Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Website now appears parked at the moment.
http://www.rcciws.com/
http://whois.domaintools.com/rcciws.com
ICANN Registrar:GODADDY.COM, INC.
Created:2008-01-09
Expires:2012-01-09
Updated:2011-01-10
Must have the stock confused with another one...
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/RCCH/quote
fun
For those recently joining the discussion…
The brochure can be found in the Ibox. At the bottom of the document in small print is the following language. “GCC has been compensated by the company in a note for fifty thousand U.S. dollars for creating, updating and disseminating this report. GCC, its affiliates, any officer, director or stockholder or any member of their families may from time to time purchase or sell any of the above-mentioned or related securities”
The saved document file can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29144887/RCCHoldings
I find it interesting that the name on the document Is RCC Holdings Corp .
fun
LOL perhaps.
"Remember that this is a legal document it has to be precise. A single typo or error can get it thrown out of court."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58569095
Are you suggesting the whole case should be thrown out now based upon a technicality
that the wrong company was named?
Note, the company by the name of RCC Holdings Corp. with stock symbol RCCH.pk
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/RCCH/quote
Has somehow been mixed up with a company known as
"RCC Holding, Inc. with stock symbol "RCCH.""
from page 8, item g. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp21798.pdf
Is it Corp or Inc?
fun
I have been following the developments of a company listed on the same page.
fun
"It is with much gratitude and excitement that we acknowledge the collaboration of our Washington DC law firm, our law firms located across the United States, and the Government agencies that have supported our legal position and success."
http://www.rccholdings.com/
Q. im confused, you used to mod here? so are you for or against oncp?
A. Being a moderator means that one needs to be fair. I do however think that if one has nothing nice to say then, ......
Q. you dont post much here. whatever is going on, i like the sudden recent buying of oncp.
A. Only wishing those who still follow ONCP the best of luck.
Take care.
fun
Must be the banks fault that the robber stole the money and spent it already.
January 6, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. GENDARME CAPITAL CORPORATION, IAN LAMPHERE, EZAT RAHIMI, and CASSANDRA ARMENTO, Defendants.
Civil Action No.: 2:11-cv-00053-FCD-KJN
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp21798.pdf
From Page 8
"Item h. 141 Capital, Inc. ("ONCP"): From April 2009 to May 2010, Gendarme acquired ONCP shares from the issuer. From April 2009 to February 2010, Gendarme sold more than 710 million of these ONCP shares for almost $340,000."
Baida Finance (Group) Co. Ltd. established in 1991 is a professional international finance cpation registered in both the United States Hong Kong. Mr. Ngai Keong is the founder the controlling shareholder of the company. Based on her many years' experience in the business of feign exchange industrial investment Baid...
http://www.baida-finance.com/Eindex.aspx
Yep. I used a photo editor to illustrate just how important it is to conduct dd and not to believe everything one reads.
Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura, Season 2 Episode 6 (Water Conspiracy) - PT 1 of 4
Check again next year, I'm sure it will change.
Actually, I'm starting to wonder if the mystery author can be found here: http://www.engrish.com/
RCC Holdings "official" office is now in China?
Change of address on June 1, 2010
http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/ViewImage.do?masterFileId=20031077454&fileId=20101314108
Still long, but trying to figure out what is going on now.
In prior PR's Gene's title was President. This last PR had
the title, "The CEO of RCC Holdings Corp Looks Forward to 2011."
Who is the CEO? Are we sure Gene wrote that last PR?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who else would it be? He's the top man at RCCH isnt he? If it didnt come from him, than who would it be?
Arent you pro RCCH still Fun?
Are you sure the last pr was written by Gene?
Huh?
NOTICE:
Please note the Official RCC International Wastewater Systems a.k.a International Water Solutions website is located at this URL: iws.rccholdings.com This is the only approved IWS website
http://iws.rccholdings.com/
The old website
http://www.rcciws.com/
RCC International Wastewater Systems
Whois: http://www.rcciws.com/
http://whois.domaintools.com/rcciws.com
ICANN Registrar:GODADDY.COM, INC.
Created:2008-01-09
Expires:2011-01-09Updated:2010-01-07
Anyone care to speculate
1. Who is the CEO?
2. Why was Beijing, China shown?
http://www.rccholdings.com/
fun
------------------------------------------------------
funmaxus Friday, December 24, 2010 1:47:15 PM
Re: EarnestDD
Well unless there is an update on the RCCH website, I'm going with #2.
fun
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58111269
------------------------------------------------------
EarnestDD Friday, December 24, 2010 1:32:29 PM
Re: funmaxus
One of two possibilities:
1. Either Gene doesn't know his position at RCCH; or
2. "release" was not the product of RCCH.
jmo
According to pink sheets:
Company Officers
Claude Smith, President
Ngai Keong, CFO
Company Directors
Gene Newton Chairman
------------------------------------------------------
RCC Holdings Corp Moving Forward
http://pressexposure.com/RCC_Holdings_Corp_Moving_Forward-218778.html
Beijing, China (PressExposure) December 23, 2010 -- President Gene Newton today announced a Shareholder Update:
Company President, Gene Newton, said, “We wish to inform our shareholders and the public that the company intends to bring to justice those individuals who would take our IWS technology. We are moving to book contracts for IWS and recover those contracts that were interfered with. Further, we intend to look for other acquisitions and reactivate our Chinese subsidiaries, if possible,” said Mr. Newton.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58111113
The below Q&A link may be worth taking a look at to review some concerns held by other individuals. Note, information found on the discussion thread may not be entirely accurate, but worth the read.
