Murray Environmental Limited’s Post

Shouldn't such works be undertaken AFTER a community consultation (and review of DPR) rather than creating this kind of situation and then saying work was 'scientific'. Also should donors be held accountable as well in such scenarios (as donors all claim positive impacts as their impacts, so why not be accountable for negative impacts too?). My view is that if the work was done under an RFP type process (where program design emerged form donor) and/or Donor team had a formal sign-off authority to NGO's program plans, the donors need to be held equally liable.

Read about the history of Line 5 in this piece by Daniel Macfarlane, "Line 5 and the History of Canada-US Hydrocarbon Pipelines" - https://lnkd.in/dsDfkBbf

Defend the Great Lakes: It’s time to retire Line 5 ✊🏽🌱 📣 On June 14th, join the rally at the Canadian Consulate in Minneapolis to protect the Great Lakes from an imminent oil spill. Hear movement speakers and share water protecting art, fliers and community. We’ll demand the Canadian government retract any and all use of the 1977 Agreement to continue pumping oil through the decrepit 71-year-old Enbridge Line 5 pipeline. We’ll also call on Canada to shut down Enbridge Line 9 in solidarity with allies there. When: Friday, June 14 at 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM Where: Consulate General of Canada, 701 4th Ave S 9th floor, Minneapolis, MN 55415 More than 5,000 individuals and 300 organizations have called on the Canadian government to stop interfering with tribal, state, and federal actions in the US against Line 5, through wrongful use of a 1977 "agreement" between the two countries. A delegation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous activists delivered this message in person to Parliament, and MP Mike Morrice presented it as a petition to the House of Commons. We’ll build on these efforts on June 14th, demanding the Canadian government stop perpetuating falsehoods about tar sands pipelines and start telling the truth to their constituents and the world. Hosted by the Cross-Border Organizing Working Group. If you can, please donate to help support speakers and travel: https://lnkd.in/gQwFqZhK

In the most recent edition of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) Resolver Winter 2023 issue, Paul Sills sheds light on the indispensable role of Dispute Boards in our industry in a world where time and costs are paramount. The article "Dispute Boards: Proven Solutions for Swift and Cost-effective Dispute Resolution in Construction and Engineering Industries" is a must-read for anyone in the construction and engineering sectors. Read the full article here - resolver-winter-2023.pdf (ciarb.org) #construction #disputeboards #CIArb 

Why do we seem to go to such great lengths to prove H. G. Wells right when he noted (in 1920): “Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.” While we continue to plunder the seas for food, we mow seem poised to wreak new havoc in our quest for minerals. This report by the Environmental Justice Foundation does a great job of summarizing what is at stake. #sustainablematerials

Public Footpaths! They are far the most contentious issue in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. This is probably a surprise to most but not to landowners, farmers and even a few unlucky domestic property owners. I admire the BBC for getting the balance right in their journalism but on this occasion they have got the balance wrong. 8,000 outstanding requests means at least(!) 8,000 landowners who do not know if there is a public right of way crossing their land, garden or even through their house. Imagine trying to sell your land or plan for the future not knowing if the public has a right to cross your field. No business can afford to invest or grow without certainty about what is around the corner. Without legislative reform, the effected landowners are left in limbo with more and more applications being submitted each week. Changes to the current system were prepared in 2000 but have never been brought into law. Local authorities have been with a system and process which was never intended for the use to which it is now being put and which cannot cope with the volume of applications it receives. Wilkin Chapman Solicitors Rhonda Thompson Andy Guy NFU (National Farmers' Union) BBC News https://lnkd.in/eg8rDA88

Sitting on edge, awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on the namesake case "Chevron deference." This ruling could alter how federal regulations, and FEMA policy guidance, are interpreted and enforced. For state and local governments, governmental agencies and authorities, non-profits, and infrastructure providers, I highly recommend checking out the below publication written by Wendy Huff Ellard and Charles Schexnaildre. Will decades of deference given to federal agencies, like FEMA, change? We shall see!!

Living on stolen land as an African American has always been complicated. Dispossession and displacement are strategies used around the world to oppress. As an elected official, there are new considerations and obligations. I am eager to dive into this report and hopeful that we can raise the funds for the Justice for Black Coloradoans racial equity study to find out the amount stolen through inequitable policies and practices in workforce, education, health, housing and transportation. It’s time for the fullest truth to better position for a more inclusive future.

This article highlights the bad outcomes for taxpayers when #SyndicatedConservationEasement cases are tried in Tax Court. I still hear about settlement offers like these in the article being declined. Consult with independent counsel when making important decisions regarding settlements.

A case decided by the SJC last week discusses a unique component of municipal real estate - namely -- that land which is acquired for a specific municipal purpose (under G.L. c. 40A, s. 15) cannot be diverted to another purpose without the municipality first determining that it is no longer necessary for the original purpose. In Carroll v Norwell, certain residents sought to transfer land which town meeting had authorized be "made available for affordable housing" to the conservation commission, which would hold it for other purposes. The question for the Court was whether the land was, in fact, held for a specific municipal purpose (affordable housing), thereby precluding a transfer for another purpose without an initial determination that it was not needed for the originally intended use. In reaching the conclusion that it was, the Court determined that the appropriate test to use in answering that question was "whether the totality of the circumstances indicate a clear and unequivocal intent to dedicate the land to that purpose." This issue comes up more often than you would think, particularly where land is donated and accepted for a use that it is ultimately unsuited for - but which could be productively used for an alternative purpose. It is a good reminder to make sure you follow all of the necessary steps before attempting a transfer for a new use.