User:Daniel Ducote/sandbox

= Weeks Act = From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Weeks Act is a federal law (36 Stat. 961) enacted by the United States Congress on March 1, 1911. Introduced by Massachusetts Congressman John W. Weeks and signed into law by President William Howard Taft, the law authorized the US Secretary of Agriculture to "Examine, locate and recommend for purchase ... such lands within the watersheds of navigable streams as ... may be necessary to the regulation of flow of navigable streams...." This meant that the federal government would be able to purchase private land if the purchase was deemed necessary to protect rivers' and watersheds' headwaters in the eastern United States. Furthermore, the law allowed for land acquired through this act to be preserved and maintained as national forest territory. Six years earlier, the Transfer Act of 1905 transferred control over the federal forest reserves from the General Land Office of the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture and its Forest Service. Responsibility for land purchased through the Weeks Act was not given to former Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot because he resigned in 1907, with the stipulation that he would only resign if he could appoint his successor. This stipulation led to the Forest Service's tradition of picking a head with forestry knowledge. With the land acquired through the Weeks Act, Pinchot's successor obtained the power to issue permits for water power development on National Forests. The Weeks Act appropriated $9 million to purchase 6 million acres (24,000 km2) of land in the eastern United States.[1]

The Weeks Act also provided measures for more cooperation between federal and state governments in regard to fire control. This legislation was heavily influenced by the fire season of 1910 because it wreaked havoc across the western United States, particularly in Idaho, where 85 people, including 72 firefighters, were killed in fires and more than 3 million acres (12,000 km2) of land and roughly 8,000,000,000 board feet (19,000,000 m3) of timber were destroyed by fires that year. This year's fire season alone put the US Forest Service $1.1 million in debt.[2]

The Weeks Act also authorized establishment of the National Forest Reservation Commission to consider and approve purchase of these identified lands. The commission was composed of the secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and War (for the Corps of Engineers), as well as two members each from the House and Senate. Jacob Gallinger, who had sponsored the Senate’s version of the bill, was named a member of the initial committee.[3] The Commission would exist from 1911 to 1966.[4]

The drafting of Weeks Act was originally motivated by the intent to purchase lands in eastern United States, where the federal government owned no large tracts of land devoted to conservation. Later western lands were acquired under the Weeks Act. The Weeks Act was substantially expanded and modified by the Clarke–McNary Act in 1924.

Major national forests that were formed under the Weeks Act are the Allegheny National Forest, White Mountain National Forest, Green Mountain National Forest, Pisgah National Forest, George Washington National Forest, and Ottawa National Forest. To date, the Weeks Act has protected more than 20 million acres of forestland, which has had a tremendous benefit for ecosystems and society by providing habitat for plants and animals, creating lucrative recreation spots for tourists, and creating economic opportunities for local communities, stimulating the economy.

References[edit source | edit]

 * 1) Jump up^ A History of Water Resource activities of the United States Department of Agriculture
 * 2) Jump up^ Cermak, Robert W. Fire In The Forest-A History of Forest Fire Control on the National Forests in California 1898-1956 USDA Forest Service Publishers, 2005 p.58  ISBN 1-59351-429-8
 * 3) Jump up^ Protection and Restoration
 * 4) Jump up^ National Forest Reservation Commission Members, 1911-1966

External links[edit source | edit]
Categories:
 * The Weeks Act, a history of the bill from the Forest History Society website.
 * Library of Congress - American Memory-Evolution of the Conservation Movement 1850-1920, a description and text of Weeks Act
 * Conservation in the United States
 * United States federal environmental legislation
 * United States federal public land legislation
 * 1911 in the environment
 * 1911 in law

Navigation menu

 * Daniel Ducote
 * 0
 * 0
 * Talk
 * Sandbox
 * Preferences
 * Beta
 * Watchlist
 * Contributions
 * Log out


 * Article
 * Talk


 * Read
 * Edit source
 * Edit
 * View history
 * Watch

More

 * Main page
 * Contents
 * Featured content
 * Current events
 * Random article
 * Donate to Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia store

Interaction

 * Help
 * About Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Recent changes
 * Contact page

Tools

 * What links here
 * Related changes
 * Upload file
 * Special pages
 * Permanent link
 * Page information
 * Wikidata item
 * Cite this page

Print/export

 * Create a book
 * Download as PDF
 * Printable version

Languages
Add links
 * This page was last modified on 21 November 2015, at 03:04.