Q&A for S. 510:
http://www.govtrack.us/users/questions.xpd?topic=bill:s111-510
SANTALEAKS - From the Wikileaks Discussion Board
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58117220
=================================================================
S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510
Summary: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510&tab=summary
Full Text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-510
Well unless there is an update on the RCCH website, I'm going with #2.
fun
According to pink sheets:
Company Officers
Claude Smith President
Ngai Keong CFO
Company Directors
Gene Newton Chairman
-------------------------------------
RCC Holdings Corp Moving Forward
http://pressexposure.com/RCC_Holdings_Corp_Moving_Forward-218778.html
Beijing, China (PressExposure) December 23, 2010 -- President Gene Newton today announced a Shareholder Update:
Company President, Gene Newton, said, “We wish to inform our shareholders and the public that the company intends to bring to justice those individuals who would take our IWS technology. We are moving to book contracts for IWS and recover those contracts that were interfered with. Further, we intend to look for other acquisitions and reactivate our Chinese subsidiaries, if possible,” said Mr. Newton.
This release includes forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that involve risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, the impact of competitive products, the ability to meet customer demand, the ability to manage growth, acquisitions of technology, equipment, or human resources, the effect of economic and business conditions, and the ability to attract and retain skilled personnel. The Company is not obligated to revise or update any forward-looking statements in order to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after the date of this release.
About RCC Holdings, Corp
http://www.rccholdings.com/
Press Release Source: http://PressExposure.com/PR/RCC_Holdings,_Corp.html
Press Release Submitted On: December 23 09:27:03, 2010
------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone have a secret decoder ring to help translate what is going on now?
fun
So Long to Ya, 2010
JibJab Year in Review
(Not quite as funny as prior year end reviews and yes there is a small mention of wikileaks. For some reason puppets were used this year. Enjoy.)
http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/so_long_to_ya_2010
Naked isn't a bad word. C'mon do the dd and check it out.
fun
High levels of chromium found in Chicago-area tap water
Advocacy group reports level of cancer-causing metal is three times as high as considered safe under a California proposal
By Michael Hawthorne, Tribune reporter
1:05 p.m. CST, December 20, 2010
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-chromium-water-contamination-20101220,0,3866793.story
The cancer-causing metal made infamous by the movie "Erin Brockovich" is turning up in tap water from Chicago and more than two dozen other cities, according to a new study that urges federal regulators to adopt tougher standards.
Even though scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Toxicology Program have linked the ingestion of hexavalent chromium to cancer, the EPA doesn't require Chicago or other cities to test for the toxic metal. Nor does the EPA limit the dangerous form of chromium in drinking water.
To take a snapshot of what is flowing through taps across the nation, the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based research and advocacy organization, hired an independent laboratory that found the metal in treated drinking water from 31 cities. The amount in Lake Michigan water pumped to 7 million people in Chicago and its suburbs was 0.18 parts per billion, three times higher than a safety limit California officials proposed last year.
A handful of other cities were significantly above the proposed California limit, including Norman, Okla.; Honolulu; Riverside, Calif.; and Madison, Wis., according to a report to be released Monday. Levels in Milwaukee water were the same as in Chicago.
In other major cities, hexavalent chromium levels ranged from 0.20 parts per billion in Los Angeles and Atlanta to 0.18 in New York and 0.03 in Boston.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Join environment reporter Michael Hawthorne for livechat on hexavalent chromium at noon on Dec. 22, online at Trib Nation.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/tribnation/2010/12/wednesday-livechat-on-the-erin-brockovich-metal-hexavalent-chromium-found-in-chicago-area-water.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
(Read more below chart)
The new findings could pose another challenge for utilities that are detecting dozens of unregulated substances in treated drinking water, including pharmaceutical drugs and industrial chemicals that can pass unfiltered through conventional treatment methods. Chromium can be found naturally in the environment but also is released by industry into waterways.
While the potential health threats of many pollutants are still being studied, researchers say there is a clear risk of stomach cancer from drinking water contaminated with hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium-6.
"For years, scientists assumed this wasn't a problem because acids in our stomachs can convert chromium-6 into chromium-3, an essential nutrient," said Rebecca Sutton, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group. "Newer science is showing our stomachs can't take care of everything, which means the dangerous form of chromium is getting into our bodies and can cause damage."
Studies outlining the dangers of chromium-contaminated water add to long-standing concerns about inhaling metallic vapors, in particular by workers at chrome plating factories. Yet Chicago, like most other cities, does not routinely test for the dangerous form of the metal. (Bottled water, which often comes from municipal tap water supplies, wasn't tested in the study released Monday.)
The Chicago Department of Water Management said tap water is still safe. "Our water ... meets or exceeds all standards set by the EPA," the department said in a prepared statement.
Lon Couillard, water quality manager in Milwaukee, said more study is needed to determine the sources of chromium. He suggested that in some cases it could be coming from chrome-plated plumbing fixtures, not passing through municipal treatment plants.
"They're trying to scare people," Couillard said of the environmental group that found hexavalent chromium in his city's tap water.
The source of chromium in Chicago drinking water is unclear, though federal records show that some of the nation's biggest industrial sources are four steel mills in northwest Indiana that discharge wastewater into the city's source of drinking water.
