but those who blow whistles can just as easily blow them into the states’ ears. Because the presumption against preemption prevails, the Court concludes that the Defendants must show a “clear and manifest purpose of Congress” to preempt the States’ claims. 2. No Actual Conflict Because the presumption against preemption applies, Defendants must show that there manifestly and clearly is an “actual conflict” between the state claims and the federal statute, Concannon, 249 F.3d at 76, and that any impediment is “severe,” not merely “modest,” Walsh, 123 S.Ct. at 1868, 1870. Defendant argues that allowing the States to proceed will “disrupt [the] balance of interests” made by the federal agency or statute. Int’l Paper v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 496, 107 S.Ct. 805, 93 L.Ed.2d 883 (1987) (<HOLDING>). See also Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade
holding that the public employment relationship derives from applicable statutory schemes and not from an independent contract between public employer and employee recognizing that unlike public uses private uses of property are characterized by the benefits bestowed on a particular and most often limited sector of the public usually distinguishable by certain characteristics or membership holding that state claims would disrupt balances struck by epa among public and industrial uses among states and between pollution control and cost holding that the commonwealth did not waive its right to enjoin the pollution of public waters by a mining company holding that the industrial commission only had subject matter jurisdiction over claims under the payment of wages statute and not contract claims