Dean role in accord on waste assailed

The former Vermont governor says he was just following a federal requirement.
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
Register Staff Writer
10/05/2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1993 agreement to send Vermont nuclear waste to Texas has resurfaced a decade later in a political attack by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry on a chief rival for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

Kerry said last week that Dean showed environmental and ethnic insensitivity when he signed a compact to allow Vermont and Maine to send low-level nuclear waste to the largely Hispanic west Texas town of Sierra Blanca.
(-snip-)
Dean has defended the compact by saying that Vermont was responding to a federal requirement that states dispose of their nuclear waste and that his state had no role in choosing the site.
(-snip-)
Environmentalists in Texas and Vermont said Dean did nothing to urge Texas to reconsider the location, despite an outcry from environmental and Latino activists and Democrats in Congress.

Link

Is Kerry's allegation valid or will it aid Dean in the long run, with some voters, by emphasizing the former Vermont governor's moderation on a dicey environmental issue? Or will this tactic work and totally turn-off environmental voters to Dean's message?

Lately I've been warming to Kerry, yet I believe Dean's the one candidate who has the best chance of defeating Bush. For now I'm remaining uncommitted to either.

And, obviously, you did not read the DM Register story thoroughly.

(-snip-)
"I fought against Howard Dean on this for a long time, but the bottom line is the federal government gave states title to nuclear waste," said former Vermont state Sen. Elizabeth Ready, an anti-nuclear activist. "Even though I unalterably opposed the position of my own governor, what would Kerry have done if he had a legal obligation?"

Ready, a Democrat, is now Vermont's state auditor and supports Dean's presidential bid.
(-snip-)
Link

I, however, think characterizing Kerry's criticism of Dean in this matter as lies is too strong. They both have their strenths as well as weaknesses.

I, however, think characterizing Kerry's criticism of Dean in this matter as lies is too strong.

Kerry's main point with the lie was to try to make Dean look like a racist eco-criminal by claiming that Dean made the deal WITH BUSH (an actual racist eco-criminal) and so he made unequivocally false statements about facts (=lying) for which there are no "interpretations":

"Kerry said Dean, when he was the Vermont governor, signed a compact in 1993 with Maine and Texas to send nuclear waste to Sierra Blanca, a plan opposed by civil rights groups. Bush was the governor of Texas at the time"
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/clips/news_2003_1002.html

...and to those Dean haters who claim that Kerry didn't really say that, I say that I still trust johnkerry.com more than them when it comes to what Kerry said.

ok, rehash that one for the eightbillionth time. if we are going to rake someone over the coals because of a minor technicality/fuzzy details by a reporter in a press release, then by the same method it could be argued dean is in fact a racist eco-criminal. but, why bother with that... it's pointless.

more important at this point is what dean would do on a national level. he made it clear that as long as the waste was not a hazard for vermont voters he wasn't all that concerned with where it eventually ended up. what would he do once he has the entire you.s. voters' interests in mind? ship it to mexico? areas with low voter turnout? areas with a high concentration of unregistered voters/non-citizens?

can you answer the question only taking into account dean's history on the subject, without mentioning kerry?

Now it's

Ok, let's forget about whether Kerry lied or not but just "discuss" Dean assuming that Kerry's lies were true

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

It doesnt even appear as it has been suggested that Kerry said that Bush was the governor at the time. I trust Wellstone and some of the senate democrats on this, they were right to oppose it, Wellstone may he RIP called it blatant environmental racism. Also I dont hate Dean but this is something I dont like. Just saying that and trying to be objective.

…
In November 1994, Bush defeated Ann Richards by a margin of 53 percent to 46 percent and became governor of Texas.
…
http://usembassy.state.gov/seoul/wwwhe909.html

A 1993 agreement to send Vermont nuclear waste to Texas has resurfaced a decade later in a political attack by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry on a chief rival for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
…
In 1993, Dean signed the agreement with then-Gov. Ann Richards of Texas to store the low-level nuclear waste from Vermont's one nuclear power plant in Texas. Two years earlier, the Texas Legislature had identified Sierra Blanca as the preferred site.
…
http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22423240.html

…
Kerry said Dean, when he was the Vermont governor, signed a compact in 1993 with Maine and Texas to send nuclear waste to Sierra Blanca, a plan opposed by civil rights groups. Bush was the governor of Texas at the time.