Last year alone, records show, the U.S. Steel and Arcelor Mittal mills dumped a combined 3,100 pounds of chromium into Lake Michigan and its tributaries, less than 9 miles away from Chicago's water-intake crib off 68th Street. (The federal Toxics Release Inventory doesn't require industry to report specific types of the metal, but chromium-6 and chromium-3 convert into the other form and back in the environment.)
Indiana officials once sought to relax limits on chromium discharges from U.S. Steel's massive Gary Works, the largest industrial polluter on the Great Lakes. State officials backed down and imposed more stringent restrictions after Tribune reporting prompted federal regulators in 2007 to block a new water permit for the steel mill.
Industry has fought for years to block tougher federal and state limits on chromium, which has contaminated drinking water supplies across the country. The award-winning movie "Erin Brockovich" dramatizes one of the most high-profile cases: a miles-long plume of hexavalent chromium dumped by a utility in rural Hinkley, Calif., that led to a $333 million legal settlement over illnesses and cancers.
California often sets environmental policies that later are adopted nationwide. As the scope of the chromium problem has become more apparent, drinking-water utilities that could be forced to improve treatment methods have joined companies that discharge the metal into waterways in opposing regulations.
Attorneys for both interest groups delayed California's proposed safety limit by requesting an independent review of the science behind it. They also are questioning peer-reviewed findings by California and federal scientists by commissioning their own research.
" Honeywell is committed to protecting health and the environment," a lawyer for the aerospace conglomerate wrote in a November 2009 letter to California officials. "We also believe that decisions about chemical risks and cleanup goals must be based on sound science."
Since then, four of the five reviewers who took another look at California's proposal supported the state's conclusions. One reviewer, Mitchell Cohen of the New York University School of Medicine, said the chromium limit "should be accepted as one based upon sound scientific knowledge, methods and practices."
Environmental officials in New Jersey also have weighed in backing the proposed California limit. And in September, the U.S. EPA published a draft review that found hexavalent chromium in drinking water is "likely to be carcinogenic in humans." The EPA's report could be the first step toward a national standard.
Outside of California, several drinking water officials said they were not aware of the ongoing debate.
"This is new territory for us," said Tom Heikkinen, general manager of the water utility in Madison, where the amount of hexavalent chromium was 1.58 parts per billion, more than 26 times higher than the proposed California safety limit. "We're going to be following this closely to see what the scientists and regulators say."
mhawthorne@tribune.com
Get the Chicago Tribune delivered to your home for only $1 a week >
Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune
10 Cities Running Out Of Water
10. Orlando, Fl
9. Atlanta, GA
8. Tucson, AZ
7. Las Vegas, NV
6. Fort Worth, TX
5. San Francisco Bay Area, CA
4. San Antonio, Texas
3. Phoenix, AZ
2. Houston, TX
1. Los Angeles, CA
U.S. Cities Running Out of Water (WSJ) – the water problem is worse than most people realize, particularly in several large cities which are occasionally low on water now and almost certainly face shortfalls in a few years.
http://www.ruralwater.org/toptenwsj.pdf
==============
The Ten Biggest American Cities That Are Running Out Of Water
Posted: October 29, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Some parts of the United States have begun to run low on water. That is probably not much of a
surprise to people who live in the arid parts of America that have had water shortages for decades
or even centuries. No one who has been to the Badlands in South Dakota would expect to be able
to grow crops there.
The water problem is worse than most people realize, particularly in several large cities which are
occasionally low on water now and almost certainly face shortfalls in a few years. This is
particularly true if the change in global weather patterns substantially alters rainfall amounts in
some areas of the US.
24/7 Wall St. looked at an October, 2010 report on water risk by environmental research and
sustainability group, Ceres. We also considered a comprehensive July, 2010 report from the
National Resources Defense Council which mapped areas at high risk of water shortage conflict.
24/7 Wall St also did its own analysis of water supply and consumption in America’s largest
cities, and focused on the thirty largest metropolitan areas. One goal was to identify potential
conflicts in regions which might have disputed rights over large supplies of water and the battles
that could arise from these disputes. And, 24/7 Wall St. examined geographic areas which have
already been plagued by drought and water shortages off and on.
The analysis allowed us to choose ten cities which are likely to face severe shortages in the
relatively near-term future. Some of these are likely to be obvious to the reader. The area around
Los Angeles was once too dry to sustain the population of a huge city. But, infrastructure was
built that allowed water to be pumped in from east of the region. Las Vegas had similar problems.
It was part of a great desert until Lake Meade was created by the Hoover dam built on the
Colorado River.
Severe droughts that could affect large cities are first a human problem. The competition for
water could make life in some of America’s largest cities nearly unbearable for residents. A
number of industries rely on regular access to water. Some people would be out of work if these
industries had poor prospects for continued operation. The other important trouble that very low
water supplies creates is that cities have sold bonds based on their needs for infrastructure to
move, clean, and supply water. Credit ratings agencies may not have taken drought issues into
account at the level that they should. Extreme disruptions of the water supply of any city would
have severe financial consequences.
The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report takes the following into account when
assessing the likelihood of water shortages: “The risk to water sustainability is based on the
following criteria: (1) projected water demand as a share of available precipitation; (2)
groundwater use as a share of projected available precipitation; (3) susceptibility to drought; (4)
projected increase in freshwater withdrawals; and (5) projected increase in summer water deficit.”
