San Francisco has long used the Pacific Ocean as a rest room. When it rains heavily, the hilltop town can't store all of the storm sewage and sewage that flows to a seaside treatment plant in a single old pipe, so some head out to sea. Now, in a case with national implications, San Francisco is hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will allow the corporate to often pollute the oceans without violating the federal Clean Water Act.

Although San Francisco has lived under this regulatory construct for a long time, it has now decided to check the bounds of federal regulations with a right-leaning Supreme Court known for restricting environmental laws.

It's greater than ironic that San Francisco is often the American right's favorite punching bag, with Florida's Ron DeSantis once showing a map of it Defecation points for homeless people on the town while debating California's Gavin Newsom. But now San Francisco is attempting to benefit from this notoriously right-wing court.

While town denies that its legal challenge has anything to do with how Donald Trump fundamentally transformed this court during his presidency, the timing speaks for itself. San Francisco is a regressive city in relation to water.

It's California's Trumpsville.

Nothing lower than 12 other states fight San Francisco in court. This also applies to the Attorney General of California Rob Bonta. This also applies to the Biden administration, which has taken San Francisco to court for failing for years to modernize a Nineteenth-century sewage system.

But San Francisco doesn't appear to care. All it wants is five black-clad judges in Washington, DC, to strike down some regulations. And within the face of judgment oral arguments earlier this month, San Francisco could also be on its method to weakening environmental protections for the remainder of the nation.

“We know that the San Francisco system results in 196 million gallons of wastewater being dumped onto San Francisco beaches,” argued Frederick Liu, an attorney for the federal Environmental Protection Agency. “We know that sewer backups occur in homes and businesses. We know that their infrastructure is aging and failing. We know that the discharges lead to excessive concentrations.”

Is SF really the victim?

Still, San Francisco looks at itself the victim.

“San Francisco is therefore subject to severe criminal and civil penalties even if it otherwise complies with its 300-page approval,” argued Assistant Attorney General Tara Steeley. “It doesn’t tell permit holders in advance what we need to do to control our discharges.”

San Francisco's water management reeks of arrogance.

The system begins by storing water in Yosemite National Park's Hetch Hetchy Valley, a glacially carved wonder that now lies underwater. The untouched snowmelt then flows into town. There, after San Franciscans flush their toilets, little or no water is reused through recycling – an enormous missed opportunity. Rather, the treated wastewater either leads to San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean when it doesn't rain. When it pours, the system can discharge untreated wastewater.

Sacramento is the opposite major California city with an identical “combined” system, with a pipe for stormwater and wastewater downtown. But Sacramento isn't in court over its approval. It treats “practical” all wastewater before discharge into the Sacramento River.

At issue is San Francisco's waterfront facility, which is just unable to adequately treat the waste of 1 / 4 of 1,000,000 San Francisco residents when it rains. The plant plunges into the ocean at seven locations near the coast and at one location 5.3 kilometers into the ocean.

San Francisco welcomes that the Clean Water Act has allowed regulators to impose numerical limits on discharges and their components. However, it opposes broad prohibitions on pollution, contamination or making a nuisance, on this case known as “general prohibitions”.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed outraged by the thought.

Speaking to Steeley, Kavanaugh said, “You're facing millions of dollars and possible prison time even though you didn't know in advance what your liabilities were,” an issue “that's written into the law.”

No lawyer could cite a case during which a wayward wastewater operator ever faced prison time. Rather, Liu told the court that state and federal regulators needed to resort to some general permit conditions because San Francisco made it inconceivable to do otherwise.

“We were unable to include the limitations of this adjustment in this permit because San Francisco withheld from us the very information we would need to do so,” Liu said.

Real World Impact

State and federal authorities are fed up with the blockades sued San Francisco hoping to force town to modernize its sewage system.

“The city has done virtually nothing to invest in improving its combined sewer system since the mid-1990s,” said Eric Buescher, an attorney for the environmental group San Francisco Baykeepers.

The lawsuit, currently in its early stages, goals to stop further clean water violations and civil penalties. Steeley told the Supreme Court that penalties could possibly be as high as $10 billion. Liu said they weren’t calculated. In principle he is true, the truth is that the case remains to be removed from a verdict.

