Facebook Three people charged with drug offences in Derry Gardai continue to investigate Kilmacrennan fire RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Twitter 75 positive cases of Covid confirmed in North WhatsApp WhatsApp Google+ By News Highland – October 15, 2014 Google+ Twitter 365 additional cases of Covid-19 in Republic Pinterest Facebook Three people have been charged with drugs offences over the seizure of £125,000 worth of cocaine and herbal cannabis in Derry in June.The three – a 44-year-old woman and two men aged 30 and 40 – are due to appear in court this afternoon.A 42-year-old man also arrested over the find has been released pending a report to the PPS.Five other men arrested in Belfast, Newtownards and Manchester as part of the investigation remain in custody.Police said 10 searches had been carried out at locations including Manchester, Derry, Belfast, Newry and Newtownards.Documents, cash, phones, jewellery and small quantities of suspected drugs have been seized.Detectives from the Organised Crime Branch worked with police from Greater Manchester, the National Crime Agency, the North West Regional Organised Crime Unit and Police Scotland on the investigation. Further drop in people receiving PUP in Donegal Man arrested on suspicion of drugs and criminal property offences in Derry Main Evening News, Sport and Obituaries Tuesday May 25th Previous articlePaddy Carr nominated for Donegal manager’s postNext articleMan stabbed in Sligo Town News Highland Pinterest News
ColumnsTelangana HC’s Powerful Decision On Right To Health In Times Like COVID-19 Swapnil Tripathi25 May 2020 4:39 AMShare This – xThe Court’s reiteration of its role of enforcing the protections under Article 21 even in times of an emergency is particularly important.The world is currently dealing with the unfortunate COVID crisis. Almost every government across the world has brought in radical measures to curb the transmission of cases and save its citizens from dying. The central and state governments in India have also done the same. The laws and regulations framed by the governments, to either keep COVID infections in check or to provide…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe world is currently dealing with the unfortunate COVID crisis. Almost every government across the world has brought in radical measures to curb the transmission of cases and save its citizens from dying. The central and state governments in India have also done the same. The laws and regulations framed by the governments, to either keep COVID infections in check or to provide services to the people, have been criticised for alleged violation of fundamental rights. More than the government, it is the judiciary that has been accused of abdicating its responsibility of protecting fundamental rights, so much so, that some have compared these times to the days of ADM Jabalpur. While I do not wish to comment on these allegations, there is a significant verdict of the High Court of Telangana (GantaJai Kumar v. State of Telangana and Ors., W.P. (PIL) 75 of 2020), which deserves praise. The Court here has strongly reiterated the principles of the Right to Life and the importance of this Right even during a crisis like the present one. In this post, I shall discuss the judgment and the key takeaways from it. Before I discuss the judgment, a brief overview of the legal provisions involved in it i.e. Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, would be helpful. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees to every person in India (not just citizens) the Right to Life and Liberty. The Article states that the said right can be restricted only by a procedure established by law. The ‘law’ in question has to be just, fair and reasonable. It should be noted that judicial pronouncements have read the Article expansively to include the Right to Food, Right to Health, Right to Sleep, Right to Clean Environment etc. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (“Act”) is a short legislation that aims at preventing the spread of dangerous epidemic diseases. Section 2 of the Act allows the state government to prescribe temporary regulations during the time of an outbreak of a dangerous epidemic disease, if it believes that the ordinary provisions of law are insufficient for preventing the outbreak or spread of the disease. Facts and Issues- In the said case, the Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) before the High Court challenging the order of the state government, according to which private hospitals and diagnostic centres (equipped with the necessary equipment and personnel, and willing) were not permitted to conduct diagnostic tests for the COVID-19 virus and admit patients for isolation and treatment (“Order”). The Petitioner had argued