 |
|
 |
Suburban
Sprawl
As large numbers of urban residents move out of cities, suburbs
have embraced endless housing developments and strip malls with
little long range planning. But uncontrolled sprawl presents more
than just an "open space" problem, it also affects our
quality of life and the health of all our communities -- wealthy
and lower-income, urban, rural, and suburban. Citizens pay for sprawl
with longer commutes, higher taxes for infrastructure and public
services, and fewer connections with neighbors. States have found
effective solutions for sprawl by bringing together unlikely allies
-- municipal and county officials; environmentalists and farmers;
community leaders and business people. Benefits of curbing sprawl
include protecting wildlife, forests, and farmland, improving public
health, and preventing urban decay. For more information on how
your state can prevent suburban sprawl, visit: http://www.serconline.org/sprawl/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
States
Want Control over Power Line Decisions (Stateline.org 9/8
<http://www.stateline.org/story.do?storyId=323703>)
The August 14th massive electrical blackout has stimulated much
debate over the nation's power transmission system. One of the primary
issues of the debate involves the placement of electrical lines.
Currently, states have control over the location of electrical lines
in their state, but some federal officials would like to transfer
the siting authority to the federal government. Advocates of federal
control of siting argue that the "not in my backyard"
mentality of states has a tendency to inhibit the expansion of the
nation's power transmission system, which can result in inadequate
line capacity and create stress on the system. They say that federal
oversight would increase the efficiency of power line construction.
Those in favor of leaving siting authority with the states worry
that giving siting authority to the federal government could put
the power into the hands of people who are not looking out for state
interests. They argue that since it is the states that know their
own landscape and understand the local issues, they should be given
the chance to settle siting disputes before the federal government
intervenes. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
Trumping
County Rights -- To Trap or Not to Trap?
The US Sportsmen's
Alliance (http://www.ussportsmen.org/) is taking part in a debate
in New York State regarding who has the right to regulate trapping
-- state wildlife officials or counties. Four separate bills have
been introduced. A1531 and S1771 propose that a constitutional amendment
be added to the state constitution guaranteeing the right to hunt,
fish, and trap. This amendment is similar to ones recently passed
in Wisconsin, and introduced in two other states. Even though the
bills intend to reaffirm that the state is the entity that regulates
trapping, they barely mention this point. The other two bills, A480
and S2901, would empower counties to enact trapping laws that are
stricter than the state's standard. The introduction of these bills
is in response to three court decisions striking down enacted county
laws that were stricter than state laws. A480 and S2901 would allow
counties to place stricter limits on trapping -- not eliminate the
practice, as the US Sportsmen's Alliance claims. Coincidentally,
one week after these bills were introduced, A1531 and S1771 were
proposed in an effort to counteract them. Sponsors of the county
bills assert their legislation reflects the changing demographics
of the counties, and allows local officials to make decisions on
issues affecting their municipalities. Sponsors of the constitutional
amendment believe that state wildlife officials should make decisions
regarding trapping; however, this point is lost in language supporting
New York's long hunting history. A constitutional amendment is unnecessary
and irrelevant to the debate on whether counties should be allowed
to regulate trapping. Adding irony to the debate over trapping is
the US Sportsmen's Alliance calling for state wildlife officials
to regulate an aspect of hunting. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
Arizona
Forest Loss Accelerating (Arizona
Daily Star 9/11
<http://www.azstarnet.com/star/Thu/30911forests.html>)
Arizona's forests could be gone in 20 years unless there's
a change in management, according to Northern Arizona University
professor Wally Covington. The increase in forest fires due
to high fuel loads, coupled with an infestation of bark beetles
and non-native weeds, is devastating the forests. The underlying
problem is an excess of small, young trees that are more flammable.
"We need to remove the excess trees, reintroduce periodic
low-intensity surface fires, and control aggressive exotic
plants" to return forests to a more natural state, Covington
told a special legislative panel. Rob Smith of the Sierra
Club, speaking to the same panel, emphasized the importance
of preserving the oldest 10 percent of trees, which are not
only more fire resistant but also more commercially attractive.
Both speakers agreed that it is important to address forest
health now, given the high cost of fighting wildfires. |
| back
to top |
| |
Colorado
to Develop Plan to Manage Wolves
(Denver Post 9/11
<http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1624301,00.html>)
The Colorado Division of Wildlife has started the process
of deciding how to manage federally protected gray wolves
that move into the state. Under state law, wolves cannot be
reintroduced into Colorado, but the Division anticipates that
wolves may migrate across state lines. Wolves have been sighted
near the Colorado-Wyoming border. The management plan will
determine where wolves are allowed, and when and how they
could be hunted and killed. Two out of three Coloradans favor
the presence of wolves in their state, but agricultural interests
and the state wildlife commission oppose the endangered predators.
