are inefficient because it is uniform and does not allow for differentation*Polluters can lobby and donate to campaign spending *Regulations create rules*Third party enforcement is in conflict with Coase Theorem*Clear fines are in Coase compliance.

Congress has introduced many acts that would benefit the Columbia River. Most of them have not passed. They should continue to be reintroduced. H.R. 4652 is an example of an act that could help the Columbia but hasnot passed. [13]

D. H.R. 4652 - Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010 The Columbia River Basin Restoration Act of 2010 [14] Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean WaterAct) to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a Columbia Basin Restoration Program to: (1) build on the work and collaborative structure of the existing Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group to develop a collaborative toxic contamination reduction approach for the Columbia River Basin; and (2) build on the work and collaborative structure of the Estuary Partnership in the Lower Columbia River Basin and Estuary. Sets forth the Administrator's duties with respect to such Program.Requires the Administrator to establish a Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Working Group to:

(1) assess trends in water quality and toxic contamination or toxics reduction; (2) collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics and water qualityto identify possible causes of environmental problems; (3) develop periodic updates to the Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Action Plan and the Estuary Plan; (4) submit to the Administrator annually a prioritized list of projects that would implement such Plans for consideration for funding; and (5) monitor the effectiveness of actions taken.

Here are some key provisions:1. The program would be driven by a stakeholder working group with representatives from state, local and tribal agencies, industry, utilities, environmental groups, soil and water conservation districtsand the general public drawn from throughout the Basin. 2. The Working Group will prioritize projects for EPA’s consideration,including monitoring, assessment, and toxic contamination reduction projects that would implement the Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Action Plan or, in the Lower Columbia River Estuary, the Estuary Plan. 3. Funding. The Senate bill would authorize $33M per year for the federal fiscal years 2012-2017. The federal funds may be used to fund up to 75% of project costs in the form of grants to state and local government entities, Indian tribes, nonprofit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals. 4. A minimum of one-third of the funding would be directed to the portion of the Basin above Bonneville Dam and a minimum of one-third would be directed to the Lower Columbia River Estuary. [14]

Data is clearer than ever: toxic contamination in the Columbia River Basin poses a significant threat to the environment and human health. [15] The Columbia River Restoration Act is an important step towards improving water quality and reducing toxics in the river. The Estuary Partnership was established in 1995 by the governors of Washington andOregon and the US EPA to provide regional collaboration, to advance science and to get on-the-ground results in the lower Columbia River and estuary. It is a collaborative program of the states of Oregon andWashington, federal agencies, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and economic interests and citizens. [16]

Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Action Plan. [17] Actions in theplan include:

1. Reduce discharge of toxics through more protective water quality standards, 2. Expand pesticide return programs, 3. Expand erosion prevention and sediment, storm water and runoff controls, and 4. Increase technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to increase best management practices. The Action Plan is available at http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/columbia/toxics-action-plan_sept2010.pdf. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has a history of passing acts that are not in the interest of the environment. There have been no updates on the bill and it has not passed

Litigation vs. Regulation Not DifferentiatedPrecedents have been set in which the two are not considered separate entities so they do not work against each other. Three examples include:1) The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1982) imposes technological regulations on the generation of toxic wastes. While under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,2) the Compensation Liability Act (1979) victims can sue generators ofhazardous wastes for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damagesand3) U.S. Supreme Court case Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, Ltd. Liability Co., which dealt with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) -The U.S. Supreme Court determined that litigation is regulation and in this case warnings on labels containing FIFRA related chemicals were regulated for all future products. Therefore under the right circumstances, litigation can qualify as regulation, and as such can be preempted by federal activity. Economists have generally viewed ex ante regulations (safety standards, Pigouvian fees, common laws) that regulate an activity before an accident occurs as substitutes for ex post policies (exposure to tort liability, toxic torts, civil law suits) for correcting externalities. Current emission standards, chemical bans and ingredient labels have been introduced through both toxic torts and standard regulations. The assumptions behind both regulations and toxic torts are that they:1) prevent future pollution through fines and awards,

2) compensate action,3) set precedents,4) serve those who have been damaged,5) have minimal transaction costs and they are administered by6) reasonable and fair individuals. Of the two, litigation vs. regulation as the solution for hazardous economic activities, which has the least transaction costs? Which will lead to the most reductionto toxins in the environment? If politicians are given donations from corporations does that make it fair? The Schmitz TheoryPatrick Schmitz [18] of the University of Bonn, Department of Law and Economics examines litigation vs. regulation in his text, " On the Joint Use of Liability and Safety Regulation." He discussed the important issues to consider when comparing litigation vs. regulation:1) the efficiency of the court systems in civil toxic torts,2) the wealth of injurers, and his belief that,3) regulations create a higher level of care in society than toxic torts.

Schmitz did not consider that corporations and insurance companies that pollute and their insurance companies have systems in place to protect their pollution "rights." They can hire lawyers that specialize in defending toxic torts and they can legally lobby government officials so that regulations are introduced that allow them to continue to pollute. They can also donate money to political campaigns so that former chemical company chiefs can run and hold offices so that they can influence future regulations.

The last issue was concerning the level of care due comparing regulation vs litigation. Regulations are rules but litigations are precedents or examples. Schmitz noted that regulations are more effective in that they raise the level of due care for those involved in industries with the regulations. He fails to note that fines are many times just an additional transaction cost for companies and that they do not insure compliance. For many polluters, the fines are less than the expense of replacing equipment that is not in compliance withenvironmental regulations. For example, a paper mill could be fined $17,500 for exceeding the mandatory levels of bleach released into a river. It is assumed that the expense of installing proper filtration or dumping systems would exceed the fines so it would be advantageous to pollute and pay the

fines. If there are set fines for violations, there are set transaction costs. It could be argued then that litigation has more unknown and expensive court transaction costs for defendants, therefore is more of a deterrent than fines. A large toxic tort case involving a class action suit from a large group of people who show medical expenses because of the leakage awarded to the plaintiffs, would be more of an incentive to follow national pollution guidelines. When toxic torts create regulations as in the precedent of Bates vs. Dow,it can be concluded that the most effective use of each method is together because they are not as effective when used separately. It could be argued that both have transaction costs:1) regulation has transaction costs for enforcement but there are set and expected fees for non-compliance and,2) litigation has transaction costs for court and legal fees. This assumption does not take into consideration that many toxic tortsare decided through arbitration and have minimal transaction costs.Both are effective means of pollution control1) regulation can increase the level of due care as noted by Schmitz and,2) litigation with large settlements is an incentive for companies to comply. There are transaction costs for both methods. Because litigation is only between the parties involved and many times decidedthrough arbitration, the Coase theorem would, it could be argued, sidewith litigation over regulation. When regulations are created out of litigation there are no additional legal transaction costs but there would be transaction costs to enforce the regulations. Toxic tort awards are paid directly to the plantiff and do not involve a third party . Most litigation vs. regulation authors including Schmitz fail to acknowledge that regulation could actually hinder litigation. Once a violation becomes a fine which adds a set and defined transaction costs for the polluters, which complies best with the Coase theorem, it doesn't necessarily mean they will take steps to compliance when the transaction costs of paying the fines is less than paying for new equipment and safety systems. For example, a paper mill, if is fined $17,500 for a violation through regulation, it pays the one-time or continual fee.

Before regulation, it could be argued, that toxic torts have the potential to request larger damage amounts than after the regulations

are in place. Toxic torts generally are needed before regulations comeinto place. They should be discussed as a two-part system of one method of pollution control and not as two separate entities as Schmitz presented in his text.

International JurisdictionHow can the United States force the Canadian government to regulate sewage and mines so that millions of tons of hazardous materials won'tcome down the Columbia from Canada?

Canadian border cities [19] have a long record of spilling sewage and pollution from mining operations in to American rivers and oceans. Canada flushes some 200 billion liters of raw sewage directly into natural waterways every year, from the St. Lawrence River to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Ocean. That’s only a fraction of the three trillion liters of sewage Canadians produce annually—about 6 percent, in fact—but it’s still enough to fill more than 40,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Unlike the European Union and theUnited States, Canada has no national standards for sewage treatment that cities and towns must follow. So while some Canadian cities have top-notch sewage treatment facilities, others have none. Even Montreal, a seemingly world-class city, pumps 900 billion liters of sewage into the St. Lawrence River. Most of it receives primary treatment, which reduces the number of solids somewhat by means of a settling process, but 3.6 billion liters of that total enters the river as untreated raw sewage.

Teck Cominco Metals Ltd., [20] operators of a lead and zinc smelter inTrail, British Columbia, has argued it should only be responsible for part of the cleanup, contending that other unidentified polluters should also contribute. Cleaning up the contamination has been estimated at as much as $1 billion. (They made 4.4 billion last year) Teck has the case held up in the appeals process and argues it needs time to test the water and the health consequences from the pollution in the upper Columbia. They claim they are not subject to United States law, given that the initial discharge of waste occurred less than 10 miles north of Washington in Canada. Arguments to this effect were already rejected in an early phase of the case, but Teck is entitled to renew them on appeal. Teck admits it intentionally discharged nearly 10 million tons of slag — waste separated from ore during smelting — along with industrial sewage containing hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic metals such as mercury, copper, cadmium, arsenic, lead, and zinc to the river in Canada over the last century.

Washington's solution? Blame all the pollution on the Canadians. We wouldn't want any corporations or government agencies that have been responsible for the pollution in the United States to be responsible for any of it. In April of last year a Washington state federal judge ruled that Canadian mining company Teck Resources Ltd. will be fully responsible for cleanup costs if it is found to have deposited pollutants into the upper Columbia River in an environmental lawsuit brought by state, CERCLA and tribal governments. Teck did not prove that the environmental damage at the site, located on the Columbia River near the Canada-U.S. border, can be divided to allow for apportionment of liability. The company is being sued to recover costs associated with cleaning up environmental damage allegedly caused by waste, including arsenic, mercury and lead that flowed down the river into Washington.

Teck now admits these substances are hazardous and that they came to rest in the sediments along the shores of the Upper Columbia River in Washington state. It also concedes that heavy metals continue to leachfrom its waste into Washington state’s environment, meaning they are potentially available to cause harm. Establishing liability is the first step to hold the company accountable for assessing and addressing the risks posed to the public and the environment. The casehas proven to be both costly and contentious. In 2009, a federal judgeordered Teck Cominco to reimburse the Colvilles for more than $1 million the tribes' had spent on the case over five years. The companyalso has appealed some rulings in the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

E. Federal Jurisdiction-What About our Right to Safety and Protection from Pollution under the Constitution?The authors of the Constitution intented for the citizens to request that the government to enforce laws and acts and until citizens get involved, the government or government leaders can't take the initiative. In many ways the wild west is still the wild west and mostcitizens do not want federal involvement in environmental or criminal issues. The local sheriffs can "deal with it themselves" and not report anything to the federal government.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate private property, manage wildlife or prescribe land-use regulations within the various states. The power is divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers under the Constitution.

These three powers must be separate and act independently of each. This creates an impasse because in a system of separated powers, significant social change requires cooperation among the branches of government as well as the federal, state and local governments. [21] There is an inherent measure of competition and conflict among the branches of government. [22]

The Appeals courts hold the cards on many environmental issues. These cases sometimes go very badly for environmentalists. In October of 2012, after a 2-1 D.C. Circuit majority overturned EPA’s “Good Neighbor”rule — which constrained individual states’ contributions to air pollution in neighboring downwind states. [23] As a result, the "Good Neighbor" rule can no longer be associated with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution when it comes to air pollution. The Constitution which had previously been used to create solutions when it comes to interstate air pollution, now creates an impasse in enforcing environmental laws. Congress derives much of its power to legislate inthe area of environmental protection from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which grants power to Congress to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several states." [24]

There are no checks and balances by the federal government on the states. The Constitution allows for the states to regulate federal lawand in the case of Clark County, Washington, very few of the Clean Water Act provisions have been followed until recently. The WashingtonState Department of Ecology has a history of giving Clark County exemptions from following state stormwater guidelines which is in violation of federal laws [25].

Stormwater runoff is federally regulated as a major source of water pollution. The Constitution does not direct the states to follow federal rules but does allow citizens to file lawsuits for damages as a result of a state not abiding by federal laws. If no citizens complain, pollution continues.A citizen group did file a suit and in June of this year and a federal judge ruled that Clark County, Washington violated the Clean Water Act for three years from 2008 to 2011 and will be liable for damages, which have yet to be determined. But of course there is an impasse looming. The Clark County commissioners could appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has the power in our country when it comes to environmental and constitutional issues. [26]

Where is the EPA when the Columbia River Needs Help?

This is the question I asked my instructor Matthew Carluzzo recently in my on-line Vermont Law School Masters in Environmental Law and Policy program:

Why is it now in 2013, industries and plants are still allowed to pollute just by paying sometimes very minimal fines compared to their operating costs and profit margins? Why does the EPA decide to sue some corporations under the private property right in the Constitutionand require emissions updates and permits while giving others exemptions?

"Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice announced today that Holcim (U.S.) Inc., the owner and operator of a Portland cement manufacturing facility in Hagerstown, Md., and its previous owner St. Lawrence Cement Co., have agreed to a settlement that includes a $700,000 civil penalty to resolve Clean Air Act violations. In addition to the penalty, for continued operations at the plant, Holcim has agreed to install advanced pollution controls on its kiln at the facility in order to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions." [27]

While they ignore other violators and not require environmental controls?"The Weyerhaeuser pulp mill at Longview spilled about 20 pounds of bleach into the Columbia River. The company reported the spill Sunday to the state Ecology Department. Department spokesman told The Daily News the mill was shut down for annual maintenance at the time 2,000 gallons of sodium dichromate spilled, and most was caught in the mill's treatment system. He didn't expect to see any environmental harm from the amount that reached the river." [28] Matt Carluzzo's answer was very candid and addressed the current system of selective environmental controls on our nation's waterways: "I have been thinking about how to answer your earnest and obviously heartfelt question for some time now. Your references very clearly demonstrate this contrasting and seemingly inconsistent reality. Knowing that this appears to be an issue of particular personal importancefor you, I wanted to be able to offer you an explanation for experiences like the one you describe (and that appear to happen all around us) that would assure you that there is a logical, appropriate, transparent, and consistent policy mechanism at work behind such phenomena. Unfortunately, I simply can’t do that. Staying within the bounds of intellectual honesty, the best explanation I can offer for the phenomenon is the somewhat unexciting and familiar combination of “resources and influence.” In other words, the EPA does not have the resources to pursue every violator – including apparently known or obvious violators. And relatedly, the

EPA’s internal calculation of whether it has the resources to pursue a particular violator in the first place necessarily takes into account (right or wrong) the level of resources and political influence that the party (or a related “interested party”) may exercise or latently possess. "

The only solution would be for there to be "resources and influence" for thegovernment to get involved in cleaning up the Columbia River. They maybe forced to help protect the Pacific Ocean which could benefit the Columbia River since it flows to the Pacific Ocean. Recently evironmentalists have filed a suit against the EPA over ocean acidification. [30] The Center for Biological Diversity filed a federal lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency in Seattleover the threat it says ocean acidification poses to oysters and othersea life off the coasts of Oregon and Washington. It's the second timein four years the environmental nonprofit has sued the EPA over ocean acidification. The previous lawsuit filed in 2009 was settled out of court in 2010 after the EPA agreed that ocean acidification should be addressed through the federal Clean Water Act. A spokeswoman for the Center for Biological Diversity said scientific research since that decision has broadened understanding about the impact of rising acidity in oceans, and the Tucson-based environmental group still doesn't think the EPA is doing enough to protect the ocean ecosystem. The lawsuit asks the judge to declare that the EPA violated its dutiesunder the Clean Water Act and acted in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious or unlawful.

According to fellow Vermont Law School MELP student Rebecca Gregory ifH.R. 1948: Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2013 was to be enacted, thiswould potentially open the opportunity for Clark County and Washingtonstate to continue in further violations of the Clean Water Act, as theresponsibilities for administering further water pollution regulationswould fall to the state rather than the EPA, and as you pointed out the Washington State Department of Ecology has been less than stringent in enforcing national standard, in fact providing exemptionsthat are in violation of our federal requirements.

It is shocking that this has gone unpunished, as “...a state may not preempt the operation of that statue within its borders unless Congress has authorized it to do so.” [31] The enforcement of the lack of compliance with these regulations would seemingly lie in the hands of the Executive branch, but with your explanation of the citizen suit and the ruling of thecourts it seems as if the Judicial branch has stepped in. This being said, although the ruling of damages are undetermined, this does create precedent, an advantage for other groups seekingenforcement of these rules and reparations due as a result of not following the federal requirements. Even if appealed, this ruling cannot be reversed, only embellished upon. [32]

I believe that even without EPA support, citizens can attempt to affect local change via grass-roots media or local political action. There are legal processes through the three branches of government: Executive, judicial and legislative that should be considered for solutions. Let's examine some of them.

Clean Water Act (CWA)The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary Federal statute regulating the protection of the nation's waters. The United States has regulatory responsibilities under the Clean Water Act at federal facilities, including preventing water pollution, obtaining discharge permits, developing risk management plans, and maintaining records. The United States government is required to monitor its discharges from federal facilities and to submit reports to DEQ. The United States may be required to have Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans if it has the potential to spill oil in navigable waters of the United States.

Clean Air Act (CAA)The World Health Organization recently announced that air pollution causes lung cancer. [33] The International Agency for Research on Cancer declared that air pollution is a carcinogen, alongside known dangers such as asbestos, tobacco and ultraviolet radiation. The decision came after a consultation by an expert panel organized by IARC, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, which is based in Lyon, France.Air pollution is a complex mixture that includesgases and particulate matter, and IARC said one of its primary risks is the fine particles that can be deposited deep in the lungs of people. The expert panel's classification was made after scientists analyzed more than 1,000 studies worldwide and concluded there was enough evidence that exposure to outdoor air pollution causes lung cancer.

The future of the Clean Air Act is always at risk. In October of 2012, after a 2-1 D.C. Circuit majority overturned EPA’s “Good Neighbor” rule — which constrained individual states’ contributions toair pollution in neighboring downwind states — Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post columnist and George Mason University professor Stephen Pearlstein observed that “dysfunctional government has become the strategic goal of the radical fringe [on the political right]. … Nowhere has this strategy been pursued with more fervor, or more success, than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit, where a new breed of activist judges are waging a determined and largely successful war on federal regulatory agencies.” The Constitution and the Commerce Clause can no longer be used to stop neighboring states from polluting the air in neighboring states. I still believe the changes we have made in the past will continue to help our natural areas. [34]

Why are corporations in areas like Longview, Washington allowed to pollute the air and water with little regulation or few environmental controls? When I lived in Kalama, Washington I went to Longview to shop. The air was so thick with pollution on days with no wind that I could not see across the street. One time my then seven year old son Ethan started throwing up and didn't stop for an hour and his twin brother James had a bloody nose that night that wouldn't stop. The EPAhas predicted that there are 14 air toxics in Cowlitz County at concentrations that could potentially cause adverse health effects (cancerous or noncancerous) including Acrolein, Benzene, Bis(2-ethylhexyl), phthalate, Butadiene, Carton, Tetrachloride, Chloroform, Chromium VI, Diesel Particles, Ethylene, Dibromide, Formaldehyde, Napthalene, Quinoline, Tetrachloroethane, and POM Group 1. There are five air toxics that exceeded one or more of the health screening levels: Acetaldehyde, Arsenic, Benzene, Formaldehyde, and Manganese. [35]

ExemptionsIf the President determines it is in “the paramount interests” of the US, he may exempt any federal discharge source from compliance with the CWA. The exemption can only be for one year, but additional one-year exemptions can be done based on the President making a new determination. The President must report to Congress each January on any exemptions made the prior calendar year and the reason for the exemption. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the primary federal statute regulating the control of and disposal of solid and hazardous waste. Federal facilities may have many regulatoryresponsibilities under RCRA, including obtaining permits, identifying and listing hazardous waste, adhering to proper procedures when transporting or disposing of waste, developing risk management plans, and maintaining records. RCRA also contains requirements for underground storage tanks. These standards cover tank design, operation, cleanup, and closure.

The Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (FFCA) amended RCRA and waived the sovereign immunity of the United States. Federal facilities

are required to comply with all Federal, State, interstate, and local solid and hazardous waste requirements. This includes statutes, regulations, permits, reporting requirements, and administrative and judicial orders and injunctions. Federal facilities are subject to civil penalties for violation and federal employees are personally liable for RCRA criminal violations. Why is their current pollution onthe Columbia River then? [36]

Sovereign ImmunityFederal, state and local municipalities that pollute on the Columbia have sovereign immunity so it is difficult to sue them directly for hazardous waste discharges or require compliance with clean air and water acts. The Supreme Court continues to require a “clear and unambiguous” waiver of sovereign immunity in order to subject the federal government to the requirements and penalties prescribed under federal and state law. The sovereign immunity doctrine prevents any entity, governmental or private, from suing the federal government without its permission. Absent a statutory waiver, the federal government is not required to comply with federal, state or local laws; its noncompliance cannot be enjoined. [37]

The common law doctrine of sovereign immunity is frequently used by courts to deny a right of action or remedy against the “sovereign” United States, unless such immunity is specifically waived. Judicial interpretation of waiver has fluctuated throughout the doctrine's history. This position is particularly relevant to pollution control statutes insofar as the statutory language and legislative history of several federal environmental statutes reflect congressional intent totarget the polluting activities of federal facilities, as well as private entities. To provide a framework for discussion, this article focuses primarily on case law that reads undue limitations into the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). These narrow interpretations have precluded citizens from suing federal facilities for civil penalties, ignoring the explicit congressional intent to provide for such penalties.

For example, the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act (Gorge Act or Act), a federal initiative aimed at protecting resources withinthe Columbia River Gorge in Oregon and Washington, presents a strong argument for a narrow interpretation of waiver. The District of Columbia Circuit and the Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have

interpreted the citizen suit provision of the Gorge Act to exclude causes of action brought by landowners alleging a “taking” of their land. By enacting the Gorge Act, Congress explicitly intended to protect the scenic, natural, recreational, and cultural resources within the Gorge. To attain this objective, the Act's citizen suit provision prohibits takings claims against the implementing agency (the Columbia River Gorge Commission). A narrow construction of the sovereign immunity waiver in the Gorge Act's citizen suit provision avoids undermining the Act's objectives.When applied properly, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is a valuable mechanism that can securethis important and narrow construction.

CERCLA/SuperfundsCERCLA was intended to provide a means for cleaning up hazardous wastesites and spills. After reviewing CERCLA, the several assigned cases and current Superfund programs, it is clear that CERCLA works only when properties are lost in foreclosure or bankruptcy or sold to developers that must cleanup the property. Corporations are allowed tocontinue to pollute in the Columbia River, for example, by giving donations to political parties and political leaders so are exempt from following clean water and air acts.

Today CERCLA does not restrict pollution that continues on corporate owned property leaking in to public rivers, air and land. Citizens areremoved from the process in Section 113(h) which prohibits, "the filing of any action in federal court, under state or federal law, to review any challenges to removal or remedial action...and only after removal and remedial action has been completed." There are very few cases of injunctions, cleanups or criminal charges of three to five years in prison (Section 103) have been placed on those responsible. [38]

For example, Weyerhaeuser is one of the largest employers and polluters as well as being responsible for many Superfund cites. [4] According to their website, "Each year during their recesses, about 30members of Congress and their staffs tour facilities and timberlands in the company's key operating states. They're typically invited through Weyerhaeuser's Federal and International Affairs office in Washington, D.C. And they're never paid to visit." [39]

They are not paid to visit but yet in 2010 Weyerhaeuser donated $185,300 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $180,951 to the Republican Committee and as a result, they are given exemptions

from following clean air and water acts. According to their website, "We are committed to maintaining and enhancing strong relationships with government officials through ethical, responsible and lawful actions." [40]

The Columbia River is the unregulated dumping site for Weyerhaeuser and many other companies. It was announced recently that, "Fish that live year-round just above Bonneville Dam are so chock-full of contaminants that health authorities advised the public not to eat them at all. They also urged the public to limit the consumption of so-called resident fish in a 150-mile stretch upstream from BonnevilleDam. The threshold for a health advisory for polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs is 0.047 parts per million. The tests turned up 183parts per million. By comparison, tests on carp in the Willamette River around Portland Harbor, another contaminated site, turned up 5 parts per million. [41] CERCLA is of great assistance when taking a Brownfield and cleaning itup for resale or development purposes. However, CERCLA has clearly notmade spills or dumping of hazardous substances in the Columbia River, for example, less likely through liability, enlisting business and commercial instincts for the bottom line in place of traditional regulation.

Can Insurance Pay for Columbia River Pollution?There is hope. Insurance companies are paying for claims since the pollution chain started more than 100 years ago. Brownfields are becoming greenfields through phytoremediation and community support. Abandoned properties are remediated by Superfunds. Citizens and environmental groups are winning court cases. Corporations are winningcases against the insurance companies that insured them so now should cover any related expenses. There is no statute of limitations on corporations that have continued to pollute for over one hundred years. Insurance companies can pay for the policies.

There are many methods corporations can use to not be responsible for environmental cleanup expenses. First, they can influence an environmental inspector. If an assessment is made, they can influence the agency personnel. Corporations are given exemptions at the state level from following clean air and water acts so they can legally pollute. When they go bankrupt or sell the property corporations are rarely charged for cleanup. Why hasn't Weyerhaueser been charged or why do they continue to pollute when they have been responsible for

multiple Superfund locations? [42] Perhaps donating to both politicalparties and individually to state senators and representatives has something to do with it. [43] As lenders and corporations have been given less liability in cleanups, insurance companies and the government through Superfunds have been charged with more of the expenses. True, there are a few cases where past owners have been responsible but it does not stop current owners from polluting. The lenders, the corporations and the insurance companies want the loans so there is a conflict of interest for the environment. My only hope is that insurance rates will become so expensive that they will be forced to put environmental controls inplace to obtain insurance. For a large company that makes billions a year with little environmental controls, expensive insurance is still not a issue for them. In Friedland v. TIC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit became the first court of appeals to address this question. The Friedland court held that a plaintiff that already had received insurance proceeds to reimburse him for cleanup costs was barred from suing other polluters in contribution under CERCLA. The Friedland court’s failure to do so may generate a new wave of litigation by recalcitrant polluters trying to take advantage of others’ insurance recoveries to escape their own CERCLA liabilities. [44]

The good news for lenders and corporations is that they are no longer an option for liability. Insurance companies are the responsible parties. Here is an insight from environmental law firm Anderson Kill's [45] website on the importance and emergence of environmental insurance law. This is written by Robert Horkovich. He is "the 'go-to person' in the area of insurance recovery." Here are some of his caseswhere insurance companies were required to pay: 1. Weyerhaeuser. Two Washington Supreme Court decisions recognizing joint and several liability of multiple insurance companies on the risk over time and recognizing coverage for environmental clean-ups even without a government lawsuit. Two jury trial victories recognizing coverage for the clean-up of six environmental sites.

