Drought Impacts Passage of the Farm Bill

By: Raabia Wazir, Staff Member

The drought of 2012 is the worst that the United States has seen in decades, stretching from Ohio west to California and from Texas north to the Dakotas. Twenty percent of the nation is either in an extreme or exceptional stage of drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.[1] The intensity of the drought has increased rapidly in July, with states like Illinois seeing the percentage of its land in the worst two stages of drought increase from 8% to over 70% over the course of a week.[2] The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has now designated 1,369 counties in 31 states as natural-disaster areas, extending low-interest loans and other federal aid to help struggling communities.[3]

No sector of the economy has felt the effects of the drought more acutely than agriculture. Close to 90% of the nation's corn and soybeans are in drought-stricken areas[4], resulting in a nearly 3 billion bushel cut in corn production of an anticipated 14 billion bushels.[5] Corn, soybean and other commodities prices have soared as a result, and now farmers and ranchers find themselves unable to afford feed for their livestock. The drought exacerbated already declining numbers of cattle in the U.S., and now the nation's cattle inventory is the lowest since the USDA began a July count in 1973.[6] Consumers are expected to feel the effects of the drought in the costs of dairy and meat, with beef prices expected to rise 4 to 5 percent.[7]

Farmers and ranchers are waiting anxiously for Congressional approval of the new version of the five-year farm bill, a massive piece of legislation that deals with agriculture and all other affairs under the purview of the USDA. To be sure, the Senate has approved their version of the bill[8], and the House Agricultural Committee has produced a bill for consideration notable for its $16.5 billion in food stamp cuts[9], but Republican House leadership threaten to duck any votes on the bill until after November elections to avoid a messy and divisive floor debate between the party’s most ardent conservatives who seek further reform and cuts and representatives of drought ridden farmers.[10] This would mean allowing the current law to expire September 30, 2012, an unprecedented move that would shake an already weakened industry.[11]

One likely resolution to this standstill is a one-year extension of current farm law with cuts in conservation programs to fund drought relief for livestock producers. House leaders hope that these concessions will provide leverage to negotiate comprehensive reform for the farm bill with the Senate.[12] Agricultural groups are unappeased, insisting instead on passage of the five-year bill. [13] Bob Stallman, president of American Farmland Trust stated, “A one-year extension offers our farm and ranch families nothing in the way of long-term policy certainty…we need clear and confident signals from our lawmakers.”[14]

Ultimately, it is clear that those most concerned with this issue have no patience for political maneuvering, but for politicians up for reelection, it’s much easier to vote for disaster assistance than a new farm bill.

____________________________

[1] Jim Suhr,

Report shows US drought rapidly intensifying

,

Associated Press

(July 26, 2012),

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i5uDlVBlti6asOlsDiaC8UAVuorg?docId=0f2f31d2a90b4cfaa42d68f6522165d4

.

[2]

Id.

[3] Mark Drajem,

Disaster Aid Extended To 76 U.S. Counties As Drought Persists,

Bloomberg

(July 25, 2012),

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-25/disaster-aid-extended-to-76-u-s-counties-as-drought-persists.html

.

[4]

Id.

[5] Steve Karnows,

USDA says drought will boost food prices in 2013

,

Associated Press

(July 28, 2012),

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20120729/BUSINESS/207290302/USDA-says-drought-will-boost-food-prices-2013

.

[6] Roxana Hegeman,

U.S. has fewest cattle in at least 4 decades

, Associated Press

(July 22, 2012),

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20120723/BIZ/207230304/U-S-has-fewest-cattle-least-4-decades

.

[7] Karnows,

supra

note 5.

[8] David Rogers,

Congress delays farm bill as drought spreads

,

Politico (

July 23, 2012),

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=11C54F89-11E4-41BC-B3A7-59CDDD91069A

.

[9] David Rogers,

Food stamp cuts fire up Dems on farm bill

,

Politico

(July 10, 2012)

,

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78375.html

.

[10] Jake Sherman,

GOP leaders may squash farm bill,

Politico

(July 12, 2012),

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78460.html

.

[11] Rogers,

supra

note 8.

[12] David Rogers,

A new twist in farm bill drama

,

Politico

(July 26, 2012),

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79023.html

.