The ten cities on this list are the ones with the most acute exposure to problems which could
cause large imbalances of water supply and demand. There are a number of metropolitan areas
which could face similar problems but their risks are not quite as high. The water problem for US
cities is, although it may not be evident, one of the largest issues that faces urban areas over the
next ten years.
These are the ten largest cities by population that have the greatest chance of running out of
water.
10. Orlando, FL
Major Water Supply: Floridan Aquifer
Population (U.S. rank): 235,860 (80th)
Population Growth Rate: 26.8% since 2000
Average annual rainfall: 48.35 in.
North-central Florida, especially Orange County where Orlando is located, has experienced
frequent droughts in the last decade. As a consequence, the area has implemented extreme
conservation measures, including aggressive water-rationing policies and lawn-watering
bans. After the drought and resulting wildfires subsided, however, Orlando faced another
problem. As of 2013, Orlando will no longer be able to increase the rate at which it uses water
from the Floridan aquifer, the city’s main source of fresh water supply. This presents a major
problem for city officials: how does the limited water supply continue to meet demand for one of
the fastest-growing regions in the state? It is estimated that water usage in the Orlando area will
increase from 526 million gallons per day from 1995 to 866 million in 2020. On the city website,
the mayor is quoted, saying: “Orlando Utilities Commission water usage trends show Orlando
water demand exceeding the supply by approximately 2014 if no action is taken.” There are plans
in the works to tap the St. John’s River for irrigation, and eventually drinking water. Many,
however, are skeptical that even this will be enough to meet Orlando’s growing demand.
9. Atlanta, GA
Major Water Supply: Lake Lanier, GA
Population (U.S. rank): 540,922 (33rd)
Population Growth Rate: 29.9% since 2009
Average annual rainfall: 50.2 in.
Between 2007 and 2008, the southeast experienced a major drought, which depleted the region’s
major water supplies. No city in the south suffered more than Atlanta, the second-fastest-growing
metropolitan area in the last eight years. The crisis began when the Army Corps of Engineers
released more than 20 billion gallons of water from Lake Lanier, the city’s primary source of
water. Continued poor rainfall brought the lake to its lowest recorded levels. At one point, city
officials reported there was only three months left of stored fresh water to supply Atlanta. The
drought eventually subsided and consistent rain returned the lake to less dangerous levels.
However, Atlanta may continue to be at risk, as the lake is the site of an ongoing legal conflict
between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, all of which rely on the reservoir for fresh water. Last
year, a federal judge declared Atlanta’s withdrawals from the lake illegal, and if the ruling stands,
the city will lose roughly 40% of its water supply by 2012.
8. Tucson, AZ
Major Water Supply: local ground water
Population (U.S. rank): 543,000 (32nd)
Population Growth Rate: 20% since 2000
Average Annual Rainfall: 12.17 in.
The NRDC study rates Pima County, Arizona, where Tucson is located, as an area with extreme
risk of water shortage. The city is in the Sonoran desert, an extremely arid region which receives
less than 12 inches of rainfall each year. Currently, the Tucson region uses about 350,000 acrefeet
of water per year. At this rate, Tucson’s groundwater supply, which now provides the
majority of the city’s water, has a very limited life span. In addition to this, the city is currently
bringing in 314,000 acre-feet per year from the Colorado River under the Central Arizona Project.
However, Tucson is growing rapidly, adding more than 20,000 people since 2000. This,
combined with the political uncertainty of the Central Arizona Project allocation, places Tucson
at extreme risk for future water shortages.
7. Las Vegas, NV
Major Water Supply: Lake Mead/Colorado River
Population (U.S. rank): 567,000 (28th)
Population Growth Rate: 18.6% since 2000
Average Annual Rainfall: 4.5 in.
In the middle of the Mojave Desert, with an annual precipitation rate of only 10 cm, Las Vegas
must rely on distant sources for its fresh water. The city’s main source is Lake Mead, which
supplies 85% of the water used in the Las Vegas Valley. Unfortunately, the lake is 59% empty
and is approaching its first water shortage ever. In addition to Las Vegas, it would affect other
areas of Nevada and Arizona. Moreover, it could potentially stop the Hoover dam from
producing electricity – as soon as 2013. This would affect many big California cities that receive
hydro-electric power through the dam.
6. Fort Worth, TX
Major Water Supply: multiple
Population (U.S. rank): 727,577 (17th)
Population Growth Rate: 36.1% since 2000
Average annual rainfall: 34.01 inches
As Fort Worth continues to grow (its population is expected to hit 4.3 million by 2060), the
amount of water demand has continued to exceed the amount of water available through local
supply. As a result, the city, which is in Tarrant County, must rely on storage water, making the
system much more exposed to the worst effects of prolonged drought. To remedy this problem,
the Tarrant Regional Water District is trying to bring in more water from Oklahoma’s Red River.
Oklahoma, wishing to preserve its water sources, limits interstate water sales. Fort Worth has
countered with a lawsuit, which is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
5. San Francisco Bay Area, CA
Major Water Supply: various, including Lake Hetch Hetchy
Population (U.S. rank): San Francisco: 815,359 (12th), Oakland: 409,189 (44th), San Jose:
964,695 (10th)
Population Growth Rate: 20% since 2000
Average annual rainfall: 20.4 in.