Law360, New York (March 11, 2013, 6:19 PM ET) -- An exasperated Weyerhaeuser Co. sued two insurers Monday, demanding coverage under policies spanning nearly three decades for about 130 pending asbestos suits and all future asbestos injury claims stemming from the timber

company's old shipping operations. The company accuses Continental andMOAC of breaching the terms of the policies by refusing to defend or indemnify it against the underlying asbestos claims.The lawsuit also claims that the insurers acted in bad faith by not investigating Weyerhaeuser's claims reasonably and by delaying a coverage determination. It seeks damages, attorneys' fees and other expenses. Weyerhaeuser is represented by Frank Cordell and Susannah Carr of Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell LLP. [46] 2. State of California: Selected by the State of California as lead trial counsel. Won jury verdict securing coverage for the StringfellowAcid Pits, described as the most complex environmental clean-up in theworld. To date, the State has recovered settlements of $130 million inindemnity plus $54 million in defense. Helped win two Supreme Court victories. 3. Textron. Two Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions regarding coverage for unintentional environmental contamination despite the pollution exclusion and recognizing the trigger of multiple years of coverage for property damage over time. It is interesting to note that large corporations have a budget for "environmental matters" and insurance policies. They make billions in profits so it doesn't affect their ability to obtain insurance. According to Weyerhaeuser, [47] they base a budget on environmental matters each year by determining "our liabilities for environmental matters." It requires estimates of future remediation alternatives andcosts. They base estimates on:1. Detailed evaluations of relevant environmental regulations,2. Physical and risk assessments of our affected sites and3. Assumptions of probable financial participation by other known potentially responsible parties.4. We do not include amounts that we may receive from insurance carriers – insurance recoveries are recorded only when we have a binding agreement with the carriers.5. We record reserves for contingent product liability matters when itbecomes probable we will make financial payment. Determining the amount of reserves we record requires projections of future claims rates and amounts. Corporate insurance is ultimately responsible for paying for contamination so we should cash out those policies even if they are twenty years old. Someone has to pay for it. Superfund money is

taxpayer money. Corporations that are currently in business should notbe bailed out by taxpayers for past and current pollution. Of course, corporations, lenders and insurance companies influence our elected officials. Currently laws are not created for the citizens but are created by those who want the pollution to continue unchecked at taxpayer's expense. No one wants corporations to go out of business. We need industries to employ our citizens. Enviromental controls are not as costly for corporations as the current system of political donations, lobbying, and fighting labeling, clean air and water legislation through expensive advertising. [48]

This blog post [49] shows how insurance companies and former owners are increasingly becoming liable for pollution. In this case a developer who followed all of the appropriate steps according to CERCLA, wanted to sell to another developer: "Marten Law represented the former owner of property in Seattle, Washington contaminated by multiple commercial and residential underground oil storage tanks. The former property owner partially remediated the site and then sold it for urban redevelopment. Marten Law was engaged to pursue a cost recovery action against a major oil company that formerly owned and operated a service station on the sitefor almost five decades. We filed suit, conducted discovery, and successfully negotiated a settlement with the oil company that recovered almost all of the former property owner’s $1 million remedial action and litigation costs. While developing the property as multi-unit condominiums, a subsequentowner incurred costs remediating residual soil contamination on the site and made cost recovery claims against our client. Marten Law defended the former property owner against the developer’s claims and also identified several applicable insurance policies, against which we filed claims for our client. We successfully settled both the developer’s claims against our client and our client’s claims against their insurers. The insurance recovery fully covered the former property owner’s settlement with the developer. When we completed our work on the matter the client had recovered almost all of its remedialaction, litigation, and settlement costs." The outcome seems fair to me. The former owner that was responsible for the pollution and insurance companies covered the expenses. The lender, current owner or future developer did not pay for remediation.This is the intent of CERCLA and the Asset Conservation Act. Polluters

and those that insure them or at risk properties should pay.

F. Sources of Pollution on the Columbia River

Recreational users of the Columbia River-Pollution from boats, oils, gas, lighter fluid, garbage, plastics, aluminum, hooks, fish guts, charcoal, sewage and more. Solutions: Education. Pack it in, pack it out. Don't dump your beer cans in the river or gut your fish next to swimming holes. Take it with you or find sustainable alternatives.Recreation occurs in a number of different ways: motor boating, fishing, swimming, wading, rafting, canoeing, kayaking, inner-tubing, and aesthetic enjoyment. Many of these activities are closely related to streamflow.

Litter fines are currently in place for recreational polluters. [50] RCW 70.93.060 sets minimum fines for littering and illegal dumping. Italso encourages local governments to adopt ordinances similar to the state law. Local police departments, sheriff's offices, or health departments carry out most enforcement of litter laws. Many cities andcounties have adopted local ordinances that are stricter than the state law Potentially dangerous litter (including lit debris) RCW 70.93.060(4) $500 RCW 7.80.120(1)(a) $1025 (class 1 civil infraction)

Are the fines high enough to stop polluters from taking the risk of getting stopped while polluting and given a citation? Lawmakers in the Washington legislature are currently working to increase statewide litter penalties [51] Penalties currently vary in Washington based on the size and severity of the litter. The fine for potentially dangerous litter – such as such as glass, nails, hypodermic needles and lit cigarettes – is $500. Dumping large hazardous materials typically comes with much steeper consequences. Litterers are charged with a misdemeanor for dumping trash that is larger than a cubic foot but smaller than a cubic yard. According to current law, the offender must pay a fine of either twice the cost to clean up the mess or $50 per cubic foot, whichever is more. The fine doubles when the litter is one cubic yard or larger. The bill would atleast double the amount charged to offenders for more than one cubic foot and more than one cubic yard of litter. It also would raise the fine for dumping potentially dangerous litter to $750.

Pharmeceuticals and Personal Care Products Pharmaceuticals include antibiotics for animals and people, oral

contraceptives, other prescription medication, over-the-counter

pain killers and antihistamines Personal care products include deodorant, soap, sunscreen, insect

repellant, synthetic musk, perfume, cosmetics, hair care products Compounds in other consumer products: include caffeine, laundry

detergent, disinfectants, surfactants, and plasticizers, such as bisphenol A.

Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and similar compounds have been found at sites throughout the Columbia River estuary. In a recent study, caffeine was detected most frequently, followed by bisphenol A, HHCB, the antibiotic trimethoprim, and abreakdown product of erythromycin. Acetaminophen, the insect repellant DEET, and tylosin (a veterinary antibiotic) also have been found (Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 2007).

Impacts in the Environment: Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and some compounds in other consumer products can be toxic to salmon or affect their development. Some compounds mimicestrogens or other hormones, thus disrupting the endocrine systemand possibly interfering with reproduction, growth, and development. [52]

Pesticides, Herbicides, FertilizersLegacy PesticidesBecause the Columbia and its tributaries drain an area about the size of France, "legacy pollutants" — chemicals banned in the 1970s such asPCBs and DDT — still flush into the river from farms, roads, construction sites and stormwater systems. They accumulate in fish andother animals at some of the highest levels in the Northwest. [53]

DDT is a persistent organochlorine pesticide [54] that was widely usedfor decades to control agricultural pests and mosquitoes that carried diseases such as typhus and malaria. DDT is a probable human carcinogen, and its breakdown products—

DDE and DDD—also have toxic effects. DDT is a legacy pesticide, meaning that it is still found in the

environment even though it was banned in 1972 because of its toxic effects on fish, wildlife, and people. Legacy pesticides resist dissolving in water. Instead, they adhere to soil and sediment, where they can remain for years.

They bioaccumulate readily and can biomagnify up the food chain. DDT has both acute and long-term effects on microorganisms,

invertebrates, amphibians, fish, mammals, and birds, including (notoriously) the reproduction of bald eagles.

In juvenile salmon, exposure to DDT can cause immune suppression,

reduced growth, hormone disruption, disrupted reproduction, and physical/developmental abnormalities.

DDT has both acute and long-term effects on microorganisms, invertebrates, amphibians, fish, mammals, and birds, including (notoriously) the reproduction of bald eagles.

In juvenile salmon, exposure to DDT can cause immune suppression,reduced growth, hormone disruption, disrupted reproduction, and physical/developmental abnormalities

Aldrin, dieldrin, and chlordane are examples of other legacy pesticides. Aldrin and dieldrin are chlorinated insecticides developedin the 1940s as an alternative to DDT. They were widely used to control termites and other soil insects until they were banned in 1987. Aldrin breaks down quickly into dieldrin, which is persistent and bioaccumulates. When exposed to sunlight, dieldrin can transform into photodieldrin, a more toxic compound. Chlordane is a mixture of related chemicals, such as heptachlor, that was used on food crops andfor termite control in the United States until it was phased out between 1978 and 1988. Chlordane bioaccumulates readily, is commonly found in human body fat, and can affect the liver, nervous system, anddigestive system. It is still manufactured for export. [55]

Newer pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers found at high levels in the Columbia River: [56]Organophosphates: diazinon, chlorpyrifos, CIAT, ethoprop, malathion, 1-naphthol, Carbamates: carbaryl, carbofuran, EPTCTriazines: atrazine, prometon, simazine, Ureas: diuron, 3,4-dichloroaniline

Nicotinyl pesticides [57] are the most dangerous pesticides currently in use and are responsible for major bee losses. They contain clothianidin, thiametoxam and imidacloprid, used to coat plant seeds, are released into the lymph as a permanent insecticide inside the plant. But after just sucking dew from maize leaves that absorbed neonicotinoids, disoriented bees can't find their way to the apiary. Massive numbers of bees get lost and die. Neonicotinoid use has been strictly limited in France since the 1990s, when neonicotinoids were implicated in a mass die-off of the bee population. It is believed by some to account for worker bees' neglecting to provide food for eggs and larvae, and for a breakdown ofthe bees' navigational abilities, possibly leading to what has become generally known as Colony Collapse Disorder. "Nicotinyl pesticides, containing clothianidin, thiametoxam and imidacloprid, used to coat

plant seeds, are released into the lymph as a permanent insecticide inside the plant. But after just sucking dew from maize leaves that absorbed neonicotinoids, disoriented bees can't find their way to the apiary. Massive numbers of bees get lost and die.

Pesticides are a growing problem in the Columbia River. [58] This is a major concern to the whole entire river basin. The farmers use manychemicals that are very damaging to the fish, wildlife, and people that live along the river. The big concern with this is that it is not federally regulated, so the source of the pesticides will go undetected. The main conflict with the the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) [59] is the Clean Water Act. The biggest controversy is if pesticides were to touch U.S. waters, which would govern how it is handled. Pesticides regulated under FIFRAdo not require regulation under the CWA. The EPA also never required CWA to get permission for the FIFRA approved pesticides. Pesticides used for irrigation and weed control may not be necessarily controlledby the FIFRA and causes conflict with the CWA on who should govern because of it being in water.

Legislative H.R. 2692 - Saving America's Pollinators Act of 2013113th Congress (2013-2014) To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to take certain actions related to pesticides that may affect pollinators, and for other purposes. Status: The bill has been referred to committee.

H.R. 872 - Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 Environmental protection. 112th Congress (2011-2012) To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarifyCongressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticidesin or near navigable waters, and for other purposes. This act allows industries to use insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides in or nearnavigable waters with no permits or controls since they are exempt from regulation by the EPA or the Clean Water Act. The bill was supported by many industries.

I understand the economics of the reasoning but it is not good news for the Columbia River. The following industries supported the act that would allow them to dump FIFRA chemicals that are dangerous to aquatic life and human life in the Columbia with few consequences: Electric Power utilities, Chemicals, Milk & dairy producers, Forestry & Forest Products, Food and kindred products manufacturing,

Agricultural services & related industries, Vegetables, fruits and tree nut, farm organizations & cooperatives, agricultural chemicals (fertilizers & pesticides), Wheat, corn, soybeans and Municipal & county government organizations. [60]

S. 3605 - Restoring Effective Environmental Protection Act of 2012 Environmental protection. 112th Congress (2011-2012) A bill to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of theuse of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes.The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:‘(5) USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES- Except as provided in section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342), the Administrator or a State shall not require a permit under that Actfor a discharge from a point source into navigable waters of--‘(A) a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under this Act; or‘(B) the residue of the pesticide, resulting from the application of the pesticide.’.Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end the following:‘(s) Discharges of Pesticides-NO PERMIT REQUIREMENT- Except as provided in paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the Administrator or a State under this Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable waters of--(A) A discharge resulting from the application of a pesticide in violation of a provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) relevant to protecting water quality.

Solutions:Implementing Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships in agricultural watershedsHosting hazardous waste collection events and facilities for households, small businesses and agricultural operations. The events remove a source of toxic pollution that, if improperly managed, could contaminate water.

Industrial and Commercial WasteThe major corporate sources of pollution by state are:

Washington:Top 5 specific industries for pounds of releases: [61] Pulp Mills,

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation, Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs, Primary Aluminum Production and Gold Ore MiningTop 5 parent companies for pounds of releases: TRANSALTA CENTRALIA GENERATION/MINING-1,686,451 tons of hazardous

releases in the air and water each year BOISE INC-1,620,541 ALCOA INC-1,379,654 US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-1,371,137 WEYERHAEUSER NR CO-1,336,490

OregonTop 5 specific industries for pounds of releases:Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, Pulp Mills, Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum),Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing, Cheese ManufacturingTop 5 parent companies for pounds of releases: WASTE MANAGEMENT INC-13,370,553 tons of hazardous releases in the

air and water each year KOCH INDUSTRIES INC-1,601,250 CASCADE PACIFIC PULP-1,252,767 ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES INC-991,944 DYNO NOBEL INC-791,298

IDAHOTop 5 specific industries for pounds of releases: [62] Silver Ore Mining, Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, Phosphatic Fertilizer ManufacturingAll Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing, All Other Metal Ore MiningTop 5 parent companies for pounds of releases: HECLA MINING CO-17,081,757 tons of hazardous releases in the air

and water each year US ECOLOGY INC-10,201,930 US SILVER - IDAHO INC-4,697,185 J R SIMPLOT CO-4,451,180 MONSANTO CO-4,106,568

Types of Hazardous Waste

PCBs. The threat of PCB's are another concern because they are hazardous to the wildlife species particularly the bald eagle which isalready an endangered species. PCB's also can be harmful to humans, with side effects such as skin rashes, fatigue, loss of appetite, birth defects, and immune suppression just to name a few. Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, are stable, flame-resistant chemicals that were manufactured for use in consumer products (lubricants, paints, pesticides, etc.) and as insulators and cooling compounds in electrical equipment. They come in 209 different forms, or congeners, which vary in their degree of toxicity and carcinogenicity. The most toxic PCBs are structurally similar to dioxins. PCBs do not degrade readily or dissolve in water. Instead, they tend to accumulate in sediments and the body fat of living organisms. Over time, PCBs biomagnify up the food chain to top predators, including humans.The manufacture of PCBs was banned in the United States in 1979, but their use is still allowed in closed electrical equipment (transformers, capacitors, ballasts, etc.). [63]

Five years ago, a half-century-old pile of poisonous mercury-vapor lamps [64] was discovered in the river near Bonneville Dam, 40 miles east of Portland. The river bottom there was so high in cancer-causingpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that crayfish, a favorite of local fishermen, had 15,000 times more PCBs than is considered safe. The worst of the dump has now been cleaned up, but researchers fear there may be other dumps like it.