[13] Jonthan Weisman,

Republican Leaders in Tricky Spot on Farm Bill and Drought Aid

,

N.Y. Times

, July 30, 2012, 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/republican-leaders-in-tricky-spot-on-farm-bill-and-drought-aid/

[14]

Id.

Has Obama lost the coal states? The Courts v. The Industry

By: Jessica Durden, Staff Member

The embattled coal states, already stressed by the rise of the natural gas industry, were dealt another blow when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandate to fiercely limit greenhouse-gas emissions.[1]

  The Court fully supported the EPA in its finding that rising carbon dioxide emissions from the coal industry and other utility providers have “likely been responsible for global warming over the past half century.”

[2]

  The ruling piggybacked on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that the EPA had power under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions.[3]

In a heated election year, such a dramatic ruling could hurt the incumbent President Obama in his election efforts.  Obama lost Kentucky and West Virginia, two major mining states, in 2008.[4]

 Peppered along the highways in West Virginia are billboards declaring that the coal corridor is Obama’s “No Job Zone,” and West Virginia democrats have withheld support for the President because of his support for the EPA’s strict regulations.[5]

 The 2012 polls in mining states were not in Mr. Obama’s favor prior to this ruling, either.  In the Kentucky Democratic primary, 42 percent of registered and voting Kentucky Democrats voted for “uncommitted,” and in West Virginia a shocking 41 percent of state Democrats marked down a convicted felon’s name over Mr. Obama’s.[6]

  Kentucky’s primary vote result particularly shocked industry experts because there was not even another option on the ballot.[7]

These results are not entirely shocking, since Obama did not take these states in 2008 and was not projected to this year, but for a swing state like Ohio, this ruling could have maj

or implications. Presumed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has already jumped on the opportunity to gain favor in coal-dependent Ohio by launching an energy-focused campaign in the state.[8]

  In an incredible streak, Ohio has picked the winner of the presidential election every year since 1964, and recent polls still put Mr. Obama ahead of Mr. Romney.[9]

  But this recent ruling gives Mr. Romney a strategic opening to appeal to the many industrial workers in Ohio struggling to get on board with the demands of the EPA.  If the Romney camp convinces Ohio, it is possible to win the state—and therefore win the nation in November.

[1]

Brett Kendall

,

Court Backs EPA on Warming

,

Wall. St. J.,

June 26, 2012, at A1.

[2]

Id.

[3]

Id.

[4]

Election Results 2008

,

N

Y T

imes,

(Dec. 9, 2008), http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html.

[5]

M

ark Caserta,

Will W.Va. become an Obama “no-job” zone?

,

Huntington Herald-dispatch

,

(June 21, 2012), http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x1805694144/Will-W-Va-become-an-Obama-no-job-zone.

[6]

Aaron Blake,

Obama loses 40 percent of the primary vote in Arkansas, Kentucky

, (

Wash. Post,

May 22, 2012), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-loses-more-than-40-percent-of-kentucky-primary-voters-to-uncommitted-option/2012/05/22/gIQAlYHEjU_blog.html.

[7]

Id.

[8]

See

Kendall

at A1.

[9]

Tom Troy,

Obama, Romney camps pull out all stops in Ohio

, T

oledo Blade

,( July 1, 2012), http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2012/07/01/Obama-Romney-camps-pull-out-all-stops-in-Ohio.html.

Budget Cuts Causing State Park Closures

By: Clay Duncan, Staff Member

The recreational and environmental value provided by state parks across the U.S. is soon to be diminished due to lack of funding.  State budget cuts are resulting in closures of many parks nationwide, as well as a reduction in operations in many that will remain open.

[1]

  Despite their perception as mere places of leisure, state parks are important national attractions whose continued maintenance is important to the preservation of America’s emphasis on environmental upkeep.  With funds scarce and expenses rising, states must become creative with ways to get the necessary money to keep these parks alive.

California closed a whopping 70 parks, while Arizona cut funding to parks completely.

[2]

  Other states have made multimillion dollar cuts to funding previously allocated to state park maintenance.

[3]

  The necessity of these closures is not for lack of attendance nationally, as U.S. state parks saw a 14 million visitor increase from 2009 to 2010.