that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees to every person the Right to Life which includes the Right to Choose her/his doctor and hospital. Therefore, the state cannot restrict this right in the guise of taking steps to prevent the spread of the pandemic. The Petitioner further contended that there is nothing in Section 2 of the Act which allows the government to issue a blanket prohibition on private institutions and hospitals from testing and treating the patients for Covid-19. The Petitioner had emphasised that there was a need to allow private hospitals to conduct the tests and treat the patients as the government facilities were inadequate, lacked hygiene and that methods of treatment adopted were very ordinary. The government had justified its Order stating that the prohibition did not violate the rights enshrined under Article 21, as it was a just, fair and reasonable procedure. The Court agreed with the Petitioner and held that the Act did not empower the government to pass the Order. Therefore, the prohibition on private hospitals and institutions was sans any valid law and it also violated the Right to Life and Choose/Choice of the people. The Court ultimately allowed private hospitals having the capacity for treatment /isolation as per the standard operating procedure/ guidelines to treat/isolate such patients. Key takeaways from the Judgment: The judgment has certain key takeaways that shall be very significant in similar matters in future. a.Maintainability of the Petition- A PIL is admissible only if (a) the petitioner has bona fide credentials, (b) the Court is prima facie satisfied over the correctness of its contents; (c) it has an element of substantial public interest involved; and (d) there is no personal gain or private motive behind it. I have argued previously, that Courts often ignore these guidelines and entertain PILs that do not confirm with them. The High Court in the present case, is an exception to this trend. In the present case, the government opposed the Petition stating that it did not disclose any public interest and was engineered by vested interests on behalf of the private hospitals. The Court outrightly rejected this contention. It held that the question of a citizen having the right to choose her/his doctor or hospitals, certainly involves public interest. Further, (akin to the Tripura High Court in another matter), the Court also remarked that the government cannot make bald allegations regarding the bona fides of the Petitioner without any basis. Such an approach is welcome for two reasons. First, the Court applied the test for admitting the PIL (which it should ideally do) and second, it did not allow the flimsy argument of lack of bona fides, without the Respondents (i.e. the government) tendering any proof. b.Right to Life includes Right to Choose medical care- The Court interpreted the Right to Health under Article 21 expansively to include within its ambit the Right to Choose one’s Medical Care. It held that the Right includes the freedom to get tested in a laboratory of one’s choice and the government cannot take that right away. It should be noted that nature of the disease in question (which is fatal), also played a role in the Court’s interpretation. The Court opined, ‘The State cannot incapacitate him by restricting his choice particularly when it comes to a disease which affects his life/health or that of his kith and kin.’ By adopting such an interpretation, the Court has not only reiterated that the State has a duty to secure the health of its citizens, but has also held that the citizens also have an individual right to a choice of medical treatment (i.e. the doctor and the hospital) and the state cannot restrict it without a valid law. c.The Limited Scope of the Epidemic Act- For restriction of a Right under Article 21, there must be a procedure prescribed by a law, which is just, fair and reasonable. The government contended that the Order in question, is a valid law for the purposes of Article 21, as it has been passed under Section 2 of the Act. The Court here analysed Section 2 of the Act, and held that there is nothing in the Section which can possibly empower the government to pass an Order preventing private hospitals from testing or treating COVID patients or suspects. It can be gleaned from the Court’s observations that the Section only allows the government to pass such temporary regulations which are reasonable in nature. The Court placed reliance on the guidelines issued by the Union Government for testing of COVID patients by private hospitals and laboratories, to reach this conclusion. It observed, “61. The Ministry Of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India and the ICMR cannot be said to have ignored these provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act,1897 and this Court has good reason to believe that the Union of India and the ICMR did give due consideration to this provision of law while permitting testing and treatment of COVID-19 patients by private laboratories and hospitals.” Therefore, the Court concluded that the Order in question was not ‘law’ for the purposes of Article 21. It observed, “48. Thus, in the instant case the freedom of the citizen of the State to get tested in a laboratory of his choice or get treated in a private hospital of his choice is curtailed by the State without support of any “law”, much less a reasonable, fair and just law. It’s action is thus patently arbitrary and unreasonable and violates Art.21 of the Constitution of India and is unsustainable.” d.Observations on Inviolability of Article 21 during times of Emergency- During the course of the hearing, the learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents contended that COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a state of emergency in the State and therefore, the drastic State action is justified. The Court rejected this contention remarking that there is no declared Emergency in India. It further observed, that even if there was, it would not be an excuse for the government to infringe the rights of an individual under Article 21. The Court traced the entire saga of the unfortunate judgment in ADM Jabalpur and KS Puttaswamy (where ADM was overruled) and observed that the Court has the power to see that even in times of emergency, the state acts in a fair, just and reasonable manner. The Court opined, “57… An emergency of any sort is not an excuse to trample on the rights under Art.21 and the Courts have the power to see that the State will act in a fair, just and reasonable manner even during emergencies. Whether the State has done so or not is judicially reviewable in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.” Concluding Remarks- The High Court’s verdict is important for various reasons. However, the Court’s reiteration of its role of enforcing the protections under Article 21 even in times of an emergency is particularly important. Further, the decision is reasoned in its conclusions and allows private testing taking into account the policies of the government, making implementation not an issue. I would call this decision ‘bold’ also because the Court has not shied away from commenting upon the poor state of medical infrastructure in the country. The Court has observed, “72. The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the poor medical infrastructure in the States where there are too few Hospitals/Primary Health centres, too few Doctors and nurses in Government sector, lack of medicines, and general poor-quality medical infrastructure with honourable exceptions. In fact, the long lockdown was imposed to ramp up the medical infrastructure – buy more medicines, create more isolation facilities, get more ventilators, import a lot of testing kits etc.” [Views are personal] ± The author is a lawyer practicing in New Delhi. The post was first published on his personal blog “The ‘Basic’ Structure”. Next Story
VEOC Board of Directors Elects New LeadershipBurlington, Vermont (November 24, 2008) The Vermont Employee Ownership Center’s Board of Directors has elected new officers for the coming year.Paul Millman is the newly elected Board President. Millman is the president and co-founder of Chroma Technology Corporation (Rockingham, Vt.) and has served on the VEOC board since 2002, previously as Board Vice President. He brings a wealth of knowledge of Vermont’s business community and has worked tirelessly to promote employee ownership.”I am excited to take on the important job of steering the Vermont Employee Ownership Center over the next year,” said Millman. “I look forward to working with the VEOC board, staff, and the entire business community to increase the number of Vermont employee-owned companies,” he said.”Enabling employees to become company owners has been a focus of my professional life since we started Chroma in 1991. Employee ownership brings the rewards and challenges to working people. VEOC is playing a vital role in creating the real ownership society. Employee-owners don’t just act like owners; we are owners,” Millman added.Millman also sits on the Board of Directors of Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility and is a member of the Vermont Business Roundtable.Dawn Terrill is the newly elected Vice President. Terrill owns and operates JaniTech (South Burlington, Vt.) and has been a member of the VEOC board since 2007. She served as Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Transportation from 2004 to 2006 and as Deputy Secretary of the Agency of Commerce and Community Development