Liu appeared to bring the right-wing justices to a standstill as he outlined the real-world implications of striking down the Clean Water Act as San Francisco wants.

The EPA has long since approved permits for countless farmers and construction projects in 14 days, provided they largely promise to comply with environmental laws. If the courts were to force regulators to impose specific numerical discharge limits on these routine permits, what’s now taking days could drag on for months. And that will “undermine the small business economy,” Liu said.

If the court were to achieve such a compromise, San Francisco's own recalcitrance to offer information that the federal government supposedly doesn’t have could be doomed to failure.

San Francisco's water management stays stuck within the Nineteenth century by defending a sewage system of that era. It could advance into the twentieth century by adopting the environmental laws of that point of their implementation. And it could make the leap into the fashionable world by joining its urban water peers, particularly those in Southern California, in recycling Sierra water over and all over again. Diversifying its Sierra-centric water portfolio would cut back San Francisco's dependence on Yosemite. Such a prospect is one which town's outdated water orthodoxy has never been in a position to fathom.

Pacific shouldn't be San Francisco's biggest foul that it might probably get away with.

California's most notorious Trump city will remain this fashion until it cleans up its water law in some ways.

Celebrities born on this present day: Marisol Nichols, 51; David Schwimmer, 58; kd long, 63; Stefanie Powers, 82.

Happy Birthday: It's as much as you to implement positive changes and make things occur. Incorporate latest techniques into your skills. As a pioneer in your circle, you might be well positioned and may quickly open up latest opportunities that provide you benefits. Explore your options and secure what’s meaningful and necessary to you, and you’ll sail through the yr collecting awards that can make you and your family members proud. Their numbers are 4, 10, 18, 22, 27, 32, 45.

ARIES (March 21-April 19): Catch up on the newest trends. Listen and use your intuition to guide you on the fitting path. If you begin slowly and develop a marketing plan that meets current needs, there may be a possibility to show something you’re keen on doing right into a money-maker. Romance and travel are preferred. 3 stars

TAURUS (April 20-May 20): Embrace change and see where it leads. Focus on home, family and relationships; It will change your perspective on how you need to spend your time. Don't be shy; Let others know the way you’re feeling and you can see out where you stand. Short trips and events can be informative. 3 stars

GEMINI (May 21-June 20): Avoid jumping right into a discussion prematurely. Consider the motives and outcomes before jeopardizing your position or relationship with someone. Use your energy to enhance your skills or learn something latest. Spend time with someone you’re keen on and trust and have your best interests at heart. 3 stars

CANCER (June 21-July 22): Take a novel take a look at someone or something interesting and also you'll gain perspective in your next move. Communication will uncover feelings and possibilities that may change your lifestyle or the dynamics of a meaningful relationship. Don't hesitate to achieve out to someone you’re keen on. Romance will unfold. 5 stars

LEO (July 23-August 22): Be careful what you share. Sensitive information is best kept secret. Channel your energy into activities based in your mental and physical attributes. Participating in charity events or improving your appearance or health will add value to your life. Love and affection are preferred. 2 stars

VIRGO (August 23-September 22): Share your story, benefit from the moment, or invite someone you care about on an adventure. Getting to know someone higher will aid you turn your relationship into something special. As you show interest within the changes going down, you’ll grow closer to one another. An obligation will seduce you. 4 stars

LIBRA (Sept. 23-Oct. 22): If you practice, you’ll excel. Focus on doing something you’re keen on and you’ll perfect your skills, making the time spent way more enjoyable. Pick up the pace and don't be afraid to indicate what you've mastered. A visit or attending a gathering results in romance. 3 stars

SCORPION (Oct. 23-Nov. 21): Get in and do your part. Your enthusiasm will result in popularity and offers you'll need to reap the benefits of. Remember moderation; You will make profits. Don't let other people's insecurities discourage you or keep you from doing what’s best for you. A positive change could be seen. 3 stars