[4]

  What’s more, state parks are fairly large employers in a country troubled with unemployment, providing some 270,000 jobs across the country.

[5]

A likely reason for these budget cuts to state parks is that states do not receive matching funds from the federal government for the funds it spends on them,

[6]

thus such spending equates to a dollar for dollar reduction in money that could be used elsewhere.  Even those federal programs that have provided funding for state parks are at risk of being eliminated.

[7]

  One such program is the Recreational Trails Program, which “provides funds to the States to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational trail uses.”

[8]

To make up for the loss in funding once provided by the budgets, some states have resorted to raising fees in exchange for unlimited parks access,

[9]

and seeking corporate and nonprofit partnerships by offering them advertising opportunities and control over operations.

[10]

  In Ohio and Pennsylvania, legislation has been introduced which proposes leasing state park land to oil and gas drillers.

[11]

  Proponents of the legislation see it as a necessary measure to raise the requisite funds for much needed park projects, while skeptics see such a move exposing parks to corporate greed.

[12]

State funding is scarce in most areas of the country, so budgetary cutbacks rarely come as a surprise.  But if an effective replacement for this source of money is not found and state park closures proceed as projected, Americans will soon be deprived of great opportunities to see this country’s natural landscape.

[i]

Douglas Shinkle,

Parks in Peril

, National Conference of State Legislatures (Jan. 2012),

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/env-res/parks-in-peril.aspx

.

[ii]

Id

.

[iii]

Id

.

[iv]

Id

.

[v]

Id

.

[vi]

Shinkle,

supra

note 1.

[vii]

Id

.

[viii]

Recreational Trails Program

, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration,

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/index.cfm

(last updated Apr. 27, 2012). 

[ix]

Shinkle,

supra

note 1.

[x]

Id

.

[xi]

Id

.

[xii]

Id

. 

“Frog Juice” Has Legislators Hopping Mad

By: Catherine Barrett, Staff Member

The most talked about drug in horse racing this summer has been “frog juice,” also known as dermorphin, which is a synthesized version of a substance secreted by the waxy monkey tree frog (

Phyllomedusa sauvagei

), a native of South America.

[1]

More than 30 horses in four states have tested positive for the drug, but the drug’s use may be even more widespread, because many states cannot test for dermorphin.

[2]

Dermorphin is a painkiller, 40 times more powerful than morphine, which the frogs secrete to protect their sensitive skin.

[3]

It joins a long list of powerful painkillers that have been used in racehorses (an imaginative list which also includes cobra venom).

[4]

When racehorses have been given painkillers – whether the painkillers originated in reptiles, amphibians, or laboratories – the horses do not feel the pain that is supposed to be a natural warning against injury.

[5]

  The risk that a horse will break down during a race, causing serious injury to the horse and rider, is thus increased.

[6]

Even a minor injury may disqualify a thoroughbred from a post-racing career if it is exacerbated by running a heavily medicated horse in one last race.

[7]

Although federal law regulates other aspects of interstate racing, there are no federal laws or regulations addressing the use of race day medications like “frog juice.”

[8]

In May of 2011, Congressman Ed Whitfield of Kentucky and Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico introduced the “Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act of 2011” to address the use of medication in horseracing.

[9]

If enacted, the bill would ban the use of race day drugs, require that winning horses be tested by accredited labs, and provide stern sanctions for trainers caught violating drug rules.

[10]

Trainers caught in multiple drug violations would be disqualified from the sport.

[11]

The Interstate Horse Racing Improvement Act of 2011 has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.

[12]

No hearings have been conducted on the legislation, but as of this spring, Congressman Whitfield is still gathering support for its passage.

[13]

He can be contacted through his website,

http://whitfield.house.gov/

.

[1]

Jeanna Bryner,

What is Frog Juice?

,

LiveScience

(June 20, 2012),

http://www.livescience.com/21064-frog-juice-racehorse-drugs.html

.

[2]

Id

.

[3]

Id

.

[4]

Walt Bogdanich and Rebecca R. Ruiz,

Turning to Frogs for Illegal Aid in Horse Races

,

The New York Times

(June 19, 2012),

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/sports/horse-racing-discovers-new-drug-problem-one-linked-to-frogs.html

.