Much like the southeast in the early 2000’s, California has experienced intermittent droughts that
have brought the area’s water supply to the brink of disaster. After several years of drought
between 2005 and 2007, the Bay Area, which represents more that 3.7 million people, was forced
to adopt aggressive water usage restrictions. Legal battles ensued between San Francisco area
legislators and those in the Sacramento delta who believed they deserved bay area water from
major sources, like Lake Hetch Hetchy. According to the NRDC and CERES studies, the San
Francisco Bay area, including adjacent cities San Jose and Oakland, are “very likely” to
experience a severe crisis as a result of water shortage within the next 50 years.
4. San Antonio, Texas
Major Water Supply: various ground water sources
Population (U.S. rank): 1,373,668 (7th)
Population Growth Rate: 20% since 2000
Average annual rainfall: 30.24 in.
Bexar County, Texas, where San Antonio is located, possesses the highest rating given by the
Natural Resources Defense Council with regards to water sustainability. This means that the area
is at extremely high risk for water demand exceeding supply by 2050 if no major systematic
changes are made. As most surface water from lakes and rivers in Texas have already been
claimed by varying districts across Texas, most counties are now looking at groundwater to meet
future demand. San Antonio has attempted to secure water from a number of Texas groundwater
conservation districts. Due to legal obstacles, this has proven to be difficult. Today, many
experts, including members of the Texas Water Development Board, recommend undertaking a
major project to ensure future sustainability, such as a desalination plant on the Gulf Coast.
3. Phoenix, AZ
Major Water Supply: Colorado River Basin
Population (U.S. rank): 1,593,659 (5th)
Population Growth Rate: 21.2% since 2000
Average annual rainfall: 8.3 in.
Like many of the other western cities on this list, Phoenix is extremely dependent on water
imported from the Colorado River. This is because nearly half of the water the city’s residents use
comes from this significant source. As the Colorado River Basin enters the eleventh year of its
drought, the city’s reliance on the river may soon become a serious problem. If the drought
continues, water deliveries to Arizona could potentially be cut back. To keep up a sufficient water
supply, Phoenix is adopting an aggressive campaign to recycle water, replenish groundwater, and
try to dissuade over-consumption. Time will tell if it these measures will be enough.
2. Houston, TX
Major Water Supply: Jasper Aquifer, Lake Houston, Lake Conroe
Population (U.S. rank): 2,257,926 (4th)
Population Growth Rate: 15.6%
Average annual rainfall: 53.34 inches
Throughout most of its history, the city of Houston primarily drew water from the Jasper Aquifer,
located along the southeastern coast of Texas. Over the last 30 years, the city began to suffer from
dramatic rises in sea level of nearly an inch a year. Geologists eventually realized that the cause
was Houston’s withdrawal of fresh water from the aquifer located under the city. This discovery
forced city officials to use nearby Lake Houston and Lake Conroe for municipal water instead of
the aquifer. Since 2000, Houston has been the fifth-fastest-growing city in the country, and its
presence in an area with high drought likelihood makes it an immediate risk for serious water
shortages.
1. Los Angeles, CA
Major Water Supply: Colorado River Basin
Population (U.S. rank): 3,831,868 (2nd)
Population Growth Rate: 3.7%
Average annual rainfall: 14.77 in.
In the 1980’s, Los Angeles suffered a major crisis when the city was forced to stop using 40% of
its drinking water due to industrial runoff contamination. Like Las Vegas, the city now relies on
importing water from the Colorado River via hundreds of miles of aqueducts. The Colorado may
only be a temporary solution, however, as the fastest growing city in the country continues to
increase its demand at an unsustainable rate. In its utility risk rating, CERES gave the Los
Angeles Department of Water & Power the highest likelihood of risk among the cities it assessed.
That list included Atlanta and the Ft. Worth Area. On top of this, The Hoover Dam, which is the
main source of electricity for LA and much of the greater southwest, is also producing at a lower
rate than it has historically. Some scientists suspect this drop-off will continue to a point where
its electricity production is too small to sustain the dam economically. Los Angeles, even if the
dam doesn’t cease production in 2013, as some predict, it still faces serious water shortages.
You can download the CERES report by visiting this
page: http://www.ceres.org/Page.aspx?pid=592. Here is a direct link to download the
PDF: http://www.ceres.org/Document.Doc?id=625.
Charles B. Stockdale, Michael B. Sauter, Douglas A. McIntyre
Read more: The Ten Biggest American Cities That Are Running Out Of Water - 24/7 Wall St.
http://247wallst.com/2010/10/29/the-ten-great-american-cities-that-are-dying-ofthirst/
3/#ixzz14BVP6P8m
S. 510: FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510
Summary: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510&tab=summary
Full Text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-510
Below is the summary text version written by the Congressionl Research Service, a well respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress.
12/18/2009--Reported to Senate amended. FDA Food Safety Modernization Act -
Title I - Improving Capacity to Prevent Food Safety Problems
Section 101 -
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to expand the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to inspect records related to food, including to: (1) allow the inspection of records of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner as an adulterated food; and (2) require that each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports an article of food permit inspection of his or her records if the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to such food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.
