Source: http://virginiaagainsturanium.blogspot.com/2014/01/ruff-bill-targets-exploratory-uranium.html
Timestamp: 2017-07-23 20:41:19
Document Index: 149784116

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 32', '§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32']

Virginia Against Uranium Mining: Ruff bill targets exploratory uranium drilling:/ Give Virginia the gift of strong ethics laws: advocates of uranium mining in the commonwealth flew legislators to France Virginia Against Uranium Mining
Ruff bill targets exploratory uranium drilling:/ Give Virginia the gift of strong ethics laws: advocates of uranium mining in the commonwealth flew legislators to France Headlines from our Friend: KM
http://www.wakg.com/Local-News/14223049
Ruff bill targets exploratory uranium drilling:(Richmond, Va.) -- Mecklenburg County State Senator Frank Ruff is introducing a Uranium Mining bill in this year’s General Assembly. It targets exploratory drilling.The measure would require permit holders notify owners of private wells within 750 feet of an exploratory drilling site. They would also have to conduct water testing every six months----at the permit holders’ expense.It was four years ago when Virginia Uranium-Incorporated got a permit to drill exploratory holes to get core samples at the Coles Hill site in Pittsylvania County. Last month, they announced that they were suspending the larger effort to conduct full-scale mining.
Offered January 8, 2014 A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 32.1-176.5:1.1 and 45.1-275.1, relating to testing of wells near uranium exploratory activity.
Patrons-- Ruff and Stanley; Delegate: Wright
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding sections numbered 32.1-176.5:1.1 and 45.1-275.1 as follows:
§ 32.1-176.5:1.1. Department to provide explanation of water supply samples taken from wells near uranium exploratory activity.
The Department shall provide a nontechnical interpretation or explanation of each analysis of the water supply samples taken from the private well or waterworks to property owners whose well or waterworks is in proximity to uranium exploratory activity and whose water supply has been periodically sampled, the results of which have been provided to the Department pursuant to § 45.1-275.1. The Department shall determine the cost of providing the interpretation or explanation of the analysis of the water supply samples to the owner of the well, and the person holding the uranium exploratory permit under § 45.1-274 shall be responsible for reimbursing the Department for the costs incurred in providing such interpretation or explanation to the owner of the well.
§ 45.1-275.1. Sampling of private wells and waterworks near uranium exploratory activity.
A. Before undertaking any exploratory activity on any tract of land, the person proposing the exploratory activity shall contact all property owners within 750 feet of the proposed exploratory activity and request their consent to conduct an analysis of the water supply of each private well, as defined in § 32.1-176.3, or waterworks, as defined in § 32.1-167, located on their property. The analysis shall provide a baseline for determining whether the water supply meets the criteria of "aesthetic standards" and "pure water" as those terms are defined in § 32.1-167. With the consent of the property owner, the person proposing the exploratory activity shall perform this analysis every six months until the plugging of the exploration holes has been completed. The final sampling of the private well or waterworks shall be taken six months after the plugging has occurred.
B. The person holding the permit to conduct the exploratory activity shall submit the results and analysis of the water supply samples to the Department and the State Department of Health and the Departments shall make a determination based on an analysis of the submitted samples whether the exploratory activity is a threat to the water supply of the property owner. If the agencies determine that a threat exists, the Department, in consultation with the State Department of Health, shall take such actions as are necessary to remediate the situation. C. The State Department of Health shall provide a nontechnical interpretation or explanation of the results of the water supply analysis obtained pursuant to subsection A to all residents whose well water has been sampled. The person holding the permit to conduct the exploratory activity shall be responsible for reimbursing the State Department of Health for the costs incurred in providing such interpretation or explanation to the owner of the well.
Comment: There is still no requirement for public notice or public hearing regarding any proposed uranium exploration. Posted: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 6:00 am
The wrong top story for 2013
To the editor: I do realize — and am very grateful — that the Danville Register & Bee supports Virginia’s continued moratorium on uranium mining. The editorial board has made that clear with several wonderful, insightful editorials on the subject What’s galling to me is that the No. 1 story for 2013 should have been about citizens from across Virginia who stood up and said, "No, Virginia Uranium Inc., a financially backed Canadian company (to the tune of millions of dollars, spread far and wide), is not coming to Virginia and making an environmental mess, regardless of the so-called ‘new and improved’ ways utilized in the mining and milling of uranium."
It could have been a photo of jubilant Keep The Ban supporters taken at the General Assembly last January, when one of four proposed bills to tax uranium "severed from the earth" and to keep the mining industry to only within Pittsylvania County died a swift death due to a lack of legislative support. A snapshot of the KTB billboards on local roads would have been more appropriate than Wales measuring radioactivity at Coles Hill.
The No. 1 story for the region is that the efforts of mostly unpaid citizens (for six-plus years, and counting), who organized, rallied, lobbied state legislators and even caught the governor-elect’s ear, culminated in keeping an industry out of Virginia that could potentially harm people, air and waterways.
That’s the true, No. 1 story — the resilience of Virginians and North Carolinians who share life sustaining waterways and those from across the region, who said, "No" to an industry with a terrible environmental track record, one that is looking to set up business in Virginia.
http://m.chathamstartribune.com/mobile/opinion/article_2985e238-7879-11e3-ba2a-001a4bcf887a.html
Uranium billboard free speech
Posted: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 10:25 am To the editor,
I want to write regarding Karen Maute’s comments in the Danville Register and Bee on Nov. 11, 2013.