[5]

Whitfield, Udall Introduce Legislation to End Doping of Racehorses

, (May 1, 2011),

http://whitfield.house.gov/press-release/whitfield-udall-introduce-legislation-end-doping-race-horses

.

[6]

Id.

[7]

Esther Marr,

Protecting Race

horses for Second Careers

,

The Bloodhorse

(June 28, 2010),

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/57661/protecting-racehorses-for-second-careers

.

[8]

Laura Allen,

Fact v. Fiction: Ending Race Horse Doping

,

Animal Law Coalition

(April 7, 2012), 

http://www.animallawcoalition.com/horse-slaughter/article/1987

[9]

Whitfield, Udall Introduce Legislation to End Doping of Racehorses

, (May 1, 2011),

http://whitfield.house.gov/press-release/whitfield-udall-introduce-legislation-end-doping-race-horses

.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Id.

[12]

Bill Summary and Status, 112

th

Congress (2011 – 2012) H.R.1733, The Library of Congress: Thomas (last accessed June 25, 2012)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1733:

.

[13]

Ray Paulick,

Whitfield: Will Work To Pass Horseracing Improvement Act

,

Paulick Report

(March 28, 2012)

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/whitfield-will-work-to-pass-horseracing-improvement-act/

.

Think Twice Before Using Roundup on Your Garden This Summer

By: Arthur Cook, Staff Member

Summer means family barbeques, celebrations surrounding flags, our fathers, and at least a dozen weddings.  Summer also means lawn care. Committing herbicide against the ever-encroaching weed terror sends many to their local lawn and garden centers. Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the United States, is featured in many popular weed killing products like Roundup.

[1]

Roundup is particularly popular with farmers. Glyphosate is non-selective in that it kills all vegetation except genetically modified plants marketed as "Roundup Ready."

[2]

Roundup is manufactured by everybody's favorite shady conglomerate, Monsanto.

[3]

What most people do not consider when purchasing and applying Roundup is the relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their lawns. As you read this, the EPA is in the process of finishing its data-gathering for the first comprehensive review of Roundup in thirty years.

[4]

Some studies indicate levels of Glyphosate have risen in food sources over the last few years.

[5]

  This is particularly concerning because Glyphosate has low, but not the lowest, level of toxicity.

[6]

Additionally, a surfactant non-active ingredient in Roundup, polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA), has recently come under fire for posing greater dangers to humans than Glyphosate. In one study from the University of Caen, researchers determined the chemical was more deadly to human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself.

[7]

  Additionally, POEA is not subject to EPA regulation.

[8]

Some governments have already moved to curb the influence of Roundup. For example, the province of Ontario in Canada has a comprehensive ban on all non-essential weed killers, including Roundup.

[9]

Ontario defines "non-essential" as uses for purposes that include a concern for public safety.[10

]

Other locales, such as Boulder, Colorado, have entirely moved away from using Roundup in public places.

[11]

As the EPA concludes its study, the effects of Roundup will be more closely scrutinized for the potential for danger to humans. In the meantime, consider pulling those pesky weeds yourself.

[1]

Glpyhosate Technical Fact Sheet

, 

National Pesticide Information,

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/historical/upload/Archived-Technical-Fact-Sheet-on-Glyphosate.pdf.

[2]

Herbicide Tolerance and GM Crops

,

Greenpeace International

,  (June 30, 2011), http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/Herbicide-tolerance-and-GM-crops/.

[3]

Id.

[4]

Carey Gillam,

Cancer Cause or Crop Aid? Herbicide Faces Big Test

,

Reuters,  (

Apr. 8, 2011, 12:14 PM), http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/08/us-glyphosate-epa-idUSTRE7374WX20110408..

[5]

Agronomic and Enviromental Impacts of the Commercial Cultivation of Glpyhosate Tolerant Soybean in the USA

,

Centrum Voor Landbouw en Milieu,

http://www.sbcbiotech.nl/page/downloads/Agronomic_and_environmental_impacts_GT_soybean_SBC___CLM_July_2001.pdf.

[6]

R.E.D. FACTS: Glyphosate

, EPA, http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf.