PAHs & PBDEs. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, are widespread organic contaminants that are released through the combustion or spill of gasoline, diesel fuel, and other petroleum products. They also are created through the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing materials such as wood, coal, and tobacco. PAHs are used in manufacturing dyes, insecticides, and solvents, and they are aconstituent of the creosote found in railroad ties and marine pilings.PAHs often attach to soil and sediment. They bioaccumulate in invertebrates but are metabolized by fish, birds, wildlife, and people. However, in the process, some metabolites can be more harmful than the original compounds and can generate mutations, be carcinogenic, or cause cell death. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, are synthetic flame retardants used in plastics, cushions, and fabrics. Chemically, PBDEs are similar to PCBs.

Agricultural waste. Cattle and other agricultural farms near the Columbia River are responsible for large amounts of pollution. Many

farmers are given exemptions from the clean water act.RCW 90.48.260 Federal clean water act — Department designated as stateagency, authority — Delegation of authority — Powers, duties, and functions.(1) The department of ecology may delegate its authority under this chapter, including its national pollutant discharge elimination permitsystem authority and duties regarding animal feeding operations and concentrated animal feeding operations, to the department of agriculture through a memorandum of understanding. Until any such delegation receives federal approval, the department of agriculture's adoption or issuance of animal feeding operation and concentrated animal feeding operation rules, permits, programs, and directives pertaining to water quality shall be accomplished after reaching agreement with the director of the department of ecology.

Some have been fined for pollution so there has been some progress. Cattle ranches were fined for Samish River pollution in 2011. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has fined two livestock operators $14,000 each for failing to keep livestock waste from polluting waterways that flow into the Samish River. The actions were part of Ecology’s work on the Clean Samish Initiative, an effort of more than 20 organizations and government agencies to coordinate cleanup of fecal coliform bacteria pollution in Samish Bay, the SamishRiver and their tributaries. The bacteria originate in the intestinal tracts of humans, warm-blooded animals and birds. Improperly managed livestock operations are one of several types of pollution sources theinitiative. [65] addresses. [65]

Corporations run the agricultural departments of the government as canbe seen by this article. [66] The only hope of reform is campaign donation reform and corporate sponsorship reform:

Politico Influence reported Wednesday afternoon that the agricultural giant Monsanto, the telecom titan Comcast and oil refiner Valero have all signed on as clients of the Lincoln Policy Group. Lincoln, a Democrat from Arkansas who left the Senate in 2011 after losing her reelection bid, announced in July that she was launching her own lobbying group. Scoring Lincoln as a lobbyist is a boon for Monsanto, the world's largest seed company. Lincoln served as the chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry from September 2009 to January 2011. Her former staff director on the Ag Committee, Robert Holifield, is also a partner in the new group.

Scott Kuschmider, the director of government affairs at Monsanto, confirmed to The Huffington Post on Wednesday that the company had hired the Lincoln Policy Group to lobby on agribusiness issues. A lobbying disclosure form filed with the clerk of the House of Representatives also confirms that both Lincoln and Holifield registered as lobbyists for Monsanto on Oct. 1. The seed giant's influence on Capitol Hill has been in the news quite a bit in the pastyear, thanks to the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, a provision slipped into a spending bill last March that protects companies that sell genetically modified seeds from lawsuits. While the company says it supports the measure, Monsanto has objected to the nickname opponents have given the bill, arguing that plenty of other agribusiness companies support it, too. Despite efforts to revive the act as part of a later spending bill, it was pulled from recent budgetnegotiations.

Port PollutionAccording to the Natural Resources Defense Council, [67] marine ports are now among the most poorly regulated sources of pollution in the United States. The result is that most U.S. ports are heavy polluters,releasing largely unchecked quantities of health-endangering air and water pollution, causing noise and light pollution that disrupts nearby communities, and harming marine habitats. [68]

StormwaterThe Vancouver, Washington area doubled in population, for example, since 1970 because industries were encouraged to develop in the area. They saved at least 10% on production costs by not having to install wastewater filtration systems or comply with clean water and air acts in stormwater drainage controls. As a result the current population is192,227 which is up 49.6 percent from 1970 count of 128,454. [69]

Rain gardens stop water from flowing to parking lots and immediately to rivers. They provide shelter for pollinators such as hummingbirds and butterflies. They are easy to install and need little water. The plants clean the water through phytoremediation. It would be easy for polluters to install rain gardens on-site and surrounding factories toassist in restoring the Columbia River.

Clark County, Washington only recently was forced to comply with statewide requirements to control the flow of polluted runoff. [70] Columbia Riverkeeper partnered with the Rosemere Neighborhood Association and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center to bring a

legal challenge. Where was the Department of Ecology? Pressured by theCounty, Ecology signed an agreement that gave Clark County a special exemption around the statewide pollution rules. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that Ecology’s exemption was illegal and ordered Clark County to reduce pollution andcomply with the rules—Clark County’s controversial development standards likely violate federal laws to protect clean water, according to a preliminary ruling. The decision means Clark County must comply with federal clean water laws, like other cities and counties in the state, to protect rivers, streams and salmon threatened with extinction. The ruling applies to development projectspermitted or approved by the county on or after the court’s order while a related state court appeal is pending. That means compliance requirements are still an issue in my neighborhood. There are many solutions to stormwater pollution that should be examined: [71] Parking lots are being designed and built to capture and

infiltrate stormwater on-site. Ecoroofs are sprouting up across Portland to capture rainfall, in

some cases treating more than 85% of the runoff. Some sidewalks, streets, and parking lots are testing permeable

pavers as a surface. Retaining water on-site helps restore the natural hydrologic

conditions of a watershed. Native forests, wetlands, meadows, pastures and other pre-

development landscape features capture rainfall, allowing it to infiltrate into soil and groundwater.

Parking lot or development designs that incorporate rain gardens,bioretention systems and natural vegetation allow water to naturally soak into the ground filtering out contaminants.

The City of Portland is two years into a five-year program to add43 acres of ecoroofs, 920 green street facilities, and plant 83,000 trees across the city.

Adding large wood to streams; protecting and reestablishing riparian vegetation; protecting and restoring tidal wetlands and off channel habitats; breaching dikes to allow tidal influence and improve access to off channel habitats; and replacing or removing culverts and tidegates all benefit salmon and other species.

Sewage spills by Canadian and American municipalities is a threat to the Columbia.

Canada has few regulations so tons of sewage goes directly in the river

8. SewageProvinces and territories in Canada are responsible for enforcing guidelines, as there is no national regulatory body for drinking waterin Canada. Water pollution by sewage [72] is one of the main culprits involved in polluting drinking water. Advocacy group Ecojustice estimates overall raw sewage dumping in Canada to be around200 billion liters a year. The Canadian government recently announced waste water regulations that would allow for sewage to be dumped into Canadian waters until 2040. Proper measures for waste water disposal will not immediately be put in place, rather, they will be implementedgradually from 2020 to 2040. However, in the meantime, Canadian municipalities may continue to pollute their waters by dumping sewage.Victoria, British Columbia also follows a similar practice by getting rid of their untreated waste into the ocean. However, the government has plans to open operational treatment facilities for 2016. Water pollution resulting from sewage can also be attributed to error in sewage facilities. Contaminated water can result in a myriad of serious consequences for human health. Additives used to clean drinking water may cause harm. Chlorine, widely used in Canadian and American drinking water, is a prominent example. Through drinking water treated by chlorine over a long period of time, the risk of certain cancers, such as bladder and colon, increase. [72]

The Washington State Department of Ecology tracked two sewage spills into the Columbia River in March 2012. They reported a 500,000-gallon sewage spill into the Columbia River in East Wenatchee, Washington. Inthe same time period officials in Trail, British Columbia reported a broken sewer line that spilled raw sewage into the Columbia river about 10 miles north of the U.S.-Canada border. Canadian officials estimate that up to 1.5 million gallons were spilled. [73]

Sewage spills in the Columbia and the Willamette have been a constant problem. Sewage leaks in the Willamette River due to our heavy rains in the Portland, Oregon area. The Willamette flows to the Columbia River just north of Portland. Heavy rains as we have experienced this weekend regularly cause sewage to spill into the local rivers. The only solution is for Canada to create some sanitation standards and sewage laws. Municipalities on both sides of the border must replace and update old pipes and sewage systems. They must install environmental controls so that sewage does not end up in rivers each

time there is a heavy rain.

9. Wood and Paper Mills In March of 2011, Weyerhaeuser reported that it spilled 2,000 gallons sodium dichromate at its Longview mill and that about 20 pounds was released into the Columbia River. "I don't think we would see a directenvironmental effect" on the river from the incident, said Marc Crooks, who works in the state department of ecology's industrial section. Sodium dichromate is used to bleach pulp. [74]

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst have identifiedWeyerhaeuser as the 63rd-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with roughly 17.5 million pounds of toxic air released annually into the air. Major pollutants indicated by the study include formaldehyde, sulfuric acid, acetaldehyde, manganese compounds, and chlorine dioxide. The Environmental Protection Agency has named it a potentially responsible party for at least 18 Superfundtoxic waste sites. [75]

In the quest on making the Columbia River safer and cleaner the pulp and paper mills are putting together a project where they will stop the bleaching of paper which will in turn help in the cleaning up process of the polluted waters. This will help them both economicallyand politically now that we are in an age of environmental safety. They are doing this by using and alternative bleaching substance that is environmentally safe.

Superfund polluters should not be allowed to continue to pollute. It doesn't seem fair to me that the Columbia River has been abandoned by the EPA and the natural resource [76] and energy subcommittees [77] who have allowed the Washington State Department of Ecology to give out exemptions to many polluters. Corporations donate to politicians who in turn allow them to continue to pollute. [78] Taxpayers through Superfunds pay for the pollution. That doesn't seem democratic to me.

The United States Senate Energy Subcommittee has a record of being on the side of energy industry pollution.The Senate can use a "back door"approach and introduce Acts with little notice to the energy includingthe coal and oil industries but it makes me wonder if it is helping them not comply or make them comply. We are going to spend a lot more than that to clean yet another Superfund site. Please note that both parties take donations from industry so it is not a party issue.

Weyerhaeuser is one of the largest employers and polluters so responsible for many Superfund cites. According to their website, "Each year during their recesses, about 30 members of Congress and their staffs tour facilities and timberlands in the company's key operating states. They're typically invited through Weyerhaeuser's Federal and International Affairs office in Washington, D.C. And they're never paid to visit." [79]

They are not paid to visit but yet in 2010 Weyerhaeuser donated $185,300 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $180,951 to the Republican Committee and as a result, they are given exemptionsfrom following clean air and water acts. According to their website, "We are committed to maintaining and enhancing strong relationships with government officials through ethical, responsible and lawful actions." [80]

Meanwhile this week, there was more sad news for the Columbia River which is the unregulated dumping site for Weyerhaeuser and many other companies. It was announced a few days ago that, "Fish that live year-round just above Bonneville Dam are so chock-full of contaminants thathealth authorities advised the public not to eat them at all. They also urged the public to limit the consumption of so-called resident fish in a 150-mile stretch upstream from Bonneville Dam. The thresholdfor a health advisory for polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs is 0.047 parts per million. The tests turned up 183 parts per million. By comparison, tests on carp in the Willamette River around Portland Harbor, another contaminated site, turned up 5 parts per million. [81] CERCLA and Superfunds are of great assistance when taking a Brownfieldand cleaning it up for resale or development purposes. However, CERCLAhas clearly not made spills or dumping of hazardous substances in the Columbia River, for example, less likely through liability, enlisting business and commercial instincts for the bottom line in place of traditional regulation. There is no indication that The Weyerhaeuser Corporation location in Longview, Washington has recently paid fines or have taken measures toreduce their chemical spills. The Longview paper mill is ranked the 22nd most toxic paper products chemical release location in the UnitedStates with over two million pounds of chemicals being released. The following companies release chemicals in to the air and the Columbia River or in the Willamette which flows to the Columbia at alarming rates. These chemical releases are at levels dangerous to human beings

and fish as noted in a previous post, yet they are given exemptions from following clean water and air acts.