"He clearly reflected an insensitivity to that community," Kerry said during a campaign stop at a Dallas housing project.

The Massachusetts senator criticized the decision to "dump nuclear waste into a poor community far away from where you live because you can do it. I think George Bush was wrong and I think Howard Dean was wrong."

Kerry said he voted against the measure in the Senate. The Sierra Blanca plan was scrapped in 1998 after the Texas environmental agency determined a geologic fault under the proposed dump would have made it unsafe.
…
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/clips/news_2003_1002.html

None the less this bothers me and I for one think that Kerry, Wellstone, and the others in the senate who opposed were right,

identified Sierra Blanca as the "preferred" site, two years before.

The agreement that Dean signed only said that Texas would take care of the waste. It was Texas that decided what was done with the waste. And in 1998, while Dean was still governor, the waste did not go to Sierra Blanca. Texas took it somewhere else.

This is my understanding of what happened. I think Dean did exactly what he should have done in not trying to micro-manage Texas's government.

it went. I am looking real closely and it doesnt seem as it has been suggested that Kerry said Bush was the governor. It seems like a mistake. Maybe my eyes are hazy granted but they seldom lie to me. I dont know much about this issue other than some of the democrats in the senate including Wellstone and Kerry condemned it.

If you read the one AP article, THe sentence with Kerrty's statement Stops (with a period) and then the reporter states that this was while Bush was Governor.

However, Up until the very last day, the state of Vermont was arging FOR the Sierra Blanca site and insisting it was safe:

Downplaying Nuclear Hazards

The Texas and Vermont arguments for the dump also rest on hydrological arguments, but while the region averages only a few inches of rainfall a year, rains are often “cataclysmic,” in the words of one area resident, creating fissures that channel water deeply and unpredictably. Sierra Blanca averages 12 inches of rain a year, while the already leaking Hanford nuke dump in Richland, Washington gets 6 inches, and the leaking dump at Beatty, Nevada gets only 4. Despite the claimed average depth to groundwater of several hundred feet, Sierra Blanca resident Maria Mendez reported at the August gatherings in Vermont that none of her neighbors’ wells are any deeper than 70 feet.

http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/nov98tokar.htm

Given the 1998 date of this article, the indication that Vermont was actually arguing FOR the site, implicates Dean as being involved with trying to press FOR the Sierra Blanca site. As he is Governor of the state, as executive, he is responsible for ALL interstate relations and lobbying for actions in the U.S. Congress or in relation to agreements between Vermont and any other state. No one could speak for Vermont regarding such relations without Deans express approval.

Texas agreed to take it prior to having a site chosen. The site was chosen AFTER Texas agreed to take it. Dean played no part in selecting the site. By the time the choice for the site came up, it was in Bush's hands. Bush chose the site and got a bogus study done where those doing the report left out the fact that there was a fault under the site and that it wasn't safe. A battle in Texas ensued and the low level waste never went to the site. We all know how Bush operates...NOW. He had just become governor and wasn't really well known. No one had any way of knowing how crooked and evil he was going to be. You can't blame Dean for Bush giving bad reports on the site. And Dean was doing his job for Vermont. The only significant involvement Dean had regarding the site was when the town sued our state, demanding that we pay for the storage of waste. Dean fought that battle because none of Vermont's waste even went there. He refused to pay for a service never rendered.

talk about spin. does dean think it's ok to send nuclear waste to areas where it's less likely he will be harassed by voters?

"Nevertheless, Howard Dean and George W. Bush went ahead with their agreement," Kerry said. "Paul Wellstone and I fought against it."

That's what the posted article says. You keep quoting the comments of a reporter, not John Kerry.

Dean did nothing to get out of the Compact that not only violated Sierra Blanca but also an agreement with two Mexican states. He had years to investigate if he cared to, he didn't.

it's certainly not clear to me that Kerry is the one who said that Bush was governor at the time. Nothing is quoted. It could very well have been the author of the article who made the mistake. To characterize this as a lie is pretty stupid, IMO.

and if you quote someone who makes a mistake then you need to fix it. That is what brackets usually are for. I have seen that kind of thing all the time. Certainly, the person with whom the deal was made was not some fuzzy detail but a pretty central one.

