 |
|
 |
Stopping
"Takings" Legislation
The "takings" or "property rights" issue is
basically a debate over how the courts should interpret, and legislatures
should apply, constitutional provisions related to government "takings"
of property. The debate is based on the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
State constitutions include similarly worded provisions, which have
generally been interpreted to require that a regulation eliminate
"all economically beneficial uses of the property" before
compensation is due. The Takings Clause was originally adopted to
guarantee payment of compensation when the government directly appropriates
private property -- that is, when government officials take formal
title to private property or physically seize it. Some state legislatures,
however, are attempting to significantly expand this interpretation
to include compensation for any diminution in value to property.
This agenda threatens to undermine environmental legislation, land
use laws, and human health protections. "Takings" proponents
demand payment in the form of our government tax dollars when a
law or regulation affects the use of land. Yet such a demand expands
takings far beyond the original intent, and fails to balance these
alleged "takings" against the "givings" which
flow from other government programs. For more information on stopping
takings legislation, visit: http://www.serconline.org/Takings/index.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
Court
of Appeals Rules Against Bush Clean Air Act Changes (The
Ledger 1/5/04)
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040105/NEWS/401050328/1036
On the day before Christmas, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Washington, D.C. blocked the administration from implementing a
new rule that would allow aging power generators, oil refineries,
and other manufacturing plants to upgrade their facilities without
having to install modern pollution-control equipment. The administration's
so-called routine-maintenance loophole would have allowed companies
to replace up to 20 percent of the value of their plants without
the need to install air scrubbers or other controls. The court action
was brought by a coalition of attorneys general from more than a
dozen states, and attorneys representing several cities. Half a
dozen environmental groups joined in. They said the Environmental
Protection Agency's rule would have let more than 22,000 utilities,
refineries, and industrial facilities make major modifications under
the guise of routine-maintenance repairs, without being required
to install additional pollution controls, as the Clean Air Act required.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit agreed. The temporary injunction blocking the new rules
from taking effect said that the states, cities, and environmental
groups "had demonstrated the irreparable harm [of implementing
the new rules] and likelihood of success on the merits of their
case." |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
ALEC's
Economic Impact Statement Act
The American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) Economic Impact
Statement Act is a telling example of its approach to environment-related
legislation. Little wonder that most of the big corporations behind
ALEC would love to see this one on the books: it would require state
agencies to produce detailed "economic impact statements"
for all existing and proposed environmental regulations. ALEC says
the draft bill has been designed "to provide environmental
protection while permitting the creation of wealth through requiring
an economic analysis of new environmental regulations." In
truth, the proposed legislation seems little more than a perversion
of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates environmental
impact statements for significant federal government actions. Environmental
activists have long used the landmark federal law to promote the
public interest by halting or delaying potentially destructive projects;
now, through ALEC's "model" legislation, corporate special
interests aim to turn the tables at the state level. Although ALEC's
self-described mission is to limit government, here's a case where
it conveniently puts aside its principles. Agencies or other arms
of state governments, after all, would have to generate all those
economic impact statements required under its "model"
legislation. The New Mexico Fish and Game Department has estimated,
for example, that it would need twenty additional employees, at
a cost of $1.5 million a year, to get the job done. In 2003, Economic
Impact Statement bills were introduced in Mississippi, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In a time when state budgets
are suffering and programs are being cut back, states should not
add another layer of bureaucracy to the important task of protecting
our environment. |
| back
to top |
| |
 |
Pennsylvania:
Gov. Vetoes Bill Favoring Factory Farms (Philadelphia
Inquirer 1/1/04)
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/7610212.htm
Governor Rendell, in the closing moments of 2003, vetoed HB
1222, a bill that would have striped local communities of
the power to restrict large farming operations. The bill drew
criticism not only because of its contents, but also because
of the way it was approved: it cleared the House and Senate
in less than 24 hours, attached to a seemingly unrelated bill
that concerned summary offenses involving motor vehicles.