Paper Product Facilities Releasing Toxic Release Inventory- Chemicals to the Environment [82] (Air and Water-Columbia River Pollution)

22. WEYERHAEUSER CO., 3401 INDUSTRIAL WAY, LONGVIEW, WA-2,215,315 Pounds of toxins per year61. WEYERHAEUSER CO., 785 N. 42ND ST., SPRINGFIELD, OR-1,282,49571. BOISE CASCADE PAPER DIV., HWY. S.R. 12, WALLULA, WA-1,091,78085. FORT JAMES CAMAS L.L.C., 401 N.E. ADAMS ST., CAMAS, WA-895,69492. BOISE CASCADE CORP., 1300 KASTER RD., SAINT HELENS, OR-760,896

CERCLA has cleaned up many Superfund locations [83] on the Columbia River. The issue I have is that companies continue to pollute at dangerous levels right next to areas that have been cleaned up as Superfunds. The corporations are allowed to abandon contaminated properties and taxpayers pay the bill through Superfunds. CERCLA has not fulfilled it's promise to cleanup existing pollution and protect our rivers from continued pollution. In fact, campaign deregulation has allowed the opposite to happen, corporations are now "above the law" and are protected from following environmental laws just by donating money to both political parties. It is more than the Canadianand American corporations that currently pollute on the Columbia River, however, the Army Corps of Engineers and municipalities also have a record of releasing hazardous materials at dangerous levels to humans. It will be interesting to follow the court cases as they progress. In the meantime, nothing has been done or looks like will bedone to clean up or stop the hazardous substance releases on the Columbia River for a very long time.

10. MinesTeck Resources in Canada has released heavy metals directly in the Columbia for more than one hundred years. The mine pollution chain starts in Canada and flows down through Hanford, through dams, cities and past lumber mills and paper factories. It is difficult to charge any one corporation, city or federal agency for the pollution. Canadian corporations are not regulated by Washington state. As recently as 2008 there were leaks at Teck Resources in a lead refinerypipe that ended up in the river containing hydrofluoric acid and lead.The Washington Department of Ecology said it was told that approximately 2,100 pounds of lead and 100 gallons of acid were released into the river. [84]

CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and the NCP provide authority for not onlyinactive or abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites but also established a program to report spills of hazardous substances and created an emergency response program to cleanup releases of hazardoussubstances whether at one time or continual. [85] The levels of toxinsin the Columbia are at an emergency level. Teck now admits these substances are hazardous and that they came to rest in the sediments along the shores of the Upper Columbia River in Washington state. It also concedes that heavy metals continue to leachfrom its waste into Washington state’s environment, meaning they are potentially available to cause harm. Establishing liability is the first step to hold the company accountable for assessing and addressing the risks posed to the public and the environment. The casehas proven to be both costly and contentious. In 2009, a federal judgeordered Teck Cominco to reimburse the Colvilles for more than $1 million the tribes' had spent on the case over five years. The companyalso has appealed some rulings in the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. [86]

Tek Resources has appealed and maintains American authorities can't force them to clean the river. In 2012, Tek announced record earning, record profit and record production, thus ending the year 2011 with $4.4 billion in cash. Besides expanding into Energy sector, the company was also executing two major projects in Chile. [87] Washington corporations have successfully avoided following clean water and air acts, permit systems or testing by donating to state political parties that in turn, have shielded them from fines, testingand making environmental improvements. I do not believe that the Carter administration intended to set up a system that allows continued corporate pollution at the levels we are finding not only inthe upper but the lower Columbia. It is sad that corporations spend millions of dollars in donations to political parties that allow them to pollute instead of spending the money on environmental controls andcleanup. The heavy metals that are dumped from mines in the Columbia River are a health danger Arsenic—Reduced growth, disrupted smoltification,

physical/developmental abnormalities Chromium—Disrupted feeding, reduced response to stimuli, immune

suppression, reduced growth, disrupted reproduction, cellular damage

Copper—Difficulty avoiding predators, less frequent spawning, reduced olfactory function, immune suppression, reduced growth, disrupted reproduction, cellular damage

Lead—Reduced swimming ability, reduced growth, cellular damage, physical/developmental abnormalities

Nickel—Cellular damage

The only solutions to the pollution from the mines is by creating and installing environmental controls, creating a permit system and finingthe mine companies for violations. Tek, for example is worth over 4 billion dollars. A small fine will not deter them from polluting.

11. Nuclear WasteOur biggest legacy pollution site on the Columbia River is Hanford, where the United States dumped billions of gallons of radioactive wastes on the banks and into the Columbia River. Hanford is one of the most dangerous continual toxic release location in the country andis also a threat to the Columbia River. The most toxic and voluminous nuclear waste in the U.S.—208 million liters —sits in decaying underground tanks at the Hanford Site (a nuclear reservation) in southeastern Washington State. It accumulated there from the middle ofWorld War II, when the Manhattan Project invented the first nuclear weapon, to 1987, when the last reactor shut down. The federal government’s current attempt at a permanent solution for safely storing that waste for centuries—the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant here—has hit a major snag in the form of potential chain reactions, hydrogen explosions and leaks from metal corrosion. [88]

In fact, the managing agencies have warned that Hanford nuclear waste tanks could explode. Underground tanks that hold a stew of toxic, radioactive waste at the nation's most contaminated nuclear site pose a possible risk of explosion, a nuclear safety board said in advance of confirmation hearings for the next leader of the Energy Department.State and federal officials have long known that hydrogen gas could build up inside the tanks at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, leading to an explosion that would release radioactive material. Central to the cleanup are the removal of 56 million gallons of highly radioactive, toxic waste left from plutonium production from underground tanks. It also noted technical challenges with the waste treatment plant, which is being built to encase the waste in glasslike

logs for long-term disposal. The federal government spends about $2 billion annually on Hanford cleanup – roughly one-third of its entire budget for nuclear cleanup nationally. [89]

The highly radioactive waste is still sitting in single-walled and double-walled tanks, and that’s what is leaking out now at the Hanfordplant. In the mid-'50s workers first suspected the tanks were leaking.Recent news has revealed that the leaks continue, at a possible rate of 1,000 gallons a year. Because the waste is so deadly, cleanup workers cannot go near the tanks. That has made it difficult to detectthe leaks, and yet more difficult to plug up the leaks or to find longterm solutions to the problem of storage of high level waste for its 24,000-year half life. They also had medium level waste and engineers in the late '40s and '50s just dug holes in the ground -- trenches andreverse wells -- that were filled with this medium radioactive waste. And this waste headed toward the big aquifer right under the plant that was shared with people on the other side of the river who startedto farm there in the '50s. [90]

The federal government now has spent $30 million defending corporations because that was part of the original deal when subcontractors signed on for nuclear defense work. Now that $30 million probably would have been better spent just giving it to the people who lived down wind who have had a lot of health problems. But to do that would have meant admitting liability and opened the door tofuture cases.

On a bright note, CERCLA can be credited for assisting in the cleanup at Hanford. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (also known as the Tri-Party Agreement) was signed by USDOE, EPA, and Ecology in 1989 with the purpose of coordinating the CERCLA and RCRA cleanup authorities at Hanford. The Tri-Party Agreement also outlines the process for changing, removing, or adding milestones, the conditions under which penalties may be issued, and the requirements for public involvement relating to Hanford cleanup actions. Major changes to the Tri-Party Agreement require approval of all three agencies and are only made after a public participation process has been followed. [91]

12. Dams

"Roll on, Columbia, roll on.

Roll on, Columbia, roll on. Your power is turning our darkness to dawn, Roll on, Columbia, roll on."

The chorus of "Roll On, Columbia, Roll On" declares that the Columbia River is "turning the darkness to dawn". This refers to the electricity generated by the New Deal hydropower projects that broughtelectricity to homes in rural areas. There are 76 dams that are on or lead to the Columbia River that light up the Northwest. Some were built as early as 1907 and as recently as 1988. The dams leak thousands of gallons of oil which is used to keep the equipment running on the dams. Who is responsible for the damage done to the environment from these leaks? Can the dams be updated or biofuels be used that are less dangerous?

I used to think that hydro was a great source until I found out that the oil needed to run the dams has been leaking in the Columbia. As a result, the fish are contaminated with PCBs and are now dangerous to eat. The Native American groups have lost their fishing industry as a result of the contaminants. Chinook salmon in the Columbia River, suchas these seen at Cascade Locks, are still considered safe to eat. But Oregon health authorities have issued an alert warning people against eating so-called resident fish caught in a 150-mile long stretch of the Columbia above Bonneville Dam.

The dam oil spill issue is in the news regularly:

NW Delegation Urged To Update Water Quality Standards, Pass Columbia Basin Toxins Legislation on Friday, September 27, 2013. Warnings issued by the states of Oregon and Washington about the consumption offish pulled from above the Columbia River’s Bonneville Dam immediatelydrew calls from tribal leaders and others for state and federal responses to the contaminant issues. The advisories say that fishers should avoid eating “resident” fish such as bass, walleye and sturgeoncaught in the area from Bonneville Dam one mile upstream to Oregon’s Ruckel Creek. Fish sampled there have shown extremely high levels of, particularly, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). High mercury levels have also been found in fish tissue. The PCP contamination is believedto stem from a waste disposal site in the river at Bonneville. [92]

Douglas County Public Utility District (PUD) [93] received a $10,000 Department of Ecology (Ecology) fine for allowing 500 gallons of lubricating oil to leak to the Columbia River in March 2011. The leak

was discovered on Sunday, March 20, 2011, from the No. 4 electrical generating unit inside Douglas County PUD’s Wells Dam project – a hydropower facility located at river mile 515.8 on the Columbia River.

The record-setting PCB levels near Bonneville are from a dump site on Bradford Island that the Army Corps of Engineers used before people were aware of the hazards of PCBs. Cleanup actions are underway at thesite. It’s likely that other dams along the river have similar dump sites that could be contributing to contamination as well. [94]

Mercury is a naturally occurring element and a common air pollutant from burning fossil fuels. PCBs are a family of now-banned industrial chemicals. For infants and young children, exposure to either chemicalcan damage brain development, so the advisories warn pregnant women and young children to take the most strict precautions. [95]

What about Permits and Certification for Hydropower?The state of Washington works with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process for hydropower dams. When an applicant requests a license, either to re-license an existing dam or for new construction, Ecology works with the utility, reviews studies,analyses and plans. If Ecology determines that water quality standardsare attainable, a 401 certification is issued with conditions to ensure that the standards will be met. These conditions become part ofthe new FERC license. [96]The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decides whether to re-license hydropower projects. FERC’s license process is designed to gather information that FERC uses to decide what conditions to includein the license. [97] Licenses issued by FERC allow dams to operate for30 to 50 years. FERC also issues amendments to existing licenses for major modifications such as construction, raising reservoir levels, and adding power generation capacity. License applicants must use the FERC re-licensing process to propose to FERC ways to address land management concerns. Those concerns include: Natural resources protection, Recreational enhancement, Cultural and historical resources protection, and Fish and wildlife protection and enhancement. Dam facilities contain numerous sources of oil and grease. Oils continuously escape into the river via various avenues. Routine oil losses to the water have exceeded several hundred gallons per year at a facility. Equipment failures and other unplanned incidents can result in large and small periodic spills, up to several thousand

gallons. Most oil and grease products concentrate somewhere in the system — on the shore or on the bottom. Some of the byproducts bioaccumulate in fish. When fresh grease, oil, hydraulic fluids, and used collected oils are stored on site, the potential exists for spills into the river.

Water Quality Standard and Applicable Laws Several sections of the Clean Water Act and Washington State laws and regulations apply and can be referenced in Water Quality Certificationconditions.

RCW 90.48 Pollution Control Act -This enabling law for the water quality standards found in the rule, WAC 173-201A, gives Ecology the authority to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health, public enjoyment, protection of wildlife and aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state; and to that end require the use of all known available andreasonable methods by industries and others to prevent and control the pollution. It provides for assessment and compensation to the state from oil spills (90.48.366-368);WAC 173-201A Water Quality Standards -Pollution from oil or petroleum products is generally considered as harming beneficial uses and is therefore a narrative criterion;Clean Water Act Section 401 -Under Section 401 (d) of the CWA, other applicable state laws can be written into Water Quality Certifications. Ecology has regularly required compliance with other laws in Water Quality Certifications;RCW 90.56 Oil -The applicable sections of 90.56 are: duty to report spill and liability for cleanup costs. Development of five-year oil spill prevention plans and cleanup plans and natural resourcedamage assessments for spills that have already occurred are required;

Possible Causes of ImpairmentEscape of grease and heavy oil used for lubrication and hydraulics. (These are generally comprised of longer, bigger aliphatic and aromatic molecules than most fuels, and have about 100 times less solubility in water than gasoline.)

Servomotors leak oils to the bottom of the turbine pit.Wicket gates lubricants can leak directly into the water.Turbine guide bearing oil. This is usually stored in large tanks on

site. Gravity brings most of the lubricant into a sump where it is pumped back into the lubrication system. Leakage occurs and oil from other sources collects to be pumped to large sumps prior to being discharged to the river.Lubrication of spill gate mechanisms, turbine gate mechanisms, etc.

Most transformers have been purged of PCB oil and now contain “mineral” oils. Low levels of PCBs may still be found in purged transformers, due to incomplete purging or desorption from transformer materials.

The mineral oil used in transformers typically is less refined than the store-bought variety and contains low levels of contaminants, such as metals and organic contaminants that accumulate during use.

Oil leakage from the vehicle onto facility pavement is likely to result in contaminated storm water, if untreated. The washing ofequipment can also result in an oily discharge, if untreated.Vehicle and boat use in the watershed is likely to increase due to recreation and development encouraged by the reservoir behind the dam. Increased vehicle use may result in increased oil levels in storm water.

Dams are industrial sites, so many of the sources of toxics associatedwith industrial activities are likely to be found. Examples of sources to consider are:

Solvents for equipment maintenance and repairMetals from equipment wear and maintenancePaint from maintenanceLegacy toxics, such as PCBs, in transformersPesticides used for grounds maintenance

Indirect sources could include increased residential, commercial, and industrial development, and associated increases in vehicle use, landscape care, cleaning, maintenance, and toxic source materials. All have a typical suite of toxics associated with the activity, including metals, solvents, paints, pesticides, and other materials. [98]The Corps reported [99] that about 800 gallons of oil spilled from one of the transformers contained 2 parts per million of PCBs, a largely banned industrial insulator that persists in aging equipment. Oil leaks and PCB contamination from dams on the Columbia and Snake

rivers have long been a concern. [100]PCBs, one of the main toxic contaminants in the Columbia system, are present in the lining of cooling unit tubing. Regulators and environmental groups have focused for at least a decade on spills from Columbia and Snake dams. In October, the Corps discovered up to 200 gallons of oil spilled from a generating unit at The John Day Dam. The federal government operates 12 hydropower dams on the Columbia and Snake. Spills are "a chronic problem," and the government needs to upgrade aging equipment to prevent them. [101] How could the liability be split up? Government agencies and municipalities are difficult to sue. They generally don'thave insurance policies to cover the remediation and environmental control updates.