= Bayou Corne sinkhole = From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Bayou Corne sinkhole was created from a collapsed underground salt dome cavern operated by Texas Brine Company and owned by Occidental Petroleum. The sinkhole, located in northern Assumption Parish, Louisiana, was discovered on August 3, 2012, and 350 nearby residents were advised to evacuate.[1] Scientists have stated that the evacuation order could last for years.[2]

Contents
[hide]
 * 1Background
 * 2The incident
 * 3Expansion
 * 4Impact
 * 5See also
 * 6References
 * 7External links

Background[edit source | edit]
Bayous such as Bayou Corne were largely settled by the Acadians in the late 1700s, who were attracted to the locations for its economic potential as an alligator and crawfish nesting site.[3] Beneath much of the state of Louisiana, including these bayous, aresalt domes, gigantic deposits left during the formation of the North American continent. These domes vary wildly in scale and depth, some as much as 35,000 feet below the surface and as large as Mount Everest.[4] With such depths and dimensions, these domes are naturally under thousands of pounds per square inch of pressure.[5]

The economic value of salt domes has been exploited for centuries.[6] Salt mining has been going on in Louisiana since the Antebellum period, and in the 20th century, the government began using these underground salt caverns as storage reservoirs for crude oil.[7] Where there is a juncture of mining, petroleum engineering, and drilling, care must be taken to maintain stability, so as to prevent a disaster as happened at Lake Peigneur.[8]

Bayou Corne is located in Assumption Parish, the highlighted region of southern Louisiana

The Napoleonville Dome lies beneath Assumption Parish, and was characterized by 53 distinct caverns, six of which were operated by Texas Brine.[9] One of these, Oxy3, owned by Occidental Petroleum, was more than a mile below the surface. Oxy3 was less than 100 feet from the nearest oil and gas storage-sheath, a distance that, while unsafe, was not illegal.[10] In 2010, Texas Brine applied for a permit to expand Oxy3. Its subsequent pressure tests were unsatisfactory, yet the company felt that the cavern would be able to withstand the pressure regardless.[11]

The incident[edit source | edit]
In June 2012, residents of Bayou Corne began to notice unusual phenomena; the ground was prone to shaking and bubbles began to arise from the water.[11] The US Geological Survey noted an increase in seismic activity,[12] but could not point to an exact source or cause. The local government sent in experts, who suspected a natural gas pipeline leak, but that assumption proved false.[11] As the symptoms worsened towards the end of July, Texas Brine officially denied the likelihood of a sinkhole. Oxy3 had begun to cave-in.[11]

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal issued an evacuation order on August 3, 2012 after residents reported smells of crude oil throughout the town.[13] Texas Brine investigated the situation by drilling a relief well and found that the outer wall of the salt dome had collapsed, allowing sediment to pour into the cavern and oil and gas to escape to the surface, causing the shaking and bubbles residents had observed.[14]

Expansion[edit source | edit]
When first the sinkhole appeared, it spanned a hectare (2.5 acres).[15] As of late February 2014, the sinkhole is 26 acres and growing.[16] Texas Brine is still responsible for managing the sinkhole and has burned off 25 million cubic feet of gas in an attempt to deplete the escaping reserves.[17] Areas in the vicinity of Bayou Corne have demonstrated a similar, bubbling-up phenomenon, though as of yet no definite connection has been made between these and the original sinkhole.[18] Scientists have no conclusive answer to when the evacuation orders—largely dependent on the escaping methane gas—will be lifted, yet 3D seismic surveys completed at the beginning of January 2014 show that the sinkhole’s expansion is slowing as it begins to stabilize.[19] Aside from the methane escaping via bubbles to the surface, the sinkhole has a tendency to “burp” up debris.[20] This is how its expansion is patterned. Seismic activity will occur, causing it to eject some debris—both solid matter and oil—which makes room for more to slough into the hole, including dirt and trees.[11]

