REMEMBER WHEN THIS WAS THEIR ANSWER TO THE LOW LAKE?????? LAKE OKEECHOBEE BACKPUMPING FACT SHEET Lake Okeechobee has a surface area of 730 square miles and is the second largest freshwater lake wholly within the United States.  The Lake has been classified by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as a Class I Drinking Water source, which requires strict standards allowing only small amounts of pollution.  The Lake is the sole source of drinking water for several small towns on the south rim of the Lake and one of the sources of drinking water for West Palm Beach, Fort Myers, and the entire Lower East Coast metropolitan area.  The region south of the Lake, known as the Everglades Agricultural Area ("EAA"), contains over a half million acres of former Everglades that have been diked and drained to make them suitable for urban and agricultural development. Most of the land is in sugar cane cultivation.  Three companies own 87% of the land within the EAA. One of those companies is the United States Sugar Corporation which owns 104,000 acres in the EAA, much of it in the area directly south of Lake Okeechobee.  Polluted water is pumped off the sugar cane fields and collected in large District-owned canals.  At the north ends of these canals, the District owns and operates three pumping stations, S-2, S-3, and S-4, which are built into the Herbert Hoover Dike that surrounds Lake Okeechobee.  Each of these pumping stations has either three or four very large pumps each powered by a diesel engine about four times the size of a semi trailer engine. When all the pumps in a pump station are operating, the discharge is equivalent to the flow of a medium size Florida river.  The flow from the pumps creates a highly visible "plume" of dark (sometimes even black) colored water that can reach nine miles out into Lake Okeechobee.  The plume contains high levels of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) and high levels of dissolved organic materials that come from agricultural and urban wastes.  One of the largest pump stations is within 2 and ½ miles of the drinking water intake of South Bay, one of the small towns on the south rim of the Lake that uses the Lake for drinking water.  Earthjustice brought this lawsuit against the South Florida Water Management District in 2002 on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation.  The case is a Clean Water Act "citizen suit" which sought a declaration from the court that the District had to obtain federal Clean Water Act "point source" permits for its pump station discharges.  As "point sources," the discharges from the pumping station must meet pollution limits applicable to Lake Okeechobee.  The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians entered the lawsuit in support of the environmental groups.  The United States Sugar Corporation entered the case in support of the District.  The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers entered the case on the side of the polluters - the District and U.S. Sugar - in early 2005. This was the first occasion in the 33 year history of the EPA that it entered a water pollution case on the side of a polluter.  No EPA witness testified at the trial and no EPA witnesses were provided for depositions.  Florida Wildlife Federation argued that when the District collects and then moves water in a way that harms the receiving water body (here Lake Okeechobee) it is responsible for cleaning up the pollution in the same way a city is responsible for cleaning up sewage it collects in its sewage system before it discharges its wastewater.  On average, the S-2, S-3, and S-4 pumping stations discharge 32 billion gallons of water into Lake Okeechobee each year.  Today, on average, the pumps contribute the equivalent of 60,000 one hundred pound bags of phosphorus to the Lake each year.  Because of this excessive fertilization, the Lake now chronically suffers from toxic blue-green algae blooms, including one in 2005 that generated toxin levels in Lake Okeechobee 65 times greater than the World Health OrganizationÂs safe drinking water guidelines.  Blue-green algae toxins can affect the liver, nervous system and skin and have been linked to increases in liver cancer, chronic fatigue illness, skin rashes, abdominal cramps, nausea, diarrhea and vomiting, as well as deaths of dogs and cattle. The toxins are not removed by chlorination or boiling and algaecides (which kill the algae) result in the release of the toxins into the environment.  Phosphorus pollution levels in the Lake have risen continuously from about 40 parts per billion in 1960 to 240 parts per billion last year  an all time high. Phosphorus is a main ingredient in fertilizer and is an important component of animal waste and sewage.  The state and EPA have recently determined that the maximum allowable level of phosphorus pollution is 40 parts per billion.  In 1976, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection contended that backpumping into Lake Okeechobee from the pumping stations should be stopped. At trial, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection reversed position and sided with the District in contending that no Clean Water Act permit was necessary.  After the trial was completed but before a decision was issued, EPA proposed an administrative rule that would exempt all water transfers from permitting under the Clean Water Act. The South Florida Water Management District  the defendant in the backpumping case  explained that the rule is "expressly designed" for the backpumping lawsuit.  Thirteen states and the Canadian province of Manitoba filed comments in opposition to the proposed EPA rule as did over 50 national conservation organizations.  Earthjustice will take the EPA to court to challenge the legality of the new water transfers exemption rule when it is adopted by EPA. The theory of the case will be that EPA may not legally exempt any polluters from the Clean Water ActÂs permitting requirements.