PCBs. The Army Corps of Engineers reported in March of 2012 that they spilled 1,500 gallons of fluid at one of their Columbia River dams that contained PCBs at levels 14,000,000% greater than state and federal chronic water quality standards. PCBs are one of the most dangerous pollutants and cause cancer and harm the nervous system, theendocrine system, and reproduction. [102] Oil leaks aren’t uncommon inthe Columbia Basin, which includes dozens of aging federal dams. The complicated, decades-old structures include many components that require oil to keep them running. In 2004, the Army Corps took heat for its handling of an oil spill at The Dalles Dam that released 1,300gallons of oil into the Columbia River. [103]

In the Northwest, the force of falling water takes an unpredictable resource —rainfall and snowpack—and turns it into a reliable source ofelectricity called hydropower. [104] Renewable: Each year the hydrologic cycle brings water to our

rivers and over 370 hydroelectric projects. They generate over 30,000 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to meet the annual power needs of millions of homes.

Clean: Washington, Oregon and Idaho are three of the five states with the lowest carbon dioxide emission rates, making our carbon footprint among the smallest in the country.

Low cost: On average, living in this region means you pay 28% less for electricity than the rest of the nation.

Abundant: Hydropower produces about two-thirds of the Northwest’selectricity each year. Nine of the ten largest hydroelectric projects are on the Columbia River.

It was announced recently that, "Fish that live year-round just above Bonneville Dam are so chock-full of contaminants that health

authorities advised the public not to eat them at all. They also urgedthe public to limit the consumption of so-called resident fish in a 150-mile stretch upstream from Bonneville Dam. The threshold for a health advisory for polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs is 0.047 parts per million. The tests turned up 183 parts per million. By comparison,tests on carp in the Willamette River around Portland Harbor, another contaminated site, turned up 5 parts per million. [105] CERCLA is of great assistance when taking a Brownfield and cleaning itup for resale or development purposes. However, CERCLA has clearly notmade spills or dumping of hazardous substances in the Columbia River, for example, less likely through liability, enlisting business and commercial instincts for the bottom line in place of traditional regulation.

Oil pollution spilling and leaking from hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake River is a chronic problem. Riverkeeper discovered the long-term illegal pollution from dams, and on July 31, 2013, fileda lawsuit to hold the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) accountablefor its pollution problem. The Corps has a history of both acute spills and chronic leaks of oil and other pollution from dams including Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and Ice Harbor.

Riverkeeper’s lawsuit describes dozens of oil spills and chronic oil leaks at the dams. For example, in 2011 and 2012 the Corps reported discharging over 1,500 gallons of PCB-laden transformer oil at the IceHarbor Dam on the Snake River. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PCBs cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system, and endocrine system. The oil from the Ice Harbor spill contained PCBs at levels 14,000,000% greater than state and federal chronic water quality standards.

A conservation advocacy group filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Columbia Riverkeeper alleges various hydroelectricdams the corps operates are leaking pollutants into the Columbia and Snake rivers above state and federal limits and without proper permits. The lawsuit involves eight dams, including The Dalles Dam andthe Ice Harbor Dam, which the corps reported had a 1,500-gallon oil spill in January 2012. The lawsuit brings charges against the corps for infractions from the last seven years, as stipulated under the Clean Water Act. The corps received scrutiny in the past for oil and pollutant leaks in regional dams from The Oregonian. State officials,

including the Washington Department of Ecology, have had difficulties regulating the dams because the corps is a federal agency. [106]

The dams on the Columbia are owned by many different entities including Canadian private and government agencies, the U.S. federal government, public utilities, state, provincial, and local munipalities as well as private corporations. [107] There are many smaller tributaries that have dams that pollute in the Columbia. It would be difficult to determine individual liability for the pollution: Columbia River-BC Hydro, BoR, USACE, Douglas County PUD, Chelan

County PUD, Chelan County,Grant County PUD, Snake River-US BoR, Idaho Falls, Milner Dam, Inc, Idaho Power Co,

USACE, FortisBC Flathead River-US BoR,PPL Montana/Tribal Pend Oreille River-USACE, Seattle, Washington,BC Hydro,

FortisBC/Teck Cominco

G. Solution: Alternative Energies : What about updating the dams that can be updated and closing the dams that are beyond repair and moving to wind and solar?

Wind energyWind has quickly become one of the Northwest’s fastest growing and more important resources for generating electricity. [108] Here are some of the reasons why:1. The cost of generating electricity from wind is now competitive with other energy sources, e.g.–natural gas and coal; 2. States in the Northwest are putting a premium on generating clean, renewable energy. 3. Called renewable portfolio standards, utilities are working toward having up to 15% of the energy resources they use come from renewable sources (not counting existing hydropower resources). 4. Compared to other resources, wind farms can be built and investments recouped relatively quickly.5. With hydropower representing over 60% of the Northwest’s generatingcapacity, the Northwest is uniquely well suited to integrate wind power into its mix of power resources. In 2007, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council adopted a regional plan to integrate 6,000 megawatts of wind into the region’s power grid by the early 2020s. That’s enough electricity to power 4.5 million homes annually. 6. By the end of 2013, 6,000 megawatts will be integrated into the

system.

Wind energy does not produce hazardous waste yet is very dangerous to birds and bats of the area who are sucked up in the fans. Why couldn'tlarge mesh barriers be installed like an indoor fan. If we are going to put money in to technologies, shouldn't we plan for safety? There has to be solutions to every problem. If corporations can scam taxpayers out of 2.6 billion dollars as in Solargate, they can come upwith environmental technology that is safe for flora and fauna for just a portion of that money.

Solar EnergyThe Columbia River has been the source of hydroelectricity for more than a hundred years. There is little incentive to explore other energies that are expensive to install initially but will substantially decrease costs in the long run. There are few lobbyists that sell wind and sun power that can compete with the hydro, coal andoil industries in the United States. Once the panels and wind generators are installed, there is no further need for bills. If we could just hook our electric cars up to our personal generators there would be no need for gas stations. This is a threat to many industries. There are many government and private companies that sellhydro, oils, coal and natural gases. Solar and wind panels can be localized with one home supplying one home with power. It would eliminate purchasing from electric companies and the need for large electrical producers and therefore eliminate profits for the large corporations that benefit from energy sources that create pollution. [109]

Germany [110] has spent the past several years topping records for solar power output, other central European nations like Bulgaria and the Czech Republic have been right at their heels, vying for the top spot. The enormous amount of energy being generated in Germany comes from a vast number of solar systems installed across the country, numbering more than a million. In addition, according to Nation of Change, 8.5 million Germans are living and working in buildings harnessing sun power to offset their energy requirements.With reports of wild success from European nations adopting solar power, it brings up an important question: Where is the United States?

SolargateAmerican taxpayers were played in the United States in the name of green energy. Money set aside to develop solar energy technologies was

given to corporations that conveniently went bankrupt as early as one year later. The CEOs conveniently stepped down from their positions inthe bankruptcy. Where is all of the money? In the CEO's offshore bank accounts of course! Just imagine if $2.6 billion was actually placed in updating our dams or solar development. Not only did corporations prove their point that solar energy doesn't work so they could protectthe hydro, coal and oil industries, they legally filed bankruptcy and then regrouped under new names. Meanwhile, 2.6 billion of American taxpayer is missing legally and we have no solar technology to show for it. It seems replacing hydro and stopping the oil pollution on theColumbia River is not an option as long as corporations control the government.

Nineteen bankrupt green energy companies [111] were unable to make it even with the $2.6 billion in financial assistance and incentives the government promised. Additionally, during bankruptcy proceedings, these companies could very well be purchased by another company and bebrought back to life. Solyndra was led by Brian Harrison, a veteran of Intel Corporation. Hetook the reins on 27 July 2010. In 2009, the company posted $100 million in revenue. It was estimated that its production and sales growth could lead to a market cap between $1.76 - 2 billion. In 2010, revenues were approximately $140 million Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee before going bankrupt. Under the Solyndra restructuring plan, the government is projected to recoup 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and nothing on the remaining $385 million. The majority of Solyndra funding was provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. [112] Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison left the company, after refusing to answer questions from Congress over the solar company's disastrous bankruptcy that lefttaxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. [113]

The White House first praised Solyndra as a Recovery Act success story. [114] Shortly after, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy. The solar panel manufacturer squandered $535 million of stimulus money in a little over a year. Solyndra's George Kaiser made multiple visits to the White House in the months before the company was granted a $535 million loan from the government. And top Solyndra officials also madenumerous visits — 20 — to the White House, according to logs and reporting by The Daily Caller. The company secured the $535 million loan despite the fact that it was widely known Solyndra was in deep economic trouble and had negative cash flows since its inception.Kaiser said he did not use political influence or talk to

administration officials about a massive government loan to Solyndra. White House officials sat in on the Solyndra meetings this past year before the company went under. The White House monitored the huge loans. And before the loan guarantees were granted officials knew the company would fail.

Because of Solydra's financial collapse and the facts and circumstances involving the White House's involvement in securing the loan guarantee [115] -- not to mention the president and vice president's role in helping Solyndra - multiple investigations in the White House's ties to the company have already launched. They include but are but not limited to: The FBI; The Inspector General of the Energy Department; The Inspector General of the Treasury; and The House Energy and Commerce Oversight Subcommittee. The president, WhiteHouse staff and members of the president's administration need to comeclean. What did they know and when did they know it? Who was responsible? Who is accountable for the decision, which led to a company defaulting on a half a billion dollar U.S. government backed loan?

Companies like First Solar, SolarReserve, SunPower Corporation and Abengoa SA collectively, received billions in loans through current administration stimulus programs to build solar power plants. For example, according to The Daily Caller, Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser raised over $50,000 for President Obama in 2008. Kaiser has ties to both SolarReserve and Solyndra. Lee Bailey, a SolarReserve board member and U.S. Renewables Group investor, has donated $21,850 since 2008 to Democratic candidates, including President Obama, SenateMajority Leader Harry Reid and California Sen. Barbara Boxer. SolarReserve also paid more than $100,000 of lobbying fees to the Podesta Group. The Podesta Group is run by Tony Podesta, brother of Obama transition team head Leon Podesta. In the same vein, SunPower, spent almost $300,000 in lobbying fees with a close confidante of Harry Reid’s, as well as making hefty campaign donations to influential Democrats. [116] We have learned that solar will not be supported in the United States and corporate CEOs will continue to take advantage of any incentives personally.

Here is an act that would not allow future corporations to take loans from the goverment and purposely file bankruptcy shortly afterwards. Iam sure there are many industries that do not want it to pass. No More Solyndras Act H.R. 6213 - 112th Congress (2011–2012) Summary--

to limit further taxpayer exposure from the loan guarantee program established under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The acthas not been passed. [117]

What about biofuels and oils alternative to using petroleum in the dams?

Canola The governor or Oregon banned canola production citing GMO contamination risks. [118] The Center for Food Safety (CFS) had sued the Oregon Department of Agriculture after seed and organic vegetable farmers objected to a controversial decision to permit canola production in the Willamette Valley. In court filings, Center for FoodSafety argued that canola readily cross-pollinates with brassica specialty seed crops like broccoli, kale and cabbage; spreads plant diseases and pests to brassica vegetable and seed crops; and can contaminate pure lots of vegetable and clover seed, rendering them unsalable in international and local markets. According to Scientific American, 90 percent of canola is genetically engineered, which contaminates organic and conventional varieties, as well as cross-pollinates with weeds, creating new invasive species problems, as herbicide resistant traits spread to native weed populations.

Conola oil is so toxic that bugs and animals won't eat it. [119] It was used in the first half of the 20th century as an industrial oil. So that name had to go completely. Hence, the final Canadian product became Canola oil in 1988.The rapeseed plant was genetically modified further to withstand heavy doses of the Monsanto's weed killing herbicide Roundup. Roundup itself is not exactly safe for humans and animals, so the use of a toxin to support a genetically modified plantmakes for a dangerous combination.

The Rapeseed (Canola) plant has been grown for thousands of years for camp oil and cooking oil, and in the 1940's was employed as a lubricant for steam locomotives and ship engines (soon being replaced by diesel fuel). In addition, this semi-drying oil is used as a fuel, soap base, synthetic rubber base, and illuminant for slick, magazine-style, color pages. A member of the mustard family, Rape oil, according to some sources, is also used to produce the chemical warfare agent "Mustard Gas," as well as the more benign homeopathic remedy "Thiosinaminum." Canadian farmers were initially introduced to it as an oil crop in 1942, but not until 1957 was an edible form of its oil first extracted. However, its versatility was limited as a

commercial crop due to some inherently negative characteristics.

It contains high amounts of two undesirable substances: ERUCIC ACID, which can be harmful to humans, and GLUCOSINOLATES, whichhave the damaging effect of inhibiting livestock growth. Studies with laboratory animals were disastrous. [120] Rats developed fatty degeneration of heart, kidney, adrenals, and thyroid gland. Canola oil does not appear to be a good alternative to petroleum oils for lubrication of the dams.

