Sorry, what does TVA stand for?
Another TVA Spill, In Alabama
Started by
Guest_fundulus_*
, Jan 09 2009 04:56 PM
53 replies to this topic
#24
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2009 - 08:43 PM
The TVA is a large quasi-governmental corporation founded in the 1930s to bring power to much of the American southeast, specifically along the Tennessee River. This area lagged in getting wired because of mountainous terrain and poverty at the time. This was a major part of the Roosevelt administration's efforts to end the Depression by building infrastructure and bringing essential services to a large, deprived population. TVA today is a well-heeled and well-connected organization under loose federal control, that has damned many rivers to generate electricity but has certainly benefited the region in many ways. The region served by TVA is also that of the highest aquatic biodiversity in North America, the major reason many of us on the list are so sensitive about TVA's activities and perceived shortcomings. They've certainly outdone themselves this time with the Emory River fly ash release.Sorry, what does TVA stand for?
#27
Guest_NZstella_*
Guest_NZstella_*
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2009 - 11:32 PM
Thanks Fundulus. I am enjoying learning about freshwater issues in other countries.
Hmm... 'enjoying' might be the wrong word..... %$#@^$@^$ pollution and habitat destruction!!!
Here power generation used to be a State-Owned Enterprise but got privatised and sold off not so long ago. Now there are a bunch of power companies doing different things. I struggle with which one to go with ethically.
Genesis owns an enormous coal-fired generator and I think there are other nasty ones like that.
Meridian is doing some awesome stuff with windfarms (the windiest spot in the world with the most productive turbines is in my district!). I love windfarms but at the same time they are doing a lot of hydroelectric stuff. The major one they are trying to do at the moment is the Mokihinui River, which will drown a huge amount of virgin native bush and habitat for some rather rare birds.
I am with the latter because of their windfarms and not doing coal, but they annoy me on the hydro thing.
Related to our native fish, most of our species have a marine juvenile stage (known as diadromy), of course the dams end this. Apparently dams have excluded our threatened native longfin eel from 50% of its native range!
Hmm... 'enjoying' might be the wrong word..... %$#@^$@^$ pollution and habitat destruction!!!
Here power generation used to be a State-Owned Enterprise but got privatised and sold off not so long ago. Now there are a bunch of power companies doing different things. I struggle with which one to go with ethically.
Genesis owns an enormous coal-fired generator and I think there are other nasty ones like that.
Meridian is doing some awesome stuff with windfarms (the windiest spot in the world with the most productive turbines is in my district!). I love windfarms but at the same time they are doing a lot of hydroelectric stuff. The major one they are trying to do at the moment is the Mokihinui River, which will drown a huge amount of virgin native bush and habitat for some rather rare birds.
I am with the latter because of their windfarms and not doing coal, but they annoy me on the hydro thing.
Related to our native fish, most of our species have a marine juvenile stage (known as diadromy), of course the dams end this. Apparently dams have excluded our threatened native longfin eel from 50% of its native range!
#28
Guest_benmor78_*
Guest_benmor78_*
-
- Guests
Posted 13 January 2009 - 11:35 PM
As I was saying earlier about enforcing environmental standards by tort, a number of things have changed in the last twenty years. Most importantly, though, in a legal context, someone with standing would have to file suit... i.e., someone whose property rights were damaged by a spill or whatever. Environmental groups could easily meet the standing requirements... buy a tract of land on ecologically significant waterways with riparian rights. In that instance, they would always have standing to file suit in any instance where a spill happened upstream of the tract.
I think there are some serious flaws with approaching conservation by fiat through agency which can be amended through appropriate uses of private property. For instance, the way the ESA handles private landowners is absolutely ridiculous. If we were serious about conservation, we would enact measures that actually function in the real world. I don't know, bounties, for instance, on threatened or endangered species. Have a threatened species on your property, the government pays your per occurence, and thus incentivizing cultivation of favorable habitat.
I think there are some serious flaws with approaching conservation by fiat through agency which can be amended through appropriate uses of private property. For instance, the way the ESA handles private landowners is absolutely ridiculous. If we were serious about conservation, we would enact measures that actually function in the real world. I don't know, bounties, for instance, on threatened or endangered species. Have a threatened species on your property, the government pays your per occurence, and thus incentivizing cultivation of favorable habitat.
#29
Guest_drewish_*
Guest_drewish_*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 January 2009 - 12:31 AM
If we were serious about conservation, we would enact measures that actually function in the real world. I don't know, bounties, for instance, on threatened or endangered species. Have a threatened species on your property, the government pays your per occurence, and thus incentivizing cultivation of favorable habitat.