[7]

Crystal Gammon and

Environmental Health News

,

Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells,

Scientific American

, (June 23, 2009), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p.

[8] 

Id.

[9]

Mary Agnes Welch,

Province's Chemical Dependency

,

Winnipeg Free Press

, (May 22, 2012), (http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/provinces-chemical-dependency-152469985.html.

[10]

Id

.

[11] 

Heather Urie,

Boulder City Manager Pulls Roundup Weedkiller in Public Places

, D

aily Camera,

(May 1, 2011), http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_17960073.

EPA Plan May End New Coal Power Plants

By: 

Roy York, Staff Member

On March, 27, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a 257-page rule that forces new coal-fired power plants to emit the same amount of greenhouse gasses as power plants that burn natural gas.

[1] 

Some are saying these regulations will end the use of coal as a source of energy in the United States.

[2]

The proposed regulations would require new fossil fuel-fired power plants that produce more than 25 megawatts to meet an output-based standard of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. This standard is based on the performance of natural gas technology.

[3]

The EPA stressed that these regulations only apply to new plants and would not affect existing plants.

[4]

Further, the regulations would not apply to plants that will begin construction in the next 12 months.

[5]

The EPA said new natural gas electric plants would have no trouble meeting the new guidelines with existing technology, but coal-fired plants would need to implement new technology such as carbon capture to reduce their emissions below the threshold.

[6]

This news has garnered reactions from environmental activists and coal supporters.

[7]

Some have been critical of the political implications of the move, and have accused President Obama of wanting to end the use of coal in the United States.

[8]

Feedback on the document is requested within 60 days of the publication of the proposed rule, and the EPA will hold public hearings on the proposal within 60 days of the publication of the proposed rules.

[9]

The EPA will make a final decision on the regulations later this year.

______________________________________

[1] Environmental Protection Agency,

Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

, 1-2, available at http://epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandards/pdfs/20120327proposal.pdf.

[2] Debra McCown,

Southwest Virginia coal proponents critical of EPA's proposed new power plant regulations

, TRICITIES.COM, April 2, 2012, available at http://www2.tricities.com/news/2012/apr/02/southwest-virginia-coal-proponents-critical-epas-p-ar-1810907/. 

[3] 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 2

, available at http://epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandards/pdfs/20120327proposal.pdf.

[4]

Id. 

[5]

Id. 

[6] Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman,

EPA proposes first-ever greenhouse gas regulations for new power plants,

THE HILL, March 27, 2012, available at http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/218411-epa-unveils-long-awaited-climate-rules-for-new-power-plants.

[7]

See Id. 

[8] 

Debra McCown,

Southwest Virginia coal proponents critical of EPA's proposed new power plant regulations.

,

TriCities.com

, April 2, 2012, available at http://www2.tricities.com/news/2012/apr/02/southwest-virginia-coal-proponents-critical-epas-p-ar-1810907/.

[9] 

Environmental Protection Agency,

Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

, 7-8, available at

http://epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandard/pdfs/20120327proposal.pdf.

EPA Exceeds Its Authority By Revoking Mountaintop Removal Permit

By: Raabia Wazir, Staff Member

Environmentalist cheered in January 2011 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked one of the largest mountaintop removal permits ever authorized in Appalachia on grounds that the mine would result in unacceptable damage to streams and wildlife and violate the Clean Water Act.[1] The US Army Corps of Engineers originally issued the §404 permit for the Spruce No. 1 mine project in Logan County, W.V., in January 2007 and the Mingo Logan Coal Company (a subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc.) began construction shortly thereafter.[2] The permit covered 2,278 acres and allowed for the burial of approximately 7.48 miles of streams beneath 110 million cubic yards of excess spoil.[3]

The revocation of the permit by the EPA marked the first crackdown by the Obama administration to limit mountaintop removal mining by retroactively vetoing old permits. It is also only the second time that the agency has canceled a water permit for a project of any kind after it was issued since the Clean Water Act was passed by Congress in 1972.[4] The decision led to an uproar from the industry and its supporters, many expressing fear that all mine sites were now vulnerable to losing their permits.[5]

In March 2012, the Federal District Court of District of Columbia ruled that the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act by revoking the permit. Judge Amy Bergman Jackson wrote in her opinion, “The EPA resorts to magical thinking. It posits a scenario involving the automatic self-destruction of a written permit issued by an entirely separate federal agency after years of study and

consideration. Poof!”[6] She further argued that permit revocation is unreasonable because it “[sows] a lack of certainty into a system that was expressly intended to provide finality." The Judge continued, "Every construction project involving waterways could be subject to an open-ended risk of cancellation.”[7]

The agency has yet to announce whether they plan to appeal the ruling.