from 2002 to 2004. Prior to that, she was President and CEO of Colchester-based Hill Associates. Terrill is a member of the Champlain College Board of Trustees, the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, and the Vermont Telecom Authority.Michael Gurdon was re-elected as Secretary, a position he has held since 2003. Gurdon is Professor & Associate Dean of Graduate Programs at the University of Vermont’s School of Business Administration and has served on the VEOC board since 2002.Cindy Turcot was re-elected as Treasurer. Turcot is Chief Operating Officer of Gardener’s Supply Company (Burlington, Vt.) and has served on the VEOC board since 2002. She served as President of the VEOC board from 2002 to 2007.Jack Davidson is the outgoing President, but he remains on the VEOC board. Davidson is president of Trust Company of Vermont and has served on the VEOC board since 2003.Bruce Seifer has left the VEOC board after seven years of service. Seifer is the assistant director for economic development for the city of Burlington’s Community and Economic Development Office.The VEOC also announced that loans are still available for businesses that are already employee-owned, businesses that are becoming so through the purchase of stock or business assets, and start-ups that will be substantially owned by all of the employees. Loans of up to $50,000 are available, and proceeds may be used for fixed assets, working capital, financing of worker shares in cooperatives or the funding of ESOPs. More information is available at www.veoc.org(link is external).About the VEOCThe Vermont Employee Ownership Center is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting and fostering employee ownership. The groups goals are to broaden capital ownership, deepen employee participation, retain local ownership of businesses and the jobs they support, increase living standards for working families, and stabilize communities. VEOC works directly with owners interested in selling their business to their employees, employee groups interested in purchasing a business, and entrepreneurs who wish to start a company with broadly-shared ownership. For more information, visit www.veoc.org(link is external).This project is funded by a grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA’s funding should not be construed as an endorsement of any products, opinions, or services. All SBA-funded projects are extended to the public on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Sign up for our COVID-19 newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest coronavirus news throughout New York A local animal protection agency is asking the public’s help in identifying a woman who dumped a three-month-old black Labrador Retriever in a clothing bin in Centereach Wednesday night.The Suffolk County SPCA said a witness saw a driver of a black Ford Expedition throw the puppy into the clothing bin at a shopping center at the intersection of Middle Country Road and South Coleman Road Wednesday night and then drive away. The dog was taken to Selden Animal Emergency Hospital for observation and treatment, Suffolk SPCA said. There is some good news. Suffolk SPCA Chief Roy Gross said the witness “fell in love” with the puppy and will most likely adopt it. A description of the woman was not provided but the Suffolk SPCA said the SUV had chrome wheels. A partial New York license plate number (6744) was observed, the agency said. The Suffolk SPCA is offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to arrest and conviction of the person responsible for leaving the puppy in the clothing bin. Anyone with information can call the Suffolk SPCA at 631-382-7722. All calls are confidential. The Suffolk County SPCA is asking the public for information regarding the woman who dumped a black puppy in a Centereach clothing bin on Wednesday. (Photo credit: Suffolk SPCA)
Meanwhile, as of Sunday, the Indonesian Medical Association (IDI) had recorded 115 doctor deaths due to COVID-19.Also speaking at the event, the state-owned enterprises minister and COVID-19 response and national economic recovery committee chairman, Erick Thohir, vowed to prioritize medical workers.“If a COVID-19 vaccine is found, medical workers will be prioritized. It is part of the state’s strategy to provide total protection for medical workers,” he said.He also said the government would come up with a better system in handling the COVID-19 pandemic, by involving doctors and nurses in the joint forces.COVID-19 task force chief Doni Monardo also expressed his condolences to the families of the victims.