SAGITTARIUS (November 22-December 21): A positive attitude will aid you get past anyone who tries to control you. Stick with those that benefit from the same activities as you and revel in the physical aspect of doing something that puts a smile in your face. Love and laughter are the trail to peace and happiness. 3 stars

CAPRICORN (December 22-January 19): Changing plans or your environment triggers your actions or reactions. Talk to someone you trust to present honest feedback. The input will aid you move in a positive direction. Attend an event that gives insights and adds value to your decisions and plans. 4 stars

AQUARIUS (Jan. 20-Feb. 18): You'll must catch up when you let outsiders thwart your plans. Stop worrying about what others do or think and get on with what makes you joyful. Change and opportunity start with you and the choices you make. Personal growth and self-improvement will result in achievement. 2 stars

PISCES (February 19-March 20): Do things your way. Don't let anyone undermine you or make you’re feeling insecure or uncomfortable about your decisions. Avoid indulgence and don’t put yourself in a vulnerable position. Rely in your intuition and imagination and you’ll discover a novel strategy to match a tea. 5 stars

Birthday child: You are intense, courageous and revolutionary. They are dynamic and adaptable.

1 star: avoid conflict; Work behind the scenes. 2 stars: You can achieve something, but don't depend on others. 3 stars: Focus and you’ll achieve your goals. 4 stars: High goals; start latest projects. 5 stars: Nothing can stop you; Get gold.

Visit Eugenialast.com or follow Eugenia on Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn.

---

---

At the highest of the list of things most Californians take with no consideration is the power to soundly drink water from the kitchen faucet or safely bathe in water from the lavatory faucet. Believe me and the handfuls of farmworker families who lived within the housing cooperative I managed and lived in for years: This shouldn’t be something you need to ever take with no consideration.

To live and not using a protected and clean water supply is to be consistently aware of its absence. There are itchy, painful rashes and illnesses brought on by showering with contaminated water. There are the constant trips to purchase bottled water. There are the mounting water bills to pay for the drilling of ever deeper wells that sometimes provide temporary relief.

About 1 million Californians live under such conditions and about one other million are supplied by water systems the state classified as endangered. In view of the increasing threats The impacts of climate change on our water supply must be of great concern to all Californians.

Now is the time to speculate in proven solutions somewhat than accepting these outrageous, inhumane conditions or allowing them to spread. California voters can approve such an investment this fall by Proposal 4a $10 billion bond whose fundamental objective is to enhance the amount and quality of drinking water.

It would fund grants and loans to local water utilities to assist them provide protected and reliable drinking water. It would fund projects to scale back or treat contaminants in groundwater, recharge aquifers, construct infrastructure to supply access to wash water, expand services to communities currently underserved, and protect and restore our rivers, lakes and streams.

Although there are failing water systems across the state, they’re concentrated within the Central Valley and the Central Coast, where the housing cooperative I run is positioned near Salinas. Most individuals who have been denied what California calls Fundamental right have access to wash water and live in low-income communities.

Sentence 4 recognises these injustices and demands that at the very least 40% of the funds go to disadvantaged communities. The money goes where it’s most needed.

Voters are rightly cautious about approving loans that have to be paid back over time. In this case, there may be every reason to spend money now so taxpayers can save later. That applies to protecting our water resources and likewise to Prop. 4's other fundamental focus: Wildfire Prevention and containment. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Every dollar spent today to enhance resilience save $6 on disaster relief tomorrow.

In addition, the recent Assessment of climate change The state Natural Resources Agency estimates that if we do nothing, the price of climate change to the state will exceed $200 billion by 2050.

We cannot pass these costs on to our kids and grandchildren. If we don’t act now, the price to taxpayers shall be astronomical.

We have the chance to enhance their lives and combat the climate impacts that threaten our drinking water supplies and our ability to breathe clean air. This requires resources, political will and the determination to act before things worsen.

Now is the time to make use of all these tools. We must not lose the battle for clean air and clean water.

Electors will gather throughout the United States in December 2024, just weeks after the election, and officially solid their votes for president and vp. They will send their votes to Congress, which is able to count them and determine who received probably the most votes. Normally, the casting of electoral votes is little greater than a ceremonial process.