Corn OilOn March 6, 1996, the EPA published in the Federal Register a notice exempting certain materials from regulation under Section 25(b) of theFederal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) This allows corn oil to be used without EPA regulation as long as the uses meet certain qualifications: they are not related to public health, efficacy data are available, and certain labeling requirements are met. [121]

Corn oil is very dangerous to wildlife. If Canadian geese eggs are covered in corn oil, they do not hatch. [122] It has been used to control Canadian geese populations. The application of food grade cornoil to eggs during the nesting season to prevent hatching is very effective. When applied to incubating eggs, it blocks the pores in theeggshells and asphyxiates the developing embryo. Nesting geese will generally continue incubation to the expected hatching date, preventing or reducing the potential for re-nesting. [122] Egg failure was 99% with corn oil, 96% with white mineral oil, and 35 % with control eggs. If corn oil were used in the dams, it would be verydamaging to wildlife.

BiofuelsIn 2007, Chevron and the United States Department of Energy's NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) started collaboration to develop and produce algae fuel, which could be converted into transportation fuels, such as jet fuel. In 2008, Chevron and Weyerhaeuser created Catchlight Energy LLC, which researches the conversion of cellulose-based biomass into biofuels. In 2013, the Catchlight plan was downsized due to competition with fossil fuel projects for funds. Again green energy was "downsized." [123]

What is Biofuel and Why do we need to know about it? Biofuels [124] are fuels derived from animal fats or plant matter. They’re usually

combined with other materials to produce an alcohol producing fuel which can be used for heating, or fuelling machinery and transport. You can get 100% biofuel or blends. Blends contain a percentage of biofuel mixed with standard petroleum products. When you see it sold by your fuel company it will have a ‘B’ preceding a number and that will indicate to you the % of the blend. For example: B100 is 100% biofuel or B20 contains 20% biofuel and so on.

When Rudolph Diesel first demonstrated the diesel engine it ran on mineral oil-a byproduct of distilled petroleum – however it was also demonstrated that it could run on ‘peanut oil’ without any modifications. So the technology was destined to run on vegetable oil from the beginning. It’s been around for about a 100 or so years but only supressed by big oil. Fortunately due to the increasing prices, education and culture shift on fossil fuels, biofuel is making a welcomed resurgence.

Bioethanol has two distinct methods of production:The first method, is produced by mixing sugar, water and yeast bacteria which then ferments and creates a small percentage of alcohol. Around 15%. The mash that is left is then distilled further until all of the yeast consumes itself and produces about 99.5% alcohol. That’s the shortened, easy to digest version.The other method is to extract the bioethanol from the materials that have lignocellulose. This is from organic materials like straw, sugar cane or corn stalks or similar organic materials. These are all waste (biomass) from harvest so the cost can be considered lower than the first method.

Biodiesel however is the transesterfication of (used) vegetable oil oranimal fat. This is the interesting part of people collecting used vegetable (cooking) oils from restaurants and creating their own fuel.The process here is mainly dealing with the fatty acids (triglycerides) in the used vege oil with something like methanol and lye. This is because, once it’s used it has become very acidic (low PH). The addtion of methanol and lye will raise the PH to ensure this new mixture bonds with the oil and forms biodiesel.

H. River Temperatures RisingThe rise in temperature during the hot summer months is also a problem. Many of the species of fish are not used to these extreme temperatures. Their eggs die and eventually they do too. They were meant for colder waters than what they are experiencing. The average

daily maximum temperature over a seven-day period must be 68° F to maintain salmon and steelhead migration. Lower Columbia River water temperatures regularly exceed this standard during low flow periods inthe summer. Temperatures in the Columbia River and tributaries are rising for many reasons. Reservoirs behind the dams absorb heat during the summer raising temperatures, and the loss of riparian vegetation decreases shade. Stormwater inputs and theeffects of climate change also affect water temperature. [125]

The Global Waterway Warming Problem According to Douglas KeyserThe EPA, the Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act and the judicial system are not on parallel tracks The Columbia River is warming up each year which is a danger to the native fish and wildlife. The government and corporations are given exemptions from environmental laws so are allowed to pollute which only increases the temperature of the river. Douglas Kysar Professor of Law at Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut, and the author ofRegulating from Nowhere: Environmental Law and the Search for Objectivity (Yale University Press, 2010) gives a good example of how the EPA and the judicial system are not working together to enforce clean air and water acts. [127] If the EPA turns a blind eye or lets the states giveexemptions on pollution that leads to waterway warming issues, the judicial system is blocked from getting involved.

According to Kysar, the US Supreme Court gave its opinion on American Electric Power v. Connecticut, a closely watched lawsuit that seeks to force some of the nation's largest electricity generators to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions because they contribute to climate change, which is a public nuisance.In its second major encounter with climate change, the court held that federal judges have no authority to order emissions reductions using nuisance law, because Congress has delegated this authority to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act. The court went out of its way to emphasize that federal common-law actions would be barred, even if the EPA decides not to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. In other words, the fact that the agency has authority under the Clean Air Act — even if it chooses not to exercise it — was enough, in the court's view, to cut the judiciary out of the equation, stating, "We see no room for a parallel track."

The problem with this is that the US system of limited and divided government is a web of interconnected nodes, not a row of parallel tracks. The courts should understand that part of judges' role is to

prod and plea with other government branches, which may be better placed to address an area of societal need, but are less disposed to try. Federal judges are not well positioned to devise rules for greenhouse-gas emissions, given the complexity of the problem and its deep interrelation with other policy issues. But unless and until a comprehensive regulatory scheme is put into operation, the threat of common-law actions should remain part of the balance of powers that will shape whatever regime does eventually emerge. That is why it was essential for the court to leave open the possibility of state common-law claims. The threat of such suits adds legal, financial and public-relations pressure to the mixture of forces that drives policy outcomes.

Although the Supreme Court's 2007 opinion referenced what "respected scientists believe" about climate change and relied on the findings ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the latest opinion stated pointedly, "The court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon-dioxide emissions and climate change."

The Solution According to Gus SpethGus Speth, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School; Founder of the WorldResources Institute; Co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Councilbelieves [127] that the best hope for a new political dynamic is a fusion of those concerned about environment, social justice, and political democracy into one progressive force. A unified agenda wouldembrace a profound commitment to social justice and environmental protection, a sustained challenge to consumerism and commercialism andthe lifestyles they offer, a healthy skepticism of growth-mania and a new look at what society should be striving to grow, a challenge to corporate dominance and a redefinition of the corporation and its goals, and a commitment to an array of major pro-democracy reforms.

The new agenda should also incorporate advocacy of human rights as a central concern. For example, though environmental justice has gained a foothold in American environmentalism, it is not yet the priority itshould be. Many established environmental issues should be seen as human rights issues—the right to water and sanitation, the right to sustainable development, the right to cultural survival, freedom from climatic disruption and ruin, freedom to live in a non-toxic environment, and the rights of future generations.

The new politics must turn major attention to the urgent need for political reforms in campaign finance, elections, the regulation of lobbying, and much more. It will take challenging the current order. Government regulation and other interference in the economy must meet the test of economic benefit. America is a land of economic opportunity and consumer sovereignty. Times change. It is now clear that American society is no longer in “good working order.” It is timeto foster ideas that challenge the “fundamental working arrangements.”

Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working GroupThere is an action plan in place from 2005 to restore the Columbia River Basin. The Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group, [128] under EPA leadership, presented the action plan to the region but manyof the strategies have not been put in place. We must all work together to increase toxic reduction actions, foster a better understanding of toxic contamination and increase public and politicalengagement and leadership in decisions that can affect the future human and ecosystem health of the Columbia River Basin.

Exposure to toxics to be reduced through the following initiatives: • Increase public understanding and political commitment to toxics reduction in the Basin • Increase toxic reduction actions • Conduct monitoring to identify sources and then work to reduce toxic contamination • Develop a regional, multi-agency research program • Develop a data management system that will allow us to share information on toxics in the Basin

To a great extent, success in reducing toxics in the Basin will dependon a commitment by all levels of government, in both the United Statesand Canada, tribal governments, nongovernmental organizations, industry groups andthe public to work together. The problems are too large, widespread, and complex to be solved by only one organization or country. It is important to increase outreach to the public including schools, business/industry groups, nonprofit organizations, and watershed councils.

Examples include: • Schools: Curriculum on toxics and green chemistry, including safer alternative products that do not require the use of toxic chemicals;

• Business/industry: Stormwater management, green chemistry, toxics use reduction and pollution prevention actions; • Nonprofits and watershed councils: Fact sheets on toxics, to encourage volunteer involvement and to increase collection programs; • Agricultural community: Technical information on best management practices; and • EPA, local governments, state and tribes, should reduce discharge of toxics through more protective water quality standards, • Continue Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships in OR, WA and ID • Coordinate with existing state and local programs to implement Integrated Pest Management on private and public lands.• Promote industry leadership on green chemistry, transition to safer alternative products, and pollution prevention • Expand erosion prevention and sediment, stormwater and runoff controls, and clean-up programs • Increase enforcement to reduce toxics and expand collection of mercury, pesticides, household hazardous waste, pharmaceuticals and electronics • Promote eco-certiication programs for consumer products that donot contain priority toxics • Increase technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to increase best management practices in English and Spanish languages• Increase opportunities throughout the Basin to exchange information on successful toxics reduction efforts• Public education about the risks of exposure to certain pollutants • Product labeling and environmental certification programs. Phase outs of certain pollutants when viable, safer alternatives are available.

The Corporate State of CongressWhen I visited my state Senator in Washington, D.C. last September, I asked her, "Do corporations make all of the decisions in Congress?" Her answer was, "Yes and that is all I have to say about that." She had a hopeless look on her face. Does that mean she is forced to accept the political donations from these corporations? They fund her in Washington, D.C. and her political campaigns. Is she really forced to take their money and voteas they want her to vote? What would happen if she said, "No, I don'twant your donations unless you incorporate environmental controls likenatural dyes instead of bleach and use on-site phytoremediation beforedumping anything in the Columbia River. You must follow clean air and water acts. I will help you get federal grants for research and development as well as implementation that will create jobs." This

time companies that receive grants will be monitored closely and will not be allowed to go bankrupt without the CEOs personally responsible for the money. The government let the solar industry take 2.6 billion in taxpayers money. It would have paid for many mill, sewage, mine anddam updates. What if senators took money from green energy sources and sustainable corporations that could work closely with corporationsthat a history of being polluters. Why can't we support industry and improve the environment instead of contaminating it? We need a new New Deal to update the old New Deal projects.

As noted, many members of Congress claim they do not have free choice on their votes. I do believe they want to know the facts and eventually sustainable corporations will become large enough to fund our political leaders and environmentally sound choices can be made. Sharing information and educating the public is important. We should send information to our members of Congress. They are involved in making decisions for the future of the Columbia River. There have beena few acts introduced but not passed that could help restore the Columbia. My hope that is continued public education and awareness will make more people and elected officials to select the environment over profits and political donations. There is money in pollution remediation and proactive sustainability.

How to Influence Congress Without Leaving HomeThe trend in effective lobbying is “grassroots” participation. [129] This is basically people expressing themselves from their home or office on matters affecting their world. Awareness is the first step in finding solutions. Share the facts of the pollution on the Columbiawith everyone you meet and ask them to contact our elected officials and the corporations that pollute to offer solutions and assistance. We must have a work together attitude for the future in a positive direction.

Contact your elected officials directly: 1. In Person-Visit their office or invite them to visit your business location2. Regular Mail3. Voice Mail -The Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-31214. Email. Include your address and Zip Code/They only read email from the state/district.Find out staff email addresses: House: firstname.lastname@mail.house.gov, Senate: firstname_lastname@senator.senate.gov5. Use the media. "Public opinion affects legislative opinion.” Write

letters to the editor, opinion/editorials. Contact talk radio/television stations.6. Use the District/State office. Local issues, Local solutions. Use the staff to help influence the Hill and K Street. 7.Use the media. "Public opinion affects legislative opinion.” Write letters to the editor, opinion/editorials.

Our leaders and Congress may not feel that they have power to help theenvironment. To make a difference, you must be the one to display power and advocacy to lead change:Influencing legislators is a function of “power”.Projecting “power” enhances advocacy.Legislators respect “power”.“Power” is not given, it is built. Building “power” comes from effective development of the client base.Showing your strength from home adds to the impression of your “power"“Remember, today's opponent may be tomorrow's ally.” Be nice to everyone and always concentrate on solutions. No finger pointing or blame. What can we do in the future to save the Columbia River? We know what hasn't worked in the past. No point discussing it.

The Power of Social Media Don't be afraid or intimidated. Get Others Involved. Be Creative. Be Visible. Be Tenacious! You have the pollution facts and the health dangers documented.Use your power to share news features, articles and any information you find concerning the Columbia River on social media. Encourage discussion.Create a greater presence by requesting grassroots action and at the same time direct people back to your web space (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc).Create dynamic relationships: Create an interactive environment aroundthe issue of pollution in the Columbia River,not just static awareness.Be a steward of the Columbia River. If you are on the side of Mother Nature, the Earth will always thank you.

I. ConclusionThe Columbia River springs from no single source and so does the pollution that is dumped in it. The river gathers from glacial drip into brawling mountain streams all along the west slope of the Rocky Mountains, from British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming. Before the

Columbia becomes the border between Washington and Oregon and winds through its cliff-guarded gorge in the Cascade Range, it has already traced Canadian rainforest and high desert.

Health issues have taken many years to be documented on the Columbia River and the hazardous waste has accumulated over time. The fish are toxic. They are at a level that is dangerous to humans. We have the facts. The pollution is a health issue. Someone must step in. There must be solutions. Exploding Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (L.U.S.T.s), heavy metals, bleach and sewage are not good for the environment. There are health advisories warning not to fish or use the river in many areas.

Each one of us must influence change environmental change on the Columbia River and on all of our waterways even in very small ways. Let's come up with some solutions by going through the sources of pollution starting with general pollution. We must take responsibilityfor pollution in our homes, properties and our rivers. We can affect local change via grass-roots media or local political action.