“Our thoughts and prayers go out to the nurses, our heroes, who died in their duties,” he said.Read also: COVID-19: Concerns mount as medical workers suffer pandemic burnoutHe went on to say that the community-based Pentahelix circle — a model comprising businesspeople, the government, community, academics and the media — must be incorporated into the nation’s main strategy to curb the spread of the virus. “Nurses, doctors and medical workers should be the last fortress in battling this pandemic,” Doni added.Health Minister Terawan Agus Putranto, Coordinating Human Development and Culture Minister Muhadjir Effendy and People’s Consultative Assembly Speaker Bambang Soesatyo also delivered their condolences to the families, calling medical workers heroes and applauding their efforts. Topics : Given the fact that one nurse can provide medical care to tens of sick people, losing thousands of competent nurses would be a huge loss to the country, Harif said, suggesting the government give more protection to medical workers.According to data recorded by the PPNI, 78 nurses nationwide have reportedly died from COVID-19. “It’s already a huge loss to all of us, especially to the PPNI,” he said.Read also: IDI urges better protection for medical workers as five more doctors die of COVID-19 The Indonesian Nurses Association (PPNI) hosted an online gathering Tuesday to honor medical workers who have lost their lives during the battle against COVID-19.“Medical workers have vital roles in battling COVID-19. They don’t even know when to feel tired, even though they are supposed to be tired [from the relentless work],”PPNI chairman Harif Fadhillah said in Tuesday’s event, entitled Pray for Nurses.“This event is to remember our friends who died because of the virus. We also want to honor their lives and provide a little solace to their families,” he added.
May 18, 2016 Environment, Government That Works, Press Release Harrisburg, PA – Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf announced today the selection of 114 projects to receive $25,143,294 in funding from Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), for the protection of Pennsylvania’s water resources. The selected projects enhance watersheds, mitigate acid mine drainage, and support water pollution cleanup programs.“The Growing Greener program, and this year’s funding, is an investment in our future and proof that when state government works collaboratively, we achieve long-lasting results,” said Governor Wolf. “The Environmental Stewardship Fund has helped spark innovation and coordinate partnerships to tackle some of the most challenging environmental issues in our state.”The 114 selected projects range from a wetland basin restoration in Chester County to sustainable outreach programs in Erie County. Projects focus on both statewide initiatives, like improving the health of the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay, and local projects, such as riparian buffer enhancement and erosion prevention in Four Mile Run, Westmoreland County. Every project supports DEP’s mission of protecting Pennsylvania’s waters.“DEP is proud to support local and regional water quality projects throughout the state,” said Secretary John Quigley. “These investments are essential to protecting and conserving the rivers, streams, and watersheds of Pennsylvania.”The grant awards are made possible by the Growing Greener Grant Program, the largest single investment of state funds that address Pennsylvania’s environmental concerns. Growing Greener encourages partnerships between counties, municipalities, county conservation districts, watershed organizations, and other organizations to restore and protect the environment.The Growing Greener program is supported by the Environmental Stewardship Fund, which receives its funding from landfill tipping fees. Twelve projects this year received their funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 319 Nonpoint Source Grant Program, created by the Clean Water Act to reduce water pollution. Four projects received funding from the Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) Set Aside Program, funded by the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act and designed to abate AMD pollution. Of the 208 grant applications received for consideration this year, more than half of the proposed projects were awarded grant funding.For more information on the Growing Greener Grant Program, click here or email [email protected] organizations that were awarded are listed below, by grant type and alphabetically by county, with the project name and funding amount.GROWING GREENER:Adams• Adams County Conservation District, Beaverdam Creek Stream Bank Stabilization: $16,878Allegheny• Allegheny County Conservation District, Montour Run Watershed Assessment and Implementation Plan: $94,065• Allegheny County Parks Foundation, South Park Green Parking Solution: $77,130• Pittsburgh Botanic Gardens, Kentucky Hollow AMD Treatment System: $369,007Armstrong• Armstrong Conservation District, Garretts Run BMP Grant: $245,000Beaver• Allegheny County Conservation District, Raccoon Creek Streambank Remediation: $54,395• Beaver County Conservation District, North Fork Little Beaver Stabilization / Habitat Project II: $25,667• Stream Restoration Incorporated, Raccoon Creek Bank & Buffer Project: $99,785Berks• Berks County Conservation District, Establishing a Berks County Mushroom Environmental Initiative: $111,350• The Trust for Tomorrow, The Maiden Creek Tributary Stream Restoration Project: $116,000Blair• Blair County Conservation District, Blair County – Priority Streambank Restoration Projects: $82,000Bradford• Wysox Creek Watershed Association, Inc., Comprehensive Watershed Conservation in Parks and Bullard Creeks: $758,452Bucks• Heritage Conservancy, Hart’s Woods Preserve Riparian Buffer Restoration: $17,048• Lower Southampton Township, Brookside and Pennsylvania Boulevard Basin Naturalization Projects: $103,777• Township of Bensalem, Cornwells Basin and Constructed Wetland: $173,170Butler• Butler County Conservation District, Little Buffalo AG BMP Grant: $220,500Cambria• Cambria County Conservation District, Emeigh Run Streambank Stabilization Project: $4,505• Stream Restoration Incorporated, Puritan AMD Full Treatment: $538,944Centre• Penns Valley Conservation Association, Upper Penns Creek Watershed Stream Restoration: $172,600Chester• Chester County Conservation District, Restoration of an Unnamed Headwater Tributary to Leech Run: $105,500• Valley Forge Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Installation of Infiltration Trench on Dayleview Road: $150,000• West Goshen Township, Extended Detention Wetland Basin Retrofit-Restoration & Demonstration: $296,400Clearfield• Trout Unlimited, Inc., MR Tuff/MR Frog Rehabilitation & Improvement Project: $91,385• Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Knisley Land Restoration-AMD Reduction: $211,778Crawford• Borough of Cochranton, Cochranton Borough Stormwater BMP and Demonstration: $22,840• Crawford County Conservation District, Response to Hydrilla Infestation in Pymatuning Reservoir: $191,833Delaware• Pennsylvania Resources Council, Inc., Darby-Cobbs Stormwater Initiative: $89,883• Rose Valley Borough, Ridley Creek Stabilization and Restoration: $39,046Erie• Environment Erie, Service Learning Projects : $31,050• Environment Erie, BeginANEW Stormwater Education and Management: $48,285• Erie County Conservation District, VinNES Sustainable Outreach and BMP Program: $364,610Fayette• Fayette County Conservation District, Stony Fork Ag BMPs Project: $13,373• Fayette County Conservation District, Meadow Run Nonpoint Source Pollution Grant: $27,864• Trout Unlimited, Chestnut Ridge Chapter, Glade Run Alkaline Sand Addition Project: $64,115Franklin• Franklin County Conservation District, Agriculture Planning in UNT Muddy Run: $50,323Greene• Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, SGL 223: Whiteley Creek Riparian Planting: $27,800Huntingdon• Huntingdon County Conservation District, Warriors Mark Run Agricultural BMPs (Cox and Conrad Farms): $237,205• Huntingdon County Conservation District, Little Juniata River Agricultural BMPs (Ormsby Farm): $225,352• Huntingdon County Conservation District, Saddler Creek Agricultural BMPs (Metz Farm): $133,403• The Trust for Tomorrow, The Brown Farm at Sadler Creek Stream Restoration Project: $33,000Indiana• Stream Restoration Incorporated, Neal Run Restoration Project – Phase II: $100,000Jefferson• Headwaters Charitable Trust, Howe Creek Coalition of Clarion and Jefferson: $95,587• Headwaters Charitable Trust, Filson 1/2 & Glenn 17 Passive Treatment Systems-Operation, Maintenance & Replacement: $258,217Lackawanna• Congregation of the Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, IHM Center Meadow Brook Watershed Protection Project: $262,158Lancaster• City of Lancaster, Intermunicipal Watershed Action Plan: $40,000• Lancaster Farmland Trust, Pequea Creek Watershed Agricultural BMP’s: $482,592• Octoraro Watershed Association, Bells Run Conservation Plan and BMP Assistance: $64,500Lawrence• Lawrence County Conservation District, Slippery Rock Watershed Agricultural Restoration: $810,283Lebanon• Lebanon Valley Conservancy Inc., Quittapahilla Creek EPA 319 Watershed Implementation Plan: $26,250Lehigh• City of Allentown, Livingston Watershed Green Stormwater Infrastructure: $300,000Luzerne• Butler Township, The Wash Sediment Abatement Project: $170,000• Earth Conservancy, Bliss Bank Reclamation Phase II: $734,600• Luzerne Conservation District, Luzerne County 2015 Ag and Stream Protection Projects: $504,542Lycoming• Lycoming County Conservation District, Agricultural Stormwater BMPs: $150,000McKean• McKean County Conservation District, Upper Allegheny Ag BMP’s Project: $278,986Monroe• Paradise Township, Paradise Creek Restoration Project: $693,596Montgomery• Abington Township, Sandy Run TMDL Projects: $186,000• Lower Gwynedd Township, Lower Gwynedd Basins and Dam Naturalization: $60,850• Upper Gwynedd Township, Wissahickon Headwaters Green Stormwater Infrastructure: $305,000• Wissahickon Valley Watershed Association, Wissahickon Headwaters Stream and Riparian Restoration Project: $369,600Montour• Montour County Conservation District, Mahoning Creek Restoration Project: $611,037• Montour County Conservation District, Sitler Roof and Manure Storage Project: $139,165Northampton• Wildlands Conservancy, Inc., Oughoughton Creek Watershed Restoration Project: $106,000Northumberland• Northumberland County Conservation District, Chillisquaque Creek Streambank Stabilization Project: $20,055• Point Township: Kapp Heights Stormwater Management Project – Phase 1: $611,703Philadelphia• Philadelphia City Treasurer, City of Philadelphia Water Department, Germantown Green Bowls on Park Sites: $300,000Schuylkill• Mahanoy Creek Watershed Association, Packer 5 AMD Treatment Design: $85,581• Schuylkill Conservation District, Good Spring Creek Floodplain Restoration Phase 1: $459,445• Schuylkill Conservation District, Mill Creek AMD Watershed Restoration Plan Development: $64,857• Schuylkill Conservation District, Delaware Watershed Agricultural Planning Initiative: $30,000• Schuylkill Conservation District, Animal Heavy Use Area Protection Project: $321,817Snyder• Snyder County Conservation District, Snook Barnyard Improvement Project: $275,000Tioga• Mill Cove Incorporated, Mill Cove Streambank Stabilization Project: $93,000Union• Union County Conservation District, Buffalo Creek Stream Corridor and Wetland Improvement Project: $33,500Warren• Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Brokenstraw Creek Watershed Improvement Project: $95,770Washington• Washington County Conservation District, Raccoon Creek Watershed Agricultural BMPs: $81,608• Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Blaine Township Park Restoration: $113,200Westmoreland• Loyalhanna Watershed Association, Inc., Fourmile Run Restoration Project: $328,000• Westmoreland County Conservation District, Turtle Creek Ag BMPs – Steel’s Run: $22,965• Westmoreland County Conservation District, First Presbyterian Church of Murrysville, Murrysville Volunteer Fire Company: $102,893• Westmoreland County Conservation District, Beaver Run AG BMPs #2 – Rebitch Farm: $15,655• Westmoreland County Conservation District, Sloan Elementary School: $129,085Wyoming• Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association, Inc., Rogers Hollow Stream Restoration – Phase 1 Construction: $397,998Multiple Counties• Bucktail Watershed Association, Defending Native Plants in the First Fork: $24,130• Northcentral Pennsylvania Conservancy, Stream Restoration and BMP Implementation: $354,972• Northwest Pennsylvania Eminent Community Institute, Management & Continuation of the Northwest PA Greenways Implementation Block Grants: $400,000• Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts, Inc., PACD Engineering Technical Assistance Program: $1,528,516• Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, TreeVitalize XII: $250,000• Pennsylvania State University, PaOneStop Manure Management & Nutrient Balance Modules: $168,208• Pocono Northeast Resource Conservation & Development Council, C-SAW-Consortium for Scientific Assistance to Watersheds (1X): $820,000• Stream Restoration Incorporated, Datashed 3: $105,718• Stream Restoration Incorporated: Passive Treatment O&M Technical Assistance 3: $180,000• Stroud Water Research Center, Inc., Delivering the Berks-Chester RCPP: $249,922• Trout Unlimited, Inc., West Branch Susquehanna Recovery Benchmark II: $128,515• Trout Unlimited, Inc., AMD Technical Assistance Program: $225,000• Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Community Riparian Restoration Education Project: $57,635• Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Riparian Restoration: $65,458• Wildlands Conservancy, Inc., Black Creek Watershed AMD Restoration Plan: $70,191TOTAL: $20,694,678319 NONPOINT SOURCE GRANTS RECIPIENTS:Allegheny• Pine Creek Land Conservation Trust, Crouse Run Stream Restoration: $13,800Bedford• Broad Top Township, Sandy Run SA0-D10 AMD Remediation: $400,000Berks• Berks County Conservation District, Surface Water Assessment in the Maiden & Sacony Creek Watersheds: $60,080Clearfield• Clearfield County Conservation District, Deer Creek AMD Treatment Construction: $883,174Cumberland• Cumberland County Conservation District, Middle Spring Creek WIP Implementation Phase II: $62,912Delaware• Villanova University: VUSP – PaDEP – Stormwater Best Management Practice National Monitoring Site: $323,366Indiana• Indiana County