Section 102 -
Authorizes the Secretary to suspend the registration of a food facility if the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by a facility has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
Section 103 -
Requires each owner, operator, or agent in charge of a food facility to: (1) evaluate the hazards that could affect food; (2) identify and implement preventive controls; (3) monitor the performance of those controls; and (4) maintain records of such monitoring. Deems facilities required to comply with certain food-specific standards to be in compliance with this section. Requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for conducting a hazard analysis, documenting hazards, implementing preventive controls, and documenting such implementation. Prohibits the operation of a facility that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food for sale in the United States if the owner, operator, or agent in charge of such facility is not in compliance with this section. Delays implementation of this section for small businesses.
Section 104 -
Directs the Secretary to: (1) review and evaluate relevant health data and other information to determine the most significant foodborne contaminants; and (2) issue contaminant-specific and science-based guidance documents, action levels, or regulations.
Section 105 -
Sets forth provisions related to produce safety, including to require the Secretary to: (1) establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of those types of fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities to minimize the risk of serious adverse health consequences or death; and (2) publish updated good agricultural practices and guidance for the safe production and harvesting of specific types of fresh produce.
Section 106 -
Requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations to protect against the intentional adulteration of food.
Section 107 -
Directs the Secretary to assess and collect fees related to: (1) food facility reinspection; (2) food recalls; (3) the voluntary qualified importer program; and (4) importer reinspection. Applies export certification provisions to food.
Section 108 -
Requires the Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare and submit to the relevant congressional committees and make public the National Agriculture and Food Defense Strategy, which shall include: (1) an implementation plan; (2) a coordinated research agenda; and (3) a process to achieve, and evaluate progress towards, goals.
Section 109 -
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to report annually on the activities of the Food and Agriculture Government Coordinating Council and the Food and Agriculture Sector Coordinating Council.
Section 110 -
Requires the HHS Secretary to submit to Congress: (1) a comprehensive report that identifies programs and practices that are intended to promote the safety and supply chain security of food and to prevent outbreaks of foodborne illness and other food-related hazards that can be addressed through preventive activities; and (2) biennial reports on food safety programs and practices following the submission of the comprehensive report. Requires the HHS Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress, biennially, a joint food safety and food defense research plan.
Section 111 -
Requires the HHS Secretary to promulgate regulations on sanitary transportation practices for the transportation of food.
Section 112 -
Requires the Secretary to develop and make available to local educational agencies, schools, early childhood education programs, and interested entities and individuals guidelines for developing plans for individuals to manage the risk of food allergy and anaphylaxis in schools and early childhood education programs, to be implemented on a voluntary basis. Sets forth issues for such guidelines to address, including: (1) parental obligation to provide documentation of their child's food allergy; (2) the creation of an individual plan for food allergy management; (3) communication strategies between schools or childhood education programs and providers of emergency medical services; and (4) strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to anaphylactic causative agents in classrooms and common school or early childhood education program areas, such as cafeterias. Allows the Secretary to award matching grants to assist local educational agencies in implementing such food allergy and anaphylaxis management guidelines.
Title II - Improving Capacity to Detect and Respond to Food Safety Problems
Section 201 -
Requires the Secretary to: (1) allocate resources to inspect facilities and articles of food imported into the United States based on their risk profiles; (2) increase the frequency of inspection of all facilities; and (3) report to the appropriate congressional committees annually on food facility and food import inspections.
Section 202 -
Requires the Secretary to: (1) recognize bodies that accredit laboratories with a demonstrated capability to conduct analytical testing of food products; (2) establish a publicly available registry of accreditation bodies; (3) develop model standards that an accreditation body shall require laboratories to meet; and (4) periodically reevaluate accreditation bodies and revoke recognition of any not in compliance with this section. Sets forth requirements for mandatory testing, including that: (1) testing be conducted by federal laboratories or accredited nonfederal laboratories; and (2) results of such testing be sent directly to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Requires the Secretary to review results from any sampling and testing that lead to a state or locality issuing a food recall to evaluate the need for a national recall or other compliance and enforcement activities. Requires the Secretary to report to the relevant congressional committees on the progress in implementing a national food emergency response laboratory network.
Section 203 -
Directs the DHS Secretary to maintain an agreement through which relevant laboratory network members will: (1) agree on common laboratory methods in order to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and information; (2) identify means by which each member could work cooperatively to optimize national laboratory preparedness and provide surge capacity during emergencies; and (3) engage in ongoing dialogue and build relationships that will support a more effective and integrated response during emergencies. Sets forth reporting requirements.
Section 204 -
Requires the HHS Secretary to: (1) improve tracking and tracing of fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities in the event of a foodborne illness outbreak; and (2) establish standards for the type of information, format, and timeframe for persons to submit records to aid the Secretary in such tracking and tracing.
Section 205 -
Requires the Secretary to establish a pilot project to explore and evaluate methods for rapidly and effectively tracking and tracing processed food so that the Secretary may quickly identify the source of an outbreak involving such a processed food and the recipients of the contaminated food.
Section 206 -
Requires the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to enhance foodborne illness surveillance systems to improve the collection, analysis, reporting, and usefulness of data on foodborne illnesses. Requires the Secretary to: (1) develop and implement strategies to leverage and enhance the food safety and defense capacities of state and local agencies to achieve specified goals, including improving foodborne illness outbreak response and containment; and (2) complete a review of state and local capacities and needs for enhancement not later than one year after enactment of this Act. Reauthorizes appropriations for grants to states and Indian tribes to expand participation in networks to enhance federal, state, and local food safety efforts, including meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining the food safety surveillance, technical, and laboratory capacity needed for such participation.