Karen Maute talked about Virginia Uranium’s Inc., billboard, which is located near White Oak Mountain.
She was complaining about their billboard being there, since uranium mining was not being allowed (due to the ban) at this time.
This billboard is protected by the Right of Freedom of the Press and the Right of Freedom of Speech.
These same rights cover both the advertisements that Annie Penn Hospital, which is located in Reidsville, N.C., and Morehead Hospital, located in Eden, N.C., run in the Danville Register and Bee regarding their Medical Center.
All of this (including Virginia Uranium’s billboard) is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Freedom of Religion, speech, press, assembly).
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Do you understand this, Karen Maute?
I hope that you do, because I realize every day what the United States Constitution means and how important it is to this country. We all have to live by its ideals and amendments always.
Comments from KM: This following has been submitted to the Chatham Star Tribune for consideration in next weeks edition. The Pittsylvania County BOS is aware of VUI's Code violation. However, no action has been taken. I appreciate Mr. Gary Wright's revisiting the issue of VUI's Billboard on Highway 29 in last week's edition of the Chatham Star-Tribune. The Code of Virginia 33.1-369 is law regarding advertisements or structures prohibited in the state of Virginia. Code 33.1-369 (#12) states, "No advertisement or advertising structure shall be erected, maintained or operated: Which advertises activities which are illegal under state or federal laws or regulations in effect at the location of such sign or advertisement or at the location of such activities." The Virginia Department of Transportation, who regulates billboards, responded with this written statement: “Our view of the message (VUI's billboard) is that it does not wholly reflect the definition of 'advertisement' …but is more similar to a suggestion or political speech regarding a particular commercial/business activity that is under moratorium at this time.” VDOT did not explain what "a suggestion" is regarding advertising. It is unknown why VDOT chose to label VUI's messaging as "political speech."
Interestingly, another potential Code violation, which did not make it into the news, is Code 33.1-369 (#5) which states, "No advertisement or advertising structure shall be erected, maintained or operated which, within visible distance of any highway, advertises any county, city, town, village, historic place or shrine without the consent, in writing of such county, city, town or village or of the owner of such historic place or shrine." No consent was given by Pittsylvania County to advertise the county as the "Future Home of the Safest Uranium Mine in the World." Without its consent, it would appear that VUI's messaging, "Welcome to Pittsylvania County, Future Home of the Safest Uranium Mine in the World," is a violation of the Code of Virginia. Code 33.1-369 (#5) restricts speech on outdoor advertising. It is the law. Ignoring illegal behavior does not legitimize it. The ball is in the Supervisors' court regarding the messaging on VUI's billboard. Give Virginia the gift of strong ethics laws:advocates of uranium mining in the commonwealth flew legislators to France http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/give-virginia-the-gift-of-strong-ethics-laws/2013/12/31/4b9320c6-7189-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html?tid=hpModule_6c539b02-b270-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19
"Virginia’s wide-open rule is justified by a smug attitude: We can trust ourselves to do the right thing, and transparency is all that is needed to keep the system honest. But since the 2011 prosecution of former Newport News delegate Phil Hamilton for bribery and extortion, the revelation that advocates of uranium mining in the commonwealth flew legislators to France and the recent controversy around gifts to the family of Gov. Bob McDonnell, we can no longer pretend Virginia’s law makes sense." Give Virginia the gift of strong ethics laws
By Tim Kaine, Published: December 31
Tim Kaine, a Democratic U.S. senator, was governor of Virginia from 2006 to 2010.
The new year presents a superb opportunity to fix a major Virginia weakness: our lax ethical laws. Gov.-elect Terry McAuliffe and the state legislature have a clear chance to do something right, popular and necessary. They should strike immediately and achieve a legacy accomplishment early in 2014.
The principal fix needed is a dramatic restructuring of gift laws. Under current law, anyone can give anything to an elected official so long as it is reported. If the gift is from a “friend,” it need not be reported.
If the gift is to an official’s spouse or other family members, it need not be reported. Virginia’s wide-open rule is justified by a smug attitude: We can trust ourselves to do the right thing, and transparency is all that is needed to keep the system honest. But since the 2011 prosecution of former Newport News delegate Phil Hamilton for bribery and extortion, the revelation that advocates of uranium mining in the commonwealth flew legislators to France and the recent controversy around gifts to the family of Gov. Bob McDonnell, we can no longer pretend Virginia’s law makes sense. Gifts to elected officials can create a subconscious sense of gratitude in even the most upright public servants. And the public probably will perceive such gifts as creating improper influence, whether or not that happens. With no limit on the amount of such gifts and with the exceptions for friends and family so broad, Virginia’s system is all but guaranteed to create problems. Meanwhile, many people who advocate for important positions and perspectives cannot afford to give gifts to officials. This puts them at a disadvantage when compared with those who can.
I served under the Virginia law for nearly 15 years and received gifts that were duly reported. But serving in the U.S. Senate, I must abide by a much tougher standard. Gifts from lobbyists are banned, as are gifts worth more than $50 from anyone else. All gifts, aside from a narrowly defined exception for friends, must be reported. Most states have similar rules, and some are even stricter. Having served under both systems, I can say that the benefits of the federal rule are obvious. I regret that I didn’t propose adopting it when I was governor of Virginia.
If a bipartisan group of Virginia’s leaders were to propose a gift ban, it would have huge popular support. This would fix a problem that has become embarrassing for the commonwealth. A few legislators who have grown used to the current system may be reluctant to adopt such a ban, but most of them realize that our state’s reputation needs a boost.