Conservation District, WIP SW Region Ag Initiative: $285,092Lancaster• West Lampeter Township, Groff Property Floodplain Restoration: $198,950Mifflin• Mifflin County Conservation District, Upper Kishacoquillas Creek and Hungry Run Surface Water Assessment: $72,692Schuylkill• Schuylkill Headwaters Association, Inc., Reevesdale #2 AMD Restoration Project Phase 2 – Optimization: $485,722Westmoreland• Jacobs Creek Watershed Association, Mt. Pleasant Plaza Storm Water Retrofit (Green Infrastructure): $233,299• Jacobs Creek Watershed Association, Mt. Pleasant Shop N Save: $235,926TOTAL: $3,255,013ACID MINE DRAINAGE (AMD) SET-ASIDE GRANTS RECIPIENTS:Elk• Headwaters Charitable Trust, Kyler Hollow AMD Passive Treatment System – ALD 1 & ALD 2 Rehabilitation: $618,118• Headwaters Charitable Trust, Hayes Run & Backside Hayes AMD Passive Treatment Systems – Modifications/Improvements: $384,918Fayette• Mountain Watershed Association, Inc., Rondell-Correal AMD Treatment System: $123,543Schuylkill• Schuylkill Conservation District, Upper Swatara Creek QHUP AMD Monitoring Project: $67,024TOTAL: $1,193,603GRAND TOTAL: $25,143,294# # # SHARE Email Facebook Twitter Wolf Administration Investing $25.1 Million in Projects to Protect and Improve Pennsylvania Water Resources
Poyet, whose first game in charge ended in a sobering 4-0 defeat at Swansea, admitted a repeat on home soil would be perfect. He said: “I would take that result now, yes. Sometimes there are coincidences in football, but until it happens, it’s difficult to analyse. But it is true that we need to win and this is a perfect game for us. It’s the typical game that the fans would like you to win. From what I have seen in town, the only thing they ask is to win this game. Apparently there is nothing after, there are no more games, it is only this one. “Maybe we should take it like that. This is a game we need to win.” Defender Wes Brown could make a first competitive appearance for the club since January last year after finally shaking off the calf problem which has sidelined him since pre-season. Poyet said: “If you need experience and intelligence and players who have played at the highest level in the biggest games, he is one of them, so I wouldn’t be too worried on that side. “It’s something that we have been struggling with, the mental side, so mentally, I don’t think there could be a better player. “Now the thing is he needs to be able to compete, of course, and last for 90 minutes, so we will see how he reacts to the last four sessions.” Gus Poyet is desperate to remain a thorn in Newcastle’s side. Press Association Asked about his record against Newcastle, Poyet said: “Yes, but I’m not playing. My whole career in England has been always linked to Newcastle somehow for the good and the bad. I just hope the good ones continue and we can win the game. “But I don’t think it’s going to be a game that’s going to be won by me or by Alan Pardew. This game will be won on the pitch. We will try to help them, of course, because we need to make good decisions.” Poyet’s fortunes against the men from St James’ Park have remained positive during his fledgling managerial career to date with the South American having guided former club Brighton to FA Cup victory over the Magpies in each of the last two seasons. Indeed, he boasts a 100 per cent record against Alan Pardew, and that is a statistic who would dearly love to remain intact by the time he heads for home on Sunday evening. Poyet said: “I hope it doesn’t finish now. One hundred per cent is not going to stay for ever, but if there was one time that we need to maintain that 100 per cent, this is it.” Victory over Newcastle – something the Black Cats have achieved only once on Wearside since April 1980 – would be significant for a variety of reasons, not least that it would be their first anywhere in the Barclays Premier League this season. A return of one point from their first eight games has left them anchored to the foot of the table and in severe danger of being cast adrift – the gap to 17th place is already seven points – unless they can halt the slide soon. Predecessor Paolo Di Canio also faced Newcastle in his second game at the helm, in his case at St James’, and he returned with a famous 3-0 victory. The 45-year-old Uruguayan repeatedly thwarted the Magpies’ ambitions during his playing days with Chelsea – for whom he scored both goals in a 2-1 FA Cup semi final victory at Wembley in April 2000 – and Tottenham to the extent that then manager Sir Bobby Robson described him as a “menace” and once jokingly said he hated him. On Sunday, he will lead his Sunderland side into derby battle with the old enemy at the Stadium of Light hoping to extend the hoodoo, although admitting there will be little he can do about it once the first whistle has blown.