For more on wolf management plans, visit: http://www.serconline.org/wolfpreservation/index.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
Appeals
Court Rules That Virginia Can Regulate Some Wetlands
(Virginian-Pilot 9/11
<http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=59547&ran=48404>)
Environmentalists and state officials reacted positively to
a recent 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that
should allow Virginia to regulate and require compensation
for non-tidal wetlands lost to development. The case questioned
both the federal and state ability to protect low-lying forests
and fields that are seasonally wet but not connected to navigable
waterways. These areas are important as wildlife habitat,
pollution filters, and groundwater sources. For more on how
your state can protect wetlands, visit: http://www.serconline.org/wetlands/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
Federal
Agencies Criticized for Inaction on Environmental Justice
(ENN 9/10
<http://enn.com/news/2003-09-10/s_8272.asp>)
A recently-completed report by the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights faults the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Departments of Housing and Urban Development, the Interior,
and Transportation for not doing enough to meet federal environmental
justice goals. The goals, outlined in an 1994 executive order
signed by President Clinton, require all federal agencies
to include in their work and programs initiatives on environmental
justice, defined by the EPA as "the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people" in government actions
relating to the environment. Commission chair Mary Frances
Berry blamed the current administration for a lack of "commitment
to ensuring that low-income communities and communities of
color are treated fairly during the environmental process."
She expressed concern that "the agencies do not incorporate
environmental justice into their core missions, and existing
programs are not evaluated" as a result. The commission
has yet to decide whether to formally approve the report;
one member has cautioned against taking a stand on the issue
"too quickly." Interior Department spokesperson
Mark Pfeifle responded by stressing that his agency "is
dedicated to partnering with cities, tribes, and other groups."
For more information about environmental justice, visit: http://www.serconline.org/ej/index.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
NJ
to Make Polluters Pay for Total Environmental Costs
(New York Times 9/10
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/10/nyregion/10POLL.html>
- registration required)
New Jersey is about to begin enforcing a law that requires
polluters to pay the total cost for restoring damaged natural
resources -- not just the cost of cleaning up. The state first
developed natural resource damage claim regulations under
the Whitman administration. In 2000, New Jersey won an appeals
court ruling on the law, dismissing a legal challenge brought
by Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Public Service Electric and Gas,
DuPont, and other large companies. However, the companies
were able to push through legislation stipulating that all
claims must be filed by 2005. That deadline, along with increasing
threats to the state's water resources, is why New Jersey
is acting to enforce the law now. The state will initially
focus on areas where the groundwater has been significantly
contaminated. According to the state Department of Environmental
Protection, there are more than 3,000 such sites. Some are
concerned that the claims could cause companies to leave New
Jersey. State Commissioner of Environmental Protection Bradley
Campbell explained, "Our natural resources have been
diminished far more by the accretion of smaller environmental
insults from various sources of contamination, and it would
shortchange the public interest if we write off these claims."
For more information on holding polluters accountable, visit:
http://www.serconline.org/enforce/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
CA
Official Slams National Forest Management Changes
(Los Angeles Times 9/9
<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sierra9sep09,1,3734354.story?coll=la-headlines-california>
- registration required)
"We have been rebuffed, ignored, and rejected, and we're
fed up," said California Resources Agency secretary Mary
Nichols, regarding federal changes to the management plan
for 11 national forests in the Sierra Nevada. She claimed
that the U.S. Forest Service ignored state input on the proposed
changes. The Forest Service wants to increase the level of
logging in the forests by three-fold and reduce habitat protection
for many animals, including the spotted owl. Other state officials
and environmental groups have also condemned the proposed
changes, saying they will effectively end important efforts
to restore old-growth ecosystems damaged by more than a century
of logging, grazing, and development. The Forest Service believes
that the changes are needed to make the Sierra woodlands less
prone to wildfires. Nichols, however, said that the Forest
Service had ignored a state offer to cooperate on a program
to reduce potential wildfire fuel near communities. A final
decision on the proposed Sierra forest management changes
is expected from the U.S. Forest Service regional forester
in November. |
| back
to top |
| |
Rules
Don't Slow Aquatic Invaders
(Spokesman-Review 9/9
<http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=090903&ID=s1407763&cat=section.regional>)
Invasive and non-native species carried into ports in the
ballast water of ships have been responsible for billions
of dollars of damage in the United States and have also created
major environmental problems. Some invasive species brought
in by ships have no natural predators. These species have
the ability to reproduce rapidly, interfering with water pipes
and other man-made structures, as well as displacing the native
organisms. Currently, all regulations aimed at controlling
the transportation of invasive and non-native organisms are
voluntary. States require ships to exchange ballast water
before entering state ports, but rely on the ships operators
to "self-report." A survey published by the "Aquatic
Invaders" magazine found widespread falsification of
the ballast water reports. The United States Coast Guard,
who is in charge of the regulations, is working on ways to
make its regulations mandatory and enforce them. For more
information about ballast water treatment, visit: http://www.serc.com/ballast/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
New
York to Decide Whether Burning Waste Is Renewable Energy
(Sierra Activist 9/9
<http://sierraactivist.org/article.php?sid=33640>)
Is solid waste considered a renewable energy? This is the
question facing regulators at New York's Public Service Commission
as they adopt new rules requiring that, by 2013, a quarter
of the energy produced in the state come from renewable sources.
Solid waste, made from a mix of garbage materials such as
discarded paper, plastic, metal, and glass can be burned in
waste-to-energy plants to produce electricity. Opponents of
including solid waste as a renewable energy, including State
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, say that solid waste is not
a renewable item, nor does it provide the economic and environmental
benefits that renewable sources provide. Opponents also say
that the waste-to-energy incinerators used to burn the waste
to produce electricity emit high levels of pollutants. Proponents
of including solid waste as a renewable energy contend that,
with state-of-the-art pollution control equipment, waste-to-energy
plants can be clean and also have the benefit of reducing
the volume of garbage going to landfills. For more information
about renewable energies, visit: http://www.serc.com/biomassdefinition/index.html. |
| back
to top |
|
|