_______________________________________________

[1] Kate Sheppard,

EPA Halts "Destructive and Unsustainable" Mining Operation

, Blue Marble, Jan. 13, 2011, http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/01/epa-rejects-spruce-no-1-permit.

[2]

Spruce No. 1 Mine

, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

. (April 2, 2012, 5:00 PM), http://www.epa.gov/region03/mtntop/spruce1.html

[3] Final Determination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to § 404(c) of the Clean Water Act  Concerning the Spruce No. 1 Mine, Logan County, West Virginia (2011),

available at:

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/cwa/dredgdis/upload/Spruce_No-_1_Mine_Final_Determination_011311_signed.pdf

[4] Stephen Power & Kris Maher,

EPA Blasted as It Revokes Mine's Permit

,

Wall Street Journal

, Jan. 14, 2011,

available at

:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079792048919286.html

.

[5] Erik Eckholm,

Project’s Fate May Predict the Future of Mining

,

N.Y. Times

, July 14, 2010,

available at

:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/us/15mining.html.

[6] Mingo Logan Coal Co. Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., No. 10–0541, 2012 WL 975880 (D.D.C. March 23, 2012),

available at

: http://wvgazette.com/static/coal%20tattoo/SpruceMineRuling.pdf

[7]

Id.

Federal Government Initiates Commenting Period for Potential OCS Lease Sale in Cook Inlet, Alaska

By: Elizabeth Watson, Staff Member

On March 27, 2012, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the bureau within the Department of the Interior that “

manages the exploration and development of the nation's offshore resources,”[1] with an eye toward environmental concerns, published in the Federal Register a request for interest (RFI) regarding oil and gas exploration and drilling in the Cook Inlet Planning Area of Alaska.[2]  The request initiates a 45 day comment period in which any individual, including private citizens and oil and gas corporations, may submit comments about “geologic and economic information,” “environmental, biological, archaeological, and socioeconomic conditions,” and any other impact that may occur if a proposed federal lease Sale 244 in 2013 were to occur in the Cook Inlet.[3]  While industry interest is a main goal of the request for information, BOEM also voices particular interest in comments from “tribal, local, and state governments, Federal agencies, and the general public,” concerning the best ways to proceed in evaluating applicable laws, including: The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).[4]  

While Alaska’s state leasing program sees much success in this region, with the most recent sale in 2011 covering 575,202 acres, “there are currently no active Federal OCS leases in Cook Inlet.”[5]

Thus, through commenting, BOEM seeks to gauge the “renewed interest in exploring for and developing additional hydrocarbon resources . . . both offshore and onshore.”[6]

All comments must be received by May 11, 2012, and the Federal Register outlines different commenting and disclosure requirements for individuals versus interested corporations.[7]

In the Federal Register, BOEM emphasizes that after the commenting period and review of environmental impact considerations, the bureau will “then decide on whether to proceed with further evaluation of this special interest sale.

This RFI does not indicate a decision to include Sale 244 in the Proposed Final OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017 (Final Program) or to lease in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.”[8]

And, without sufficient industry interest, evidenced through commenting, the sale will not proceed.[9]

With renewed industry interest, one expects to see many more comments received from the industry during this time than the meager three comments received in a past federal lease sale of this area in 2008, which had no industry nominations.[10]

Additionally, expect more push back from those representing environmental concerns, such as the protection of the Beluga Whale population in the Cook Inlet.[11]

[1] 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,

http://www.boem.gov/ (last visited April 1, 2012).

[2] 77 Fed. Reg. 18,260, 18,260.

[3] 

Id.

at 18,261.

[4] 

Id.

at 18,260.

[5] 

Id.

at 18,261.

[6] 

Id.

at 18,260.