Impact[edit source | edit]
The residents of Bayou Corne, who as of March 2014 have been evacuated for 19 months, have involved themselves in a protracted legal battle with Texas Brine.[21] From the start of the evacuation, each resident received weekly checks from Texas Brine for $875 per week.[22] Some residents receive these checks without having even left the town, in defiance of the evacuation order.[11] One such resident, Mike Schaff, said of Texas Brine’s financial settlement option “They think we’re just a bunch of ignorant coonasses." [11]Nine months after the evacuation, Governor Jindal threatened to sue Texas Brine unless they offered a buyout option to residents.[23] Accordingly, Texas Brine offered to deal with the 350 affected residents. As of March 2014, 65 people had accepted some form of buyout.[24] Others have opted to join a class-action lawsuit against Texas Brine which was set to go to trial in 2014.[25] The ecological effects of these developments on local flora and fauna are yet unstudied, but the sinkhole continues to destroy nearby cypress trees, swallowing them during expansion.[26] The Atlantic’s Tim Murphy has summarized the incident thusly: “Bayou Corne is the biggest ongoing industrial disaster in the United States you haven't heard of.” [11] One class-action lawsuit led to a proposed $48.1 million settlement in 2014, although some residents felt that the legal fees to be awarded ($12.03 million) were too high a percentage of the total.[27]

In September 2014, Texas Brine requested a permit to discharge wastewate r back into the Bayou Corne sinkhole in an effort to fix some of the damage it has caused, which sent former and current residents of the town into a frenzy as a heated debate ensued over whether the company believed to be responsible for severe damage and loss of homes should be given permission to tamper more with an area already considered to be "deeply contaminated," as environmental activist Nara Crowley stated.

In July 2015, Texas Brine began a series of lawsuits against Occidental Petroleum, claiming that an oil well drilled by Occidental Petroleum in 1986 triggered the cavern wall break that led to the creation of the sinkhole. Texas Brine is currently seeking $100 million in damages from Occidental Petroleum over the issue.

See also[edit source | edit]

 * Döda Fallet
 * Rylands v Fletcher
 * Lake Peigneur Disaster

References[edit source | edit]

 * 1) Jump up^    missing   in Authors list (help)
 * 2) Jump up^
 * 3) Jump up^
 * 4) Jump up^
 * 5) Jump up^
 * 6) Jump up^
 * 7) Jump up^
 * 8) Jump up^
 * 9) Jump up^
 * 10) Jump up^
 * 11) ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h
 * 12) Jump up^
 * 13) Jump up^
 * 14) Jump up^
 * 15) Jump up^
 * 16) Jump up^
 * 17) Jump up^
 * 18) Jump up^
 * 19) Jump up^
 * 20) Jump up^
 * 21) Jump up^
 * 22) Jump up^
 * 23) Jump up^
 * 24) Jump up^
 * 25) Jump up^
 * 26) Jump up^
 * 27) Jump up^  http://theadvocate.com/news/ascension/12053121-123/judge-listens-to-complaints-from

External links[edit source | edit]
Categories:
 * Assumption Parish information page
 * Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness response Bayou Corne incident
 * Louisiana Department of Natural Resources – Bayou Corne incident
 * Texas Brine Company – Bayou Corne Incident page
 * Texas Brine Sinkhole Profile
 * Sinkholes of the United States
 * Disasters in Louisiana
 * Landforms of Assumption Parish, Louisiana
 * Landforms of Louisiana

Navigation menu

 * Daniel Ducote
 * 0
 * 0
 * Talk
 * Sandbox
 * Preferences
 * Beta
 * Watchlist
 * Contributions
 * Log out


 * Article
 * Talk


 * Read
 * Edit source
 * Edit
 * View history
 * Watch

More

 * Main page
 * Contents
 * Featured content
 * Current events
 * Random article
 * Donate to Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia store

Interaction

 * Help
 * About Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Recent changes
 * Contact page

Tools

 * What links here
 * Related changes
 * Upload file
 * Special pages
 * Permanent link
 * Page information
 * Wikidata item
 * Cite this page

Print/export

 * Create a book
 * Download as PDF
 * Printable version

Languages
Edit links
 * Dansk
 * Français
 * Русский
 * This page was last modified on 7 October 2015, at 02:15.