Certainly it is no lie that at some point Dean supported sending the waste to Texas. Many democrats opposed this. Why did he support this (whenever it was)? I don't think it is good enough to say that he was only thinking of Vermont. We don't excuse Bush for taking this kind of attitude. Would we support a president that chooses to ship our countries waste to Mexico. I wouldn't.

thing for Texas, Texans, and environmentally sound. Kerry is desparate.

...is that, being majority Hispanic, it seems to be largely ignored by Austin and is yet fiercely Democratic. IMO

They were all lying then, just like Kerry is now? That is SOME argument you have there.

and I am not even attacking Dean when I say that about Sierra Blanca*. I say well Wellstone would disagree. Kudos to Wellstone and the others though.

in 1991, before the compact had even been written as a draft.

Dean was aware of it, there was large protest in both Texas and Vermont, and even from Texas Residents who came to Vermont to plead for the state to not send this waste to Texas. THis fell on Deans deaf ears.

I am most amused that Dean. Who lifted Paul Wellstones "I reporesent the Democratic Wing of the Democratic party" was indirectly criticized by Wellstone himself when he called the compact "Blantent Environmental Racism"

No matter how Dean tries to spin it, this site was already selected when he entered into the compact. Dean was aware of where the site HE had agreed to build, and who was going to be victinmed by the decision.

Dean can make the statement, that it was TEXAS'S reponsibility to select the site all he wants. Dean simply decided to turn his back on those who would be harmed by HIS decision to enter into this compact and not pull out of it after he had been made aware of the opposition of the site, and the exploitation of those poor, and disenfrancised Hispanics. His hand was in it. He could have decided to do the humane thing and pull out of it. Did he? No. He was a partner in the process.

Leading is ALL about deciding. Dean was NOT inncent in this case. He knew what was going on and chose to hold the course of staying in this compact after he was aware of the consequences his decisions would have on others.

We KNOW the decision he made.

"In 1993, Dean signed the agreement with then-Gov. Ann Richards of Texas to store the low-level nuclear waste from Vermont's one nuclear power plant in Texas. Two years earlier, the Texas Legislature had identified Sierra Blanca as the preferred site."
…
http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22423240.html

When you have the truth beating you over the head you still insist on sticking to your ridiculous story that it's Dean who lied.

When you have a source that proves Ann Richards was governor at the time you still insist that Bush was governor at that time.

When you have several different sources glaring you in the face you still on stubbornly hanging on to your fantasies that Kerry is incapable of lying and that he is a macho hero and that Dean is an incorrigible upstart with Turrets Syndrome.

I didn't say Dean lied about WHO he made the deal with.

I said that Deanies would be accusing WELLSTONE and the environmentalists of lying who said that Dean didn't care about the environmental impact., and didn't lift a finger to look into it.

Why did you change the story and build a different one just to attack me? YOU are the one who just made up a whole line of BS that had nothing to do with my post.

Try some comprehension lessons.

would you make up your friggin' mind. Talk about batty, girl, you just don't know which end is up. You are so eager to say ANYTHING to make Dean look bad you make stuff up. So now it was CONTINUED with Bush. Hahahahahahaah...

Then you say Dean, Oh, excuse me, Deanies, would be accusing Wellstone blah, blah, blah...

I didn't change the story, you just don't like to be caught in a lie.

I said that Wellstone and environmentalists said that Dean didn't act on their concerns or lift a finger to stop Sierra Blanca himself. Nothing in this article or Dean's explanations refute that.

Where is the lie, Andromeda?

I like Ann Richards but she is no more of a saint than any of us. She is capable of error.

Dean should take responsibility for his choices, and his words. That is the Achilles Heel of his campaign. He is never responsible, he is never wrong, he never has to apologize.
I am not a Kerry supporter, but Kerry is not desperate. Dean is wrong on this. Kerry is right. Environmental racism is not a passing problem, and the willingness to succumb to it (whatever the rationale) is a negative in my mind.

to say he made the deal with Bush Richards was Governor of Texas in 93. It is probably inaccurate to say he knew it was going to Sierra Blanca. It is an out right lie to say he had any say in where in Texas it went.

Do you even support Democratic candidates or are you just trolling for flames?