Section 207 -
Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) provide a responsible party with an opportunity to cease distribution and recall an adulterated or misbranded article of food if the use of or exposure to such article will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals; (2) order a responsible party to immediately cease distribution and provide notice to relevant persons if the responsible party does not voluntarily cease distribution of or recall such article of food; and (3) order a recall if the Secretary determines that removal of the article from commerce is necessary, but only after providing an opportunity for a hearing.
Section 208 -
Revises the standard for the administrative detention of food to allow such a detention if the FDA has reason to believe that such article is adulterated or misbranded.
Section 209 -
Requires the Administration of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide support for, and technical assistance to, state, local, and tribal governments in preparing for, assessing, decontaminating, and recovering from an agriculture or food emergency.
Section 210 -
Requires the Secretary to set standards and administer training and education programs for the employees of state, local, territorial, and tribal food safety officials relating to the regulatory responsibilities and policies established by this Act. Authorizes and encourages the Secretary to conduct examinations, testing, and investigations for the purposes of determining compliance with the food safety provisions of this Act through the officers and employees of such state, local, territorial, or tribal agency.
Section 211 -
Expands the program for grants to states, territories, and Indian tribes for inspections to include grants to: (1) train to HHS standards for the examination, inspection, and investigation of food manufacturing, processing, packing, holding, distribution, and importation; (2) build the capacity of the laboratories for food safety; (3) build the infrastructure and capacity of the food safety programs; and (4) take appropriate action to protect the public health in response to a recall of food under the FFDCA.
Title III - Improving the Safety of Imported Food
Section 301 -
Requires U.S. importers to perform risk-based foreign supplier verification activities to verify that imported food is produced in compliance with applicable requirements related to hazard analysis and standards for produce safety and is not adulterated or misbranded. Requires the Secretary to issue guidance to assist U.S. importers in developing foreign supplier verification programs.
Section 302 -
Requires the Secretary to: (1) establish a program to provide for the expedited review and importation of food offered for importation by U.S. importers who have voluntarily agreed to participate in such program; and (2) issue a guidance document related to participation and compliance with such program.
Section 303 -
Requires imported food that fails to meet requirements for a certification or other assurance that the food meets applicable FFDCA requirements to be refused admission. Authorizes the Secretary to require, as a condition of granting admission to an article of food into the United States, that an entity provide a certification or other assurances that the article of food complies with applicable FFDCA requirements.
Section 304 -
Directs the Secretary to require, prior to importation of an article of food, notice of any country to which such article has been refused entry.
Section 305 -
Requires the Secretary to determine whether a country can provide reasonable assurances that the food supply of the country meets or exceeds the safety of food manufactured, processed, packed, or held in the United States.
Section 306 -
Directs the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan to expand the technical, scientific, and regulatory capacity of foreign governments and food industries from which foods are exported to the United States.
Section 307 -
Authorizes the Secretary to enter into arrangements and agreements with foreign governments to facilitate the inspection of registered foreign facilities. Requires the Secretary to direct resources to inspections of foreign facilities, supplies, and food types to help ensure the safety and security of the U.S. food supply. Requires food to be refused admission into the United States if permission to inspect the food facility is denied by the facility owner, operator, or agent or the foreign country.
Section 308 -
Sets forth provisions governing the establishment of a system to recognize bodies that accredit third-party auditors and audit agents to certify that eligible entities meet applicable FFDCA requirements for importation of food into the United States.
Section 309 -
Requires the Secretary to establish offices of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in foreign countries to provide assistance to the appropriate governmental entities with respect to measures to provide for the safety of articles of food and other products regulated by the FDA that are exported by such countries to the United States.
Section 310 -
Requires the Secretary to: (1) develop and implement a strategy to better identify sand prevent entry into the United States of smuggled food; and (2) notify the DHS Secretary not later than ten days after identifying a smuggled food that would cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. Requires a press release to warn consumers and vendors about a potential threat from smuggled food if certain requirements are met.
Title IV - Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 401 -
Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2014 for the activities of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs of the FDA. Directs the HHS Secretary to increase the field staff of such Centers and Office.
Section 402 -
Establishes whistleblower protections for employees of entities involved in the manufacturing, processing, packing, transporting, distribution, reception, holding, or importation of food who provide information relating to any violation of the FFDCA.
Section 404 -
Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
Section 405 -
Requires the Secretary to update the Fish and Fisheries Products Hazards and Control Guidance to take into account advances in technology.
Section 406 -
Requires the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to study the transportation of food for consumption in the United States, including an examination of the unique needs of rural and frontier areas with regard to the delivery of safe food.
Senate Passed Food Safety Bill - 12/20/2010
http://www.nwyc.com/explore.cfm/news/100072
The Senate passed a comprehensive food safety bill by voice vote Sunday night, sending it back to the House to clear for the president’s signature.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gave the legislation new life by stripping language of a bill (HR 2751) originally written to aid consumer recycling and inserting the text of the Senate-passed food safety bil (S 510).
Reid said the bill was an “extremely important” step in preventing food-borne illnesses that can disable or kill consumers.
The quick passage came as a bit of a surprise after speculation centered on the Democrats possibly adding the food safety legislation to a spending measure.
“It’s not dead yet,” Majority Whip Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), author of the Senate food safety bill, said Sunday afternoon. Sen. Michael B. Enzu (R-WY), ranking Republican on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, also said efforts to keep the measure alive were continuing.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said he would block any spending measure that included food safety, and Republicans have said they want a clean bill.