= 1975 Haicheng earthquake = From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coordinates: 40.85°N 122.75°E The 1975 Haicheng earthquake, hit Haicheng, Liaoning in China at 19:36 CST on February 4, 1975. The earthquake registered at 7.3 on the Richter Scale, which is associated with total destruction of infrastructure and property. China had approximately 1 million residents at the time of the earthquake, which is known for being one of the few earthquakes to be successfully predicted throughout history.[2]

Early in the morning of February 4, 1975, Chinese officials ordered that the city of Haicheng be evacuated, believing there to be a large chance of an earthquake occurring. The prediction was allegedly based on reports of changes in groundwater and soil elevations over the past several months as well as widespread accounts of unusual animal behavior. A low-level alert was triggered by regional increases in seismicity (later recognized as foreshocks). Both authorities and citizens were finally placed on high alert and an evacuation order was issued due to an increase in foreshocks.[3] Though this particular prediction of the earthquake was initially believed to be just the latest in a recent string of false alarms that had occurred in the preceding months, including one case of an earthquake swarm being caused by the filling of a reservoir,[4] the evacuation of Haicheng proceeded anyway and eventually paid off.

The evacuation, despite successfully evacuating most of Haicheng's population, did not prevent deaths in its entirety. When the main quake struck at 7:36 pm, 2,041 people died, over 27,000 were injured and thousands of buildings collapsed. However, the death toll was much lower than the estimate of over 150,000 dead which is believed to have resulted if the evacuation had not taken place.[5]This was the only successful evacuation of a potentially affected population before a devastating earthquake in history.

In addition to damage in Liaoning Province and its surroundings, minor damage was also reported in Seoul, South Korea. The quake was felt in Primorskiy Krai, USSR, and in Kyushu, Japan.

In recent years, the success of the earthquake's prediction has come under scrutiny. Seismologists have agreed that the Haicheng earthquake can't be looked to as any sort of "prototype" for predicting future earthquakes, as the foreshocks that played a huge role in leading to prediction of this earthquake are not a regular, reliable occurrence before all earthquakes. However, Qi-Fu Chen, a research professor at Beijing's China Earthquake Administration, explained that this earthquake at least "showed the importance of public education," prompting a further discussion about the necessity of making the public aware of the dangers, preparations, and warning signs related to earthquakes.

References[edit source | edit]

 * 1) Jump up^  http://www.eserc.stonybrook.edu/wise/HSspr2002/QuakePrediction.html
 * 2) Jump up^
 * 3) Jump up^
 * 4) Jump up^
 * 5) Jump up^

Further reading[edit source | edit]
Categories:
 * Earthquakes in China
 * 1975 in China
 * Anshan
 * 1975 earthquakes
 * Chinese history stubs

Navigation menu

 * Daniel Ducote
 * 0
 * 0
 * Talk
 * Sandbox
 * Preferences
 * Beta
 * Watchlist
 * Contributions
 * Log out


 * Article
 * Talk


 * Read
 * Edit source
 * Edit
 * View history
 * Watch

More

 * Main page
 * Contents
 * Featured content
 * Current events
 * Random article
 * Donate to Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia store

Interaction

 * Help
 * About Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Recent changes
 * Contact page

Tools

 * What links here
 * Related changes
 * Upload file
 * Special pages
 * Permanent link
 * Page information
 * Wikidata item
 * Cite this page

Print/export

 * Create a book
 * Download as PDF
 * Printable version

Languages
Edit links
 * فارسی
 * Italiano
 * 日本語
 * Norsk bokmål
 * Norsk nynorsk
 * Русский
 * 中文
 * This page was last modified on 15 November 2015, at 08:14.
 * Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

= 2000 Mumbai landslide = From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe 2000 Mumbai landslide was a landslide that occurred in Ghatkopar, a suburban neighborhood located in Mumbai, India on July 12, 2000. 67 people, including 27 men, 15 women, and 15 children, were killed, while over 50 more were injured. Roughly 100 residential huts were buried in mud from the disaster. 150 personnel for the firefighters were called in on a search and rescue mission. The landslide was caused by a combination of land erosion and days of substantial rain. Since the landslide, Mumbia has been determined by the Municipal Corporation Building to contain 327 areas that are in danger of landslides, including 49 in the city and 278 in the suburbs.