My sustainable gardening videos on youtube (search Yolanda Vanveen) and on my website (www.howtogardenvideos.com) have over ten million views. My hope is that people are finding alternatives to chemicals inthe garden and in their homes and will realize the importance of protecting pollinators through gardening naturally. We can create phytoremediation areas at industry locations and come up with sustainable alternatives. That means less toxins will make it to the Columbia River and rivers around the world. We can each make a difference and start at home on reducing pollution.

We can share information with our elected leaders and on social media.It is easy to get overwhelmed by the big picture but once you break itdown to individual issues, there are solutions. Each one of us can help to save the Columbia River and many other rivers in the world. The time is now. One day I hope to go swimming at Rooster Rock on a hot summer afternoon and to be able to jump in the Columbia River without dangerous hazardous waste in the water. I am prepared to go the distance to challenge the current system that allows pollution andfind solutions that benefit everyone. The first step is public awareness. Phytoremediation including planting cilantro and sunflowersin toxic areas is working. Nature has the answers.

J. Sources:

[1] http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/01/columbia_river_toxins_at_unacc.html[2] http://www.estuarypartnership.org/sites/default/files/Estuary%20Partnership%20State%20of%20the%20Estuary%20Report%202010.pdf[3] http://www.estuarypartnership.org/sites/default/files/Estuary%20Partnership%20State%20of%20the%20Estuary%20Report%202010.pdf[4] http://www.estuarypartnership.org/our-work/ecosystem-monitoring/ecosystem-condition-monitoring/toxics-monitoring[5] http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/619 [6] http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/airpage.nsf/Air+Toxics/summit+region+x/$FILE/Day1-Longview-Toxics-Study.pdf[7] http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/columbia_river_toxics_action_plan_sept2010.pdf[8] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Branch[9] http://grist.org/politics/how-little-known-judges-could-thwart-obamas-climate-plans/[10] http://learn.vermontlaw.edu/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=20852[11] http://www.lfsblaw.com/newsletters/environmental-law/the-constitutional-basis-of-federal-environmental-regulation/#sthash.ifwJZvrR.dpuf[12] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Branch[13] http://www.estuarypartnership.org/sites/default/files/Estuary%20Partnership%20State%20of%20the%20Estuary%20Report%202010.pdf [14] www.pnwa.net [15] http://beta.congress.gov/bill/111th/senate-bill/3550/actions[16] http://www.cbbulletin.com/423011.aspx[17] http://www.estuarypartnership.org/sites/default/files/Estuary%20Partnership%20State%20of%20the%20Estuary%20Report%202010.pdf[18] Schmitz, Patrick, "On the Joint Use of Liability and Safety Regulation," in the International Review of Law and Economics Bonn 2000[19] http://environment.about.com/od/waterpollution/a/canadasewage.htm[20] http://www.nwkite.com/forums/t-8662.html[21] http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/02/03/will-separation-powers-kill-climate-change-action-us[22] http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/legislatures/separation-of-powers-an-overview.aspx[23] http://theusconstitution.org/news/how-little-known-judges-could-

thwart-obama%E2%80%99s-climate-plans[24] http://www.lfsblaw.com/newsletters/environmental-law/the-constitutional-basis-of-federal-environmental-regulation/#sthash.ifwJZvrR.dpuf[25] http://columbiariverkeeper.org/top-stories/legal-victory-less-pollution-from-clark-county-runoff/[26] http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/jun/07/county-violated-clean-water-act-3-years-judge/[27] http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56484627-78/pollution-settlement-cement-epa.html.csp [28] http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2014432181_apwapulpmillspill.html?prmid=related_stories_section[29] http://learn.vermontlaw.edu/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=21138[30] http://www.timesunion.com/news/science/article/Environmentalists-sue-EPA-over-ocean-acidification-4901141.php [31] 2 - 259, Ashford, Nicholas Askounes, and Charles C. Caldart. Environmental Law, Policy, and Economics: Reclaiming the EnvironmentalAgenda. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2008. Print.[32] http://learn.vermontlaw.edu/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=20852[33] http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/10/17/who-agency-says-air-pollution-causes-lung-cancer/[34] http://grist.org/politics/how-little-known-judges-could-thwart-obamas-climate-plans/[35] http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/airpage.nsf/Air+Toxics/summit+region+x/$FILE/Day1-Longview-Toxics-Study.pdf[36] http://law.richmond.edu/centers/environmental/deq-files/10-17-1345-Crowell.pdf[37] http://www.velj.org/sovereign-immunity-and-citizen-enforcement-of-federal-environmental-laws.html[38] Nicholas A. Ashford & Charles C. Caldart, Environmental Law, Policy, and Economics, Reclaiming the Environmental Agenda, (MIT 2008). P769-770[39] http://mariansnyder.com/samples/timely.pdf[40] http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability/Performance/Governance/PoliticalProcessParticipation[41] http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/09/columbia_rivers_contaminated_r.html[42] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_the_United_Sta

tes[43] http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability/Performance/Governance/PoliticalProcessParticipation[44] Friedland v. TIC, No. 08-1042, 2009 BL 117252 (10th Cir. 2009), Bloomberg Law Report http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Seley-Oatley-InsuranceandEquityInCERCLA.pdf[45] http://www.andersonkill.com/staticbios/2574-profile.asp?id=2574[46] http://www.law360.com/articles/422610/weyerhaeuser-seeks-defense-coverage-of-130-asbestos-suits[47] http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Weyerhaeuser_Company_(WY)/Legal_Environmental_Product_Liability_Reserves[48] http://www.martenlaw.com/lawyers/jkray[49] http://www.martenlaw.com/cases-and-clients/seattle-brownfield-cost-recovery-and-insurance[50] http://www.litter.wa.gov/laws.html[51] http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/02/lawmakers_working_to_increase.html[52] http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53633935/Contaminant_Factsheets/Pharmaceuticals%20%26%20Personal%20Care%20Products%20Factsheet.htm[53] http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003116801_columbia10m.html[54] http://www.estuarypartnership.org/our-work/ecosystem-monitoring/ecosystem-condition-monitoring/toxics-monitoring[55] http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53633935/Contaminant_Factsheets/DDT%20Factsheet.htm[56] http://www.estuarypartnership.org/our-work/ecosystem-monitoring/ecosystem-condition-monitoring/toxics-monitoring[57] http://www.change.org/petitions/columbia-river-gorge-farmers-stop-using-neonicotinoid-pesticide-until-more-research-is-done[58] http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003116801_columbia10m.html[59] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insecticide,_Fungicide,_and_Rodenticide_Act[60] http://beta.congress.gov/112/crpt/hrpt43/CRPT-112hrpt43-pt2.pdf

[61] http://www.rtknet.org/db/tri/tri.php?database=tri&reptype=f&reporting_year=2011&corechem=n&rsei=y&detail=-1&dbtype=C&sortp=D&datype=T&state=WA[62] http://www.rtknet.org/db/tri/tri.php?database=tri&reptype=f&detail=-1&datype=T&state=ID&reporting_year=2011[63] http://www.estuarypartnership.org/our-work/ecosystem-monitoring/ecosystem-condition-monitoring/toxics-monitoring[64] http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003116801_columbia10m.html[65] http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/2011/351.html[66] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/monsanto-blanche-lincoln-_n_4110750.html?utm_hp_ref=tw[67] Harboring Pollution, Strategies to Clean Up U.S. Ports Natural Resources Defense Council, August 2004[68] http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/ports/ports2.pdf[69] http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9431[70] http://columbiariverkeeper.org/top-stories/legal-victory-less-pollution-from-clark-county-runoff/[71] http://www.estuarypartnership.org/sites/default/files/Estuary%20Partnership%20State%20of%20the%20Estuary%20Report%202010.pdf[72] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_Canada[73] http://www.king5.com/news/environment/Wash-officials-track-Columbia-River-sewage-spills-144461415.html[74] http://tdn.com/news/local/weyerhaeuser-reports-bleach-spilled-into-columbia-river/article_10b89ac8-4926-11e0-9f7d-001cc4c002e0.html[75] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyerhaeuser[76] http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5924[77]http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=b5068cfe-c41e-4f11-ab02-db81206b8180[78] http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00007836[79] http://mariansnyder.com/samples/timely.pdf[80] http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability/Performance/Governance/PoliticalProcessParticipation[81] http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/09/columbia_rivers_contaminated_r.html[82] http://scorecard.goodguide.com/ranking/rank-facilities.tcl?how_many=100&drop_down_name=Total+environmental+releases&fips_state_code=Entire+Un

ited+States&sic_2=26[83] http://www.ehso.com/superfund.php[84] http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/mar/06/small-oil-leak-reported-bonneville-dam/[85] http://www.law360.com/articles/327117/wash-tribes-advance-cercla-suit-against-mining-co[86] http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Teck+reports+record+earnings+record+revenues+record+production/6129624/story.html[87] http://www.nwkite.com/forums/t-8662.html[88] http://earthscience-chaminade.blogspot.com/2013/05/hanford-washington-state-most-polluted.html[89] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/hanford-nuclear-waste-could-explode_n_3001134.html[90] http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/cleanup.nsf/sites/Hanford[91] http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003116801_columbia10m.html[92] http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/09/columbia_rivers_contaminated_r.html[93] http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/2012/214.html Douglas County PUD fined $10,000 for oil spill[94] http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/tuesday/1527824-8/yakama-official-responds-to-warning-to-limit-fish[95] http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/09/columbia_rivers_contaminated_r.html[96] http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ferc/index.html[97] https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/0410022.htm[98] https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/0410022.html[99] http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/01/slow_transformer_leaks_at_ice.html[100] http://columbiariverkeeper.org/our-work/stopping-polluters/cleaning-up-toxic-oil-pollution-from-dams/[101] http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/mar/06/small-oil-leak-reported-bonneville-dam/[102] http://columbiariverkeeper.org/our-work/stopping-polluters/cleaning-up-toxic-oil-pollution-from-dams/[103] http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/mar/06/small-oil-leak-

reported-bonneville-dam/[104] http://fwee.org/nw-hydro-tours/fwee-hydro-cache-challenge/the-northwests-renewable-bounty/[105] http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/09/columbia_rivers_contaminated_r.html[106] http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/07/columbia_riverkeeper_sue_us_ar.html[107] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Columbia_dams_map.png[108] http://fwee.org/nw-hydro-tours/how-wind-turbines-generate-electricity/wind-farms-northwest-energy/[109] http://www.theforeignreport.com/2013/09/04/usa-germany-sets-solar-power-records-but-america-lags-behind/ [110] http://www.earthzine.org/2013/08/22/solar-power-remains-popular-in-germany-despite-cost/[111] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/05/green-graveyard-19-taxpayer-funded-failures/[112] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison left the company, after refusing to answer questions from Congress over the solar [113] http://www.businessinsider.com/solargate-solyndra-ceo-resigns-amid-fraud-investigation-2011-10#ixzz2hvSscIc4[114] http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/the-solyndra-scam-sean-hannity-and-michelle-malkin-discuss-obamas-half-trillion-dollar-green-scandal-video/[115] http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/16/solyndra-and-white-house-solargate-didnt-happen-by-accident/[116] http://frontpagemag.com/2011/rich-trzupek/solargate-spreads/ [117] http://maplight.org/us-congress/bill/112-hr-6213/1100337/contributions-by-vote [118] http://ecowatch.com/2013/08/19/oregon-governor-bans-canola-gmo-risks/[119] http://www.naturalnews.com/029516_canola_oil_fraud.html[120] http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/canola.htm[121] http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=vpc18[122] http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/egg_destruction_brochure.pdf [123] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_Corporation[124] http://www.fanateco.com/what-is-biofuel-and-why-do-we-need-to-know-about-it

[125] http://www.estuarypartnership.org/sites/default/files/Estuary%20Partnership%20State%20of%20the%20Estuary%20Report%202010.pdf[126] http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110621/full/474421a.html[127] http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/619 [128] http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/columbia_river_toxics_action_plan_sept2010.pdf[129] http://www.natoa.org/policy-advocacy/Influence2011Presentation.pdf

Photographs and Images: (Could not upload w/final paper, please see links)Ansel Adams Meme: Google.comColumbia River http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Columbia_River_Gorge_from_Mary_Hill.jpgMap of the Columbia River http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Columbiarivermap.pngHippy Pictures http://www.powells.com/blog/on-oregon/the-vortex-baptism-by-matt-love/ Gus Speth http://www.onearth.org/files/onearth/11fal_dispatches_02_feature.jpgCelilo Falls http://www.oregonlink.com/flyfishing/historicphotos/images/celilofalls.gifCanola http://www.soyatech.com/UserFiles/canola_field.jpgCanada Flag http://real-agenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Canada-US-Flag-730x244-685x244.jpgBee http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/5/3/1367580217330/Bee-collecting-pollen-010.jpgPCBs http://images.chemicallabels.com/img/lg/L/Contains-PCBs-Drum-Warning-Label-LB-W530-V100.gif Rain garden http://blog.dawngriffin.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/rg_storage_l.jpgSewage

http://waterdesalinationplants.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/raw-sewage.jpgMills: http://www.brockgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Slider_Paper_Mill_1.jpgTeck Resources Mine http://epcmworld.com/wp-content/uploads/Trail-BC-620x340.jpgHanford http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/FFTF_Hanford.jpgBonneville Dam with Rainbow http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/04/89/26/bonneville-dam-spillway.jpgThe dams on the Columbia River and tributaries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Columbia_dams_map.pngWind turbines http://beautifulhoodriver.com/images/20101004043930__mg_9482_10-5-10.jpgDouglas Kysar Photo http://www.law.yale.edu/images/News_And_Events/KysarESPARConf2012.jpgGus Speth Photo: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/9/28/1348833112004/50-months-Gus-Speth.jpgWomen of Congress. http://obrag.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/women-in-congress.jpgPonytail Falls http://nice-cool-pics.com/data/media/21/ponytail_falls__columbia_river_gorge__oregon.jpg

###