Placing the food safety measure into a non-spending bill skirted those potential hurdles.
The Food Safety legislation would expand Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority and empower the agency to order mandatory recalls and has bipartisan support in both chambers. The Senate passed its bill last month with 73 votes, and clearing it in the House appeared to be a formality.
The House passed a companion food safety bill in 2009. Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MI), sponsor of the House bill, stated frustration over the weekend over the legislation being trapped in a Senate procedural maze.
“This bill has been laying over in the Senate for 17 months,” he said. “The result of doing nothing is millions of Americans getting sick, hundreds of thousands being hospitalized and thousands more dying every year. How many more are going to have to get sick, be hospitalized and die before the Senate takes action on a bill that passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate with support of the industry and consumers?”
Reid said that an overhaul of food safety laws was long overdue and would reassure Americans that the food they eat is safe.
“This is a common-sense issue with broad bipartisan support,” he said, “Tonight we unanimously passed a measure to improve on our current food safety system by giving the FDA the resources it needs to keep up with advances in food production and marketing, without unduly burdening farmers and food producers.”
Interesting that Evolu-Tech is listed under solutions.
DEKALB COUNTY, GA., AGREES TO MAJOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM UPGRADES
Release date: 12/13/2010
Contact Information: DOJ (202) 514-2007 EPA (404) 562-8293 TDD (202) 514-1888
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/C2A5ACB1C5358E53852577F80075426D
WASHINGTON – DeKalb County, Ga. has agreed to make major improvements to its sanitary sewer systems in an effort to eliminate unauthorized overflows of untreated sewage, the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced today.
In addition, DeKalb will pay a civil penalty of $453,000, to be split evenly between the United States and the state of Georgia, and implement a supplemental environmental project valued at $600,000 that will provide additional environmental benefits to the local community. The consent decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta today, resolves the joint federal and state complaint filed at the same time alleging violations of the Clean Water Act and the Georgia Water Quality Control Act.
“This settlement will mean a healthier, safer environment for communities in DeKalb County,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. “Like other aging sanitation systems across the country where we have reached clean water settlements, upgrading this aging infrastructure and conducting community-based cleanups will result in cleaner streams and waterways for families and children.”
“Sewage overflows are a significant problem in the Southeast because of inadequate and aging infrastructure,” said Stan Meiburg, Deputy Regional Administrator of EPA’s Southeastern office. “This agreement demonstrates DeKalb County’s commitment to address long-standing sewage problems. Ultimately, this will benefit the local community and improve water quality in the Upper Ocmulgee and Chattahoochee watersheds.”
DeKalb’s sanitary sewer system serves over 500,000 people. The wastewater collection and transmission system which DeKalb owns and operates includes approximately 2,600 miles of sewer lines, 55,000 manholes, and 66 lift stations. This is a sanitary sewer system designed to convey only municipal sewage, not stormwater.
Overflows pose a significant threat to public health because raw sewage can have high concentrations of bacteria from fecal contamination, as well as disease-causing pathogens and viruses. These overflows can occur in backyards, city streets, and directly into streams and rivers.
“This proposed consent decree negotiated with DeKalb County will result in targeted cleanups of DeKalb County streams and major long term improvements to the DeKalb County sanitary sewer systems,” said U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Sally Quillian Yates. “The agreement reflects the strong commitment of the Justice Department to enforce the mandate of the Clean Water Act through working with our colleagues in state and local governments.”
The consent decree provides for targeted injunctive relief for priority areas, consisting primarily of the most aged sewer pipes. The major features of the consent decree relating to the sanitary sewer system will require DeKalb to identify and quantify overflows of untreated sewage and their causes; to identify, delineate, assess and rehabilitate all priority areas within 8 ½ years; and improve its management, operation and maintenance programs to prevent future overflows and respond to overflows when they occur. DeKalb has estimated that the injunctive relief and other related improvements may cost approximately $700 million.
As part of the settlement, DeKalb has agreed to conduct a stream cleanup project at an estimated cost of $600,000. The cleanup will focus on removal of trash and debris from segments of the South River, South Fork Peachtree Creek and Snapfinger Creek. DeKalb will encourage the public to join in the stream cleanup project.
The Justice Department and EPA, often joined by the states, are taking an active lead in municipal Clean Water Act enforcement and have already entered into settlements with numerous municipalities including Atlanta; Baltimore; Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio; Jefferson County (Birmingham), and Mobile, Ala.; Knoxville and Nashville, Tenn.; Louisville, Ky.; Miami, Fla.; New Orleans; and Sanitation District Number 1 of Northern Kentucky.
The proposed consent decree with DeKalb County is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval. A copy of the consent decree lodged today is available on the Department of Justice website at www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html.
Remember the other story, prior to Wikileaks?
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
The big bank Theory
Tuesday December 7, 2010
Daily Show: The Big Bank Theory
Americans outsmart themselves with fancy security measures to the point where their money is committing suicide on the press.
Video Length: 3:45
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-7-2010/the-big-bank-theory
The Unknown Blogger Who Changed WikiLeaks Coverage
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/the-unknown-blogger-who-changed-wikileaks-coverage/67936/
Julian Assange: Readers' Choice for TIME's Person of the Year 2010
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/13/julian-assange-readers-choice-for-times-person-of-the-year-2010/#ixzz1839nrmbl