Dean should take responsibility for his choices, and his words. That is the Achilles Heel of his campaign. He is never responsible, he is never wrong, he never has to apologize.

Even when he apologizes, he doesn't admit he apologized.

Partial transcript from June 22 MTP interview:

Russert: Well, let me show you exactly—here’s the headline from today’s Washington Post and I’ll show everybody: “Misfires From The Hip Creates Problems Dean Discovers. ... is finding that his outspokenness can get him in trouble. Last week, Dean issued what was his third apology to a rival presidential candidate. After telling the Associated Press that he did not consider Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) a ‘top tier candidate,’ Dean recanted, telling the news served that he regretted the remark. Earlier this year, he apologized to Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) for tagging his broad health care initiative a ‘pie in the sky’ plan. Beefier that, Dean apologized to Sen. John Edwards (DN. C.) after accusing him, during a Democratic gathering in California, of muddling his position on the war in Iraq.” This is what an aide to John Kerry had to say about all of this. “What we haven’t figured out yet is whether these harsh, personal attacks are part of a long shot’s strategy to get noticed, or whether this unpleasantness is just intrinsic to his personality. Or both.” A very serious question. Do you have the temperament to be president?
Dean: Not only do I have the temperament to be president but I have the honesty to be president. When I make a mistake, I’m very pleased to apologize for it. The fact is that a lot of this stuff is about what goes on spinning, and I’m surprised the reporters take the bait all the time. I’ve issued one apology, and it was an apology I ought to have issued. I mischaracterized John Edwards’ position in March at the California convention because I didn’t know what he had said.
Russert: Well, you apologized to Bob Graham.
Dean: No, I didn’t.
Russert: You called the AP and recanted the statement.
Dean: I called the AP and said, “I’m sorry I said that.”
Russert: Well, that’s an apology.
Dean: No, it’s not.
Russert: “I’m sorry I said it” is not an apology?
Dean: vI didn’t actually say I’m sorry. I said, “I shouldn’t have said it because it’s not my business to handicap the races.” Look, Tim, if I make a mistake, I’m happy to say so, and I’m happy to say why I made a mistake. But to say that I don’t have the temperament to be president, I actually think maybe I have a better temperament to be president because wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who’s actually admitted he was wrong when he made a mistake. If I insult somebody by mistake and it’s my fault, I’m very happy to say so. I’m not afraid of that. I will not be the scripted candidate who is going to do all the things that their handlers tell them to do. I suppose my own handlers have a nightmare over that fact.

by Amanda Griscom

21 May 2003
…
Grist: What about nuclear energy? Vermont gets a third of its electricity from nuclear power. Do you see this as a good long-term solution to greenhouse gases?

Dean: My position has always been that we ought not to have new nuclear plants until we figure out how to dispose of the waste properly. We have a nuclear plant in Vermont and I was never in favor of shutting it down as long as it's safe, but I think storing waste at 110 different sites around the country is a magnet for terrorists. We've got to figure out what we are going to do about a central disposal site for nuclear waste.

Grist: As governor, you supported a plan to store the nation's waste at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Do you still think this is a good solution?

Dean: As governor of Vermont, it was a grand idea because it would get the waste out of Vermont. But now that I'm running for president, I've got to reassess it and see what the science looks like.
…
http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/griscom052103.asp

Gov. Dean's policy section on the environment:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_environment

Wonder if he'd support something like that, after all, it'd get the waste out of Vermont.

http://greennature.com/article408.html

"I don't remember a big fight about this," he said. "There could have been one. I just don't remember." http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22423240.html

"In June 1993, the Governor of Texas signed legislation establishing a low-level nuclear waste compact with Maine and Vermont. The compact was formally adopted by Maine and Vermont in November of 1993 and April of 1994 respectively. ~

Meanwhile, back in Texas, the State Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority had begun statewide screening activities under a 1983 state law. Initial efforts identified several potential sites in South Texas. In 1985, the Texas Legislature instructed the Authority to give preference in its site search to state-owned land. In 1987, the Authority identified several possible sites in Hudspeth County, Texas, including a site at Fort Hancock. However, El Paso County and others filed a lawsuit to enjoin the Authority from selecting the Fort Hancock site, and the site was abandoned in early 1991. In May of 1991, the Texas Legislature amended the Authority's statute to require the selection of a site in a 400-square mile area near Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County. In February of 1992, the Authority selected a site on the Faskin Ranch for the state's proposed low-level waste disposal facility. Texas purchased the ranch and began a site characterization that was completed in November of 1993. ~