"Wow OAA9898 you called me a lier and a retard in one post LOL.Sure its just one case and I said they make them better today then they did back then.But it is a true story.I guess you just do not believe everything you read.Just every thing Consumer Distorts and JD powers writes?Still its a fact you do not see 20 year old Rice burners on the road.Thats a fact.Maybe up on blocks.Even this retard can see that." Actually they did make them good, even back then. Why do you think the imports were so popular? American cars in the '70s were gas hogs of substandard quality. All cars built back then were of abysmal quality in comparison to todays cars. I'm not suggesting imports were perfect at all; however, every car in the 70s had rust problems. The problem with imports back then was that very few mechanics would touch them, so dealer maintenance was necessary and expensive (and therefore often left undone). Guess what happens if you don't change the timing belt on an interference engine? It snaps and the pistons hit the valves, and well, you can guess the rest. If your car has over a 100,000 miles on it, and the engine is ruined due to a snapped timing belt (due to poor maintenance) you could put a couple thousand dollars into an eight or nine year old car, or cut your losses. What choice do you think a lot of consumers made? BTW, in 1985, Honda and Toyota sales were growing but were far from being at the volume of domestic cars sold at the time. Of course you see more domestics; thats simply due to the fact that more domestics were sold. Japanese car companies concentrated their sales in markets were demand was the highest, like on the West coast. You live in Illinois, the demand for gasoline was and is much higher in California, and probably always will be; therefore, there was a greater demand for fuel-efficient vehicles. Hence, more Hondas and Toyotas were sold there as opposed to where you and I live, the Midwest. Despite what you may believe, everything is not the same everywhere, johndeere. And thanks to competition cars today are far better then they would be without Japanese Imports. Thanks, Japan. Don't knock Consumer Reports. Unlike J.D. Power & Associates, they are one of the only non-for-profit consumer advocacy groups left in the country. They accept no advertisements, corporate donations, and don't allow their name to be advertised by manufacturers. Say what you will, that they're biased towards foreign cars, or other garbage like that - but it will be completely unfounded.

I bought a 1995 Acura Legend in 1998 with 32,000 miles on it. It was a 36-month lease turn-in and was literally in PERFECT condition. It sat unsold on the Acura dealerâs used lot because it was the least expensive model, the L 4-door, with cloth interior and 5-speed manual transmission. But it was exactly what I wanted, White with Taupe interior, Bose stereo, Power seats with memory and (the best part) the sweetest 200hp 3.2L V6 Iâve ever experienced! I paid $26,000 out-the-door, which felt like a fortune at the time (I was 23). I drove it 40-50k miles per year until I was t-boned by a commercial truck in August 2005. It had just turned 329,000 miles at the time and didnât burn a drop of oil (synthetic), the clutch had only been replaced once and the transmission shifted like new. Other than scheduled maintenance, the only thing I ever had to replace was the A/C compressor and two ABS sensors. The impact was so hard the passenger-side door panel ended up breaking my right hand and forearm (it was in the middle of the car). The rearview mirror broke loose during the crash and hit me in the head just above my right ear. It left most of the glass mirror fragments in my head and took 38 staples to close the wound! I also had damage to two discs in my cervical spine that required a 3-level c-spine fusion the following year. But I was able to recover from all of those injuries, which was pretty amazing considering how bad my poor Legend looked. I bought a 2006 Mazda3 Hatchback to replace it in December 2005. Eight years later, Iâm just past 190,000 miles and going strong!

Yes---and I just did yesterday. Mike and I own a Toyota Tacoma (2005) and we love it. We have no issues, no recalls on it, except the floor mat thing, but we had already put in all weather mats, so the issue was not one. I had a 2005 Subaru Outback Limited and with the new baby coming, we found that car to be very tight. I purchased a 2008 Toyota Highlander yesterday. It's a smoother ride than my Outback, tons of room, and even for a base model, it has tons of features (heated seats, sun roof, 3rd row seating). My parents own a 1990 Celica with 150K miles on it. All they've ever had to do is an oil change. With that being said, Toyota is offering tons of incentives on new cars right now, but I recommend buying a 2008 model if you want. Most of the body styles changed in 2008 and are still what they are making in the 2010 model. Teresa---I'm coming to Lorton next Saturday if you want to check out our Highlander. It's perfect for a family of 4 (and our 2 big dogs). :)