But the last time this process took place in 2020, it was anything but typical.

In seven statesIn addition to the official electors, others who called themselves electors met and pretended to vote for Republican Donald Trump on December 14. They did so regardless that Democrat Joe Biden had won their states within the November election. They sent their votes to Congress identical to the official electors. When the electoral votes were counted on January 6, 2021, some in Congress argued that these alleged alternative votes meant that the end result of the election remained uncertain.

Many of those Alleged voters now face criminal prosecution. Some might be convicted. And the likelihood that the alleged electors will try again in 2024 is lower – but still possible.

“Quota” or simply fake?

These other electors called themselves “contingent” electors and argued that they might be the “true” electors if the lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign to challenge the outcomes ultimately turned out in Trump’s favor. Some of those other electors drew an analogy to Hawaii's controversial 1960 presidential election. Although Republicans had a majority in Hawaii, a recount was underway when the electors met, and each Republican and Democratic electors sent their votes to Congress. The recount ultimately went in favor of the Democrats, and Congress counted the votes solid by the Democrats.

In 2020, Republican electors in two states, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, sent certificates that explicitly included a clause that they’d only solid their votes if those electors were declared the true electors in a court case. This clause appears saved her from prosecution.

Opponents and critics have called them “fake” electors because they’d no governmental authority to act while presenting themselves as something real. These opponents indicate that an actual recount was underway within the 1960 Hawaii election, and There were no serious legal disputes in every state in 2020 when the electors met. Almost all cases had been dismissed by December 14, and a few pending appeals had no realistic prospect of success. The sole purpose of those electoral college actions, opponents argue, was to sow distrust and confusion.

“No authority”

Regardless of the adjective, these potential electors had no authority. In Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada, most of those electors face criminal prosecution on charges reminiscent of Forgery And FraudThe charges could end in prison sentences of as much as 20 years.

A significant challenge in these prosecutions shall be proving that voters had the requisite intent to commit against the law.

On the one hand, it was quite obvious that they weren’t the legitimate voters on the time they solid their votes, and so they filled out the paperwork to supposedly exercise legitimate power.

On the opposite hand, in the event that they can argue that they relied on the recommendation of Trump’s lawyers or other campaign staff, they may potentially show that they there was no intention to commit against the lawMichigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, for instance, claimed that these electors were “brainwashed.”

However, each trial may have its own arguments and defenses and it stays unclear what conclusion the jury will reach in each individual case.

Eliminate ambiguities

Could 2020 repeat itself in 2024? The probability is lower, but not unattainable.

First, Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022. The recent law now requires each state to certify its election results six days before the electors meet.

This signifies that there isn’t any pending litigation to cause confusion on the day of the election meeting. It creates finality before the election meeting takes place.

The The recent law also eliminates an ambiguous provision from the old law which allowed a state legislature to appoint electors after Election Day if the state had not made a selection on Election Day. Some Trump supporters invoked this provision to say that the legislature could name the Republican electors because the true winners sooner or later after Election Day.

But that provision was misunderstood—”no decision made” didn’t mean that lawmakers simply disagreed with the voters' decision on Election Day. That provision was removed, removing one other potential ambiguity in 2024.

The recent law also changes the way in which Congress counts electoral votes. First, it clarifies that the president of the Senate — often the vp — doesn’t have sole decision-making authority when Congress counts votes. In addition, the law makes it harder for members of Congress to object to the vote count.

In past years, a senator and a representative could object, forcing Congress to debate for as much as two hours. This happened once in 2005 and twice in 2021.

Instead, the brand new law increases the hurdle for objections to require the support of 20% of the members of every chamber. This makes objections much less likely. In addition, the brand new law explicitly instructs Congress that the ultimate confirmation by the states “shall be considered final.”

Of course, electors could still attempt to foment public unrest in a state if their preferred candidate loses the election. Members of Congress can still attempt to object. No law can completely eliminate the danger of post-election subversion. But these modest changes to the law will help reduce the likelihood that the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election will look anything just like the aftermath of the 2020 election.