The Senate passed a conferenced version of H.R. 629, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act, on September 2, 1998."

http://www.agiweb.org/agi/legis105/lownuke.html

The site was chosen in November 1993, Vermont signed in April 1994. If he didn't know at the time, it's because he didn't want to know which is worse than actually agreeing with the site chosen. By 1998, when the Compact finally passed Congress, he had to know as it was being fought by Senator Wellstone. If he didn't know at that point, he's totally incompetent.

"But Dean, who left office after his term ended last year, said the agreement did not specify where the waste would be stored.

"The Texas agreement did not say the waste would go to Sierra Blanca," Dean said in an interview last week with The Des Moines Register. "This was really Texas' call where they wanted to send the waste."

Dean said the issue doesn't stand out as a divisive one. He signed the agreement with Texas, which Maine later joined, after the Vermont Legislature passed it. The Vermont House was controlled by Democrats, the Senate by Republicans.

“Vermont environmentalists lobbied the state geologist and nuclear engineer, both of whom supported sending the waste to Sierra Blanca. Vermont Sierra Club President Lea Terhune said activists met with Dean's staff but believed they would have had to influence a small number of experts to sway Dean.”

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22423240.html

But selected and defined by geographical surveny in 1991:

Here’s a quick recap of that process. After eight years of being run out, legislated out, and litigated out of site after site, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority (TLLRWDA) found itself in 1991 many millions of dollars down and still at square one. To its rescue that spring rode the Texas Legislature with HR 2665, which decreed that, “notwithstanding any other law,” the site must be located within Hudspeth County. This law, which drew a 370 square mile “box” around the town of Sierra Blanca, on the eastern side of the county, was the response of nuclear utility district legislators to the January decision in a state court throwing the Authority out of its previous site, on the western side of Hudspeth county, on the grounds that it had violated its own siting criteria by disregarding or misrepresenting geology and hydrology, among other things. The state officials cut a back room deal with El Paso County, the plaintiff—move the site farther east, and we won’t sue again.

By 1992 the Authority had selected the Faskin Ranch within the “box” and was taking steps to acquire it. Gayle Schroder, whose company owned the land, later told the San Antonio Express<D>-News<D> that the move surprised him, since at that time no state scientists had asked permission to set foot on the ranch nor had they tested the land for fissures or faults nor had they drilled test wells to check the groundwater. But they bought the 16,000 acre ranch (for a 440 acre dump—room for growth) anyway, and, a month after they announced their intent, another dumper, MERCO Joint Venture, appeared from nowhere to buy another Sierra Blanca ranch in order to meet their July deadline for providing a site for “beneficial use” land application of New York City’s urban industrial sewage sludge. NYC was under a court order to cease poisoning the ocean with the stuff, and New York law forbade such “beneficial use” application of the heavy metal-laden toxic on that state’s agricultural land, so it had hired haulers like MERCO to find places where protections were nonexistent or more pliant. The result: the largest sewage dump in the world on 150 square miles of high Chihuahua desert, with a second such ranch currently filing for a similar registration. More polluters fouling the air and water make it tougher to determine specific blame, so dumps beget dumps.

http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/nov98tokar.htm

That 370 square mile box means that thie dump would be places anywhere in a direction of no more than 63 miles around the town of Sierra Blanca, which was at the geographic center of the block.

Again, this is well before Dean entered into the compact.

If you disagree. Why, *specifically* do you disagree?

It was a deal made and signed with Gov. Ann Richards (D-TX). The Texas legislature identified Sierra Blanca as the "preferred" site, two years before.

The agreement that Dean signed only said that Texas would take care of the waste. It was Texas that decided what was done with the waste. And in 1998, while Dean was still governor, the waste did not go to Sierra Blanca because of a successful lawsuit. Texas took the waste elsewhere.

This is my understanding of what happened. I think Dean did exactly what he should have done in not trying to micro-manage Texas's government.

I read my own post over again and it did say the process was completed in November 1993. So the site was being evaluated, as well as finalized, well before the Compact was signed by Dean.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.