[7] 

See id.

at 18261-62.

[8] 

Id.

at 18260.

[9] 

Id.

at 18261.

[10] 

Id.

[11] 

See

Patti Epler,

New drilling operation begins in Alaska’s Cook Inlet

,

Alaska Dispatch

(Aug. 22, 2011), http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/new-drilling-operation-begins-alaskas-cook-inlet?page=0,0. 

A Gamble on Gambling: Let Kentuckians Decide to Pull the Lever or Not

By: John Wathen, Staff Member

On February 23, 2012, the Kentucky Senate, in a 21-16 vote, rejected Senate Bill 151 regarding a constitutional amendment legalizing gambling in the Commonwealth.

[1]

  This was well short of the 23 votes required for passage of the amendment, as required by the Kentucky State Constitution.

[2]

  The amendment would allow no more than seven casinos in the state, require that casinos be at least 60 miles from any licensed horse track, and included a statement requiring tax revenues produced from gambling be used for “

purposes including job creation, education, human services, health care, veterans programs, local governments, public safety, and the support of the horse industry.”

[3]

  If the bill had passed the Senate, it would then have been proposed to the public at large through referendum, requiring a majority vote for passage, as required by the Kentucky Constitution.

[4]

Those in opposition to the amendment have argued that tax revenues from casinos are essentially regressive in nature, coming mainly from those individuals with less disposable income and thus with more to lose from a bad day at the tables.

[5]

  Additionally, they reference economists who have looked to other casino states, claiming that casinos are not reliable revenue streams and every dollar lost at a casino is a dollar that could have been spent on other products and services.

[6]

  They argue that a dollar spent at a casino is not really revenue generated, but simply a reapportionment of revenue from other, more productive industries.

[7]

  There is also a general concern for the high number of “at-risk” gamblers in the state, and social conservatives have expressed a belief that a number of negative collateral effects, such as poverty and increased crime, will accompany expanded gambling.

[8]

Proponents of the amendment, including Kevin Flanery, president of Churchill Downs, have long argued that the legalization of gambling is essential to Kentucky’s flagship horse-racing industry.

[9]

  They point to decreased track attendance and smaller purses as a sign that horseracing in Kentucky is in decline, and claim that tracks here simply cannot compete with less-regulated horse parks in other states.

[10]

  Supporters also argue that, much like the lottery, casino gambling would lead to increased state revenues for education, job creation, and other beneficial programs facing cutbacks in the face of the economic downturn.

[11]

Across the state, the issue of expanded gambling has long been a front-page contentious issue, with no clear consensus emerging. However, Kentuckians seem united on at least one issue; let the people decide with a referendum. According to two major polls, 80 percent of Kentuckians want a direct vote on gambling regulation.

[12]

 With such overwhelming numbers, the General Assembly should pass the amendment and let the people decide once and for all the future of gambling in the Commonwealth.

[1]

Gregory A. Hall,

Senate Rejects Casino Gambling Amendment,

Courier Journal, Feb. 23, 2012, http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courier_journal/access/2593895571.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&fmac=e01bcbebf2d68207b328bf3f9076617f&date=Feb+23%2C+2012&author=&pub=&desc=Senate+rejects+casino+gambling+amendment.

[2]

Id

.

[3]

S.B. 151, Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012).

[4]

Id

.

[5]

Time to Oppose Senate Bill 151, Bad Bet for Kentucky,

Catholic Conference of Ky. Blog (Feb. 19, 2012),

http://ccky.org/2012/02/time-to-oppose-senate-bill-151-bad-bet-for-kentucky/.

[6]

John Cheves,

Casinos No Cure-all for State Budgets, Economists Say,

Jan. 16, 2012, http://www.kentucky.com/2012/01/16/2030235/casinos-no-cure-all-for-state.html#storylink=misearch

[7]

Id

.

[8]

Supra

note 5.

[9]

Hall,

supra

note 1.

[10]

Id

.

[11]

Cheves,

supra

note 6.

[12]

Bradford Cummins,

The Winners and Losers of SB 151,

The Paulick Report, Feb. 24, 2012, http://www.paulickreport.com:8080/news/ray-s-paddock/the-winners-and-losers-of-sb-151/.