Something like this?
Land Incentive Program - http://www.dgif.virg...ov/habitat/lip/
#30
Guest_benmor78_*
Guest_benmor78_*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 January 2009 - 12:06 PM
Something like this?
Land Incentive Program - http://www.dgif.virg...ov/habitat/lip/
I"m getting page not found.
#31
Guest_ashtonmj_*
Guest_ashtonmj_*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 January 2009 - 12:32 PM
Worked just fine for me.
I was just at a place a few months ago where a land owner recieved a LIP grant for the creation of bog turtle habitat on his property. He was absolutely extatic to have a big group of volunteers and biologists come out to survey for them. I could actually think of quite a few of these examples where landowners are paid a majority or more of the cost for water supply systems for cattle, exclusion fencing, upland management, etc. I know a few years ago Tennessee actually hired someone whose sole purpose was to go out, promote the LIP program, and secure grants for land owners.
I was just at a place a few months ago where a land owner recieved a LIP grant for the creation of bog turtle habitat on his property. He was absolutely extatic to have a big group of volunteers and biologists come out to survey for them. I could actually think of quite a few of these examples where landowners are paid a majority or more of the cost for water supply systems for cattle, exclusion fencing, upland management, etc. I know a few years ago Tennessee actually hired someone whose sole purpose was to go out, promote the LIP program, and secure grants for land owners.
#32
Guest_farmertodd_*
Guest_farmertodd_*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 January 2009 - 01:38 PM
a number of things have changed in the last twenty years.
Agreed. And mainly for the better. However...
i.e., someone whose property rights were damaged by a spill or whatever.
In that instance, they would always have standing to file suit in any instance where a spill happened upstream of the tract.
Hows about we do something BEFORE a spill, rather than after?
For instance, the way the ESA handles private landowners is absolutely ridiculous.
Agreed. That's why the agencies and NGO's are changing to address the inadequecies of the legislation, such as the programs Drew and Matt have mentioned. There are other such programs showing a great amount of cooperation and success also in Arkansas, Missouri and New Mexico, probably other places that I'm not familiar with.
If we were serious about conservation, we would enact measures that actually function in the real world.
The problem is that it only takes one entity to not be serious about conservation, and everyone else gets to suck it up. On top of that, individuals are too busy dealing with LIFE, regardless if they're serious about conservation or not. They don't have time and finances to go after large entities that can weather short term losses by back billing the costs to us all.
I realize it's not going to be fixed over night, the solution may not be the most economical, but something has to start to change somewhere so we can continue with the momentum that's been won in the last 20 years, as you mentioned. As I said earlier, I'm tired of the not starting part
So did anyone hear about the coal barge that flipped its load in the Ohio last week? A friend at USFW told me about. It wasn't to be released in the press because of all the heat on TVA for their 3 accidents (did anyone catch the bit on the Ocoee silt slide?). They were going to take care of it all nice and quiet. Bad week for rivers, I guess. Good thing they flow somewhere else, huh?
Todd
#34
Guest_farmertodd_*
Guest_farmertodd_*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 January 2009 - 02:29 PM
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I think this flyer and program addresses what you're getting at. See if you agree.
http://www.fws.gov/e.../landowners.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/hcp/
Todd
http://www.fws.gov/e.../landowners.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/hcp/
Todd
#35
Guest_benmor78_*
Guest_benmor78_*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 January 2009 - 05:44 PM
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I think this flyer and program addresses what you're getting at. See if you agree.
http://www.fws.gov/e.../landowners.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/hcp/
Todd
I'm not sure, because after a brief perusal I'm not clear from those brochures what the feds are requiring the landowner to do.
#37
Guest_farmertodd_*
Guest_farmertodd_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 January 2009 - 10:43 AM
I'm not sure, because after a brief perusal I'm not clear from those brochures what the feds are requiring the landowner to do.
They're asking for cooperation and providing incentives and incidental death permits so that the landowners can proceed in a way that continues the success of the species without having to modify what use they were making of their property, with the organisms requirements met. If after assessment they need to change or stop doing something, they're compensated for the loss of that activity.
Todd
#38
Guest_benmor78_*
Guest_benmor78_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 January 2009 - 11:32 AM
They're asking for cooperation and providing incentives and incidental death permits so that the landowners can proceed in a way that continues the success of the species without having to modify what use they were making of their property, with the organisms requirements met. If after assessment they need to change or stop doing something, they're compensated for the loss of that activity.
Todd
Incidental death permits. Ugh. The idea that you have to get a permit for an incidental death for something living on your property is ridiculous.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
