Skip to main content

View Diary: EPA Fines Chesapeake Energy a Record $10 Million for Fracking (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You said: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kaleidescope
    However, the discharge has to be proved as a daily ongoing discharge without a permit or in exceedance of a permit.
    This isn't true for CWA 404-related requirements when placement of fill into watercourses has occurred (as to 'daily ongoing discharge' without a permit.
    The point of penalties is to reverse the damage -
    While corrective action orders have the effect of reversing the damage, imposition of a penalty does not have any such effect, per se.   The purposes of imposition of a penalty is to punish past non-compliant conduct and to deter future compliance problems and, most importantly, to remove the economic benefit to the enforcement target from past failure to carry out a required element of environmental responsibility.
    It is extraordinarily expensive for the government to bring certain enviro suits to court -- and settlement is less expensive in certain but not all cases.
    It would not be for this one since the noncompliance was already identified by EPA prior to the settlement discussion.   The purpose of this enforcement action is to bring Chesapeake energy into compliance with the proper requirements regarding placement of fill in relation to waters of the United States and to do so in the future only with the required 404 permits....which are usually general permits on which a source must seek applicability.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (121)
  • Community (57)
  • Memorial Day (29)
  • Culture (21)
  • Environment (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Civil Rights (19)
  • Science (18)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Labor (16)
  • Media (15)
  • Elections (15)
  • Education (15)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (14)
  • Economy (14)
  • Republicans (13)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Racism (11)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site