Approximately 60 townships have enacted ordinances that go
beyond state regulations. Rendell said the bill would not
"chill township supervisors" from passing laws to
regulate agriculture operations. And he said the law did not
deal with the environmental concerns caused by large farms
-- mostly from large volumes of manure produced by the animals.
Larry Breech, president of the Pennsylvania Farmers Union,
said that, under the vetoed law, a company could have decided
to build a large farm, and anyone who had tried to stop it
could be accused of "willful and wanton action"
and sued. However, Guy F. Donaldson, president of the Pennsylvania
Farm Bureau, the state largest farmers' organization, said
the bill simply would have required townships to pay farmers'
legal bills if the farmers successfully challenged an illegal
local ordinance. For information on factory farms, visit:
http://www.serconline.org/cafos.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
North
Carolina DOT Supports Animal Pathways (Charlotte
Observer 12/29/03)
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/7589199.htm
Three underpasses in North Carolina have been designed to
funnel animals under the road instead of across it. At a cost
of almost $1 million each, some taxpayers are not sold on
building animal crossings at the same time the state faces
repeated budget crises. But transportation officials back
their use, saying they make things safer for both animals
and drivers. "It takes the wildlife off the road and
increases the safety of the public, which is what we're trying
to do," said Phil Harris, chief of the Natural Environment
Unit at the state Department of Transportation. Officials
say that similar "critter crossings" along I-75,
between Naples and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, have been used
by black bears and panthers there. Studies of the Florida
underpasses found that no bears or panthers have been killed
near them since they were built in the early 1990s. A report
last year, produced by the Transportation Research Board in
Washington, D.C., found that at least 23 states have built,
or are planning to build, wildlife underpasses. Highway-safety
experts like the crossings as well. Eric Rodgman, a senior
analyst at the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety
Research Center, says that the 14,000 collisions between vehicles
and deer, which were reported in North Carolina in 2002 alone,
accounted for 6 percent of all traffic accidents in the state.
Studies have estimated the cost of a single human traffic
fatality at more than $3 million in lost income, medical costs,
and property damage, Rodgman said. |
| back
to top |
| |
South
Carolina Wants New Power to Go After Polluters (Greenville
News 12/21/03)
http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2003/12/21/2003122121383.htmf
Attorney General Henry McMaster has asked state legislators
to give the state grand jury authority to investigate environmental
crimes, which will make it easier to prosecute offenders,
he says. Currently the state is limited to investigating environmental
crimes using police procedures such as eyewitness testimony,
but environmental crimes are typically complex white-collar
crimes with long paper trails. Right now, the state Department
of Health and Environmental Control performs the investigations
but does not have the broad legal authority of a grand jury.
The agency supports McMaster's proposal, said spokesman Thom
Berry. Grand juries have the power to compel testimony and
subpoena documents, and non-cooperation carries legal penalties.
Bob Guild, an environmental attorney in Columbia, said giving
the grand jury power over environmental crimes will deter
potential polluters. "The grand jury system in South
Carolina is an antique remnant of a time when criminal acts
were localized and unsophisticated," he said. "The
system we really need is one like exists in most other states,
where grand juries have broader territorial jurisdictions."
For more information on environmental enforcement, visit:
http://www.serconline.org/enforce/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
States
Look Toward California-Style Car Law (Stateline 12/17/03)
http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=339936
Eastern seaboard states in violation of federal clean air
laws are considering cleaning up their acts by emulating California's
stricter automobile emission standards. New Jersey lawmakers,
smarting from a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) order to rewrite the state's air pollution plan, will
soon vote on clean-car legislation that would set tougher
pollution limits on all new vehicles sold in the state. Similar
legislation will come up in Connecticut, Maryland, and Pennsylvania
in the legislative sessions beginning in January. Environmentalists
say tough California-style legislation is the single biggest
thing lawmakers can do to improve the Northeast's notoriously
polluted air. From Maryland to Maine, every state, except
Vermont, is considered by the EPA to be in violation of federal
clean air safety guidelines. Under the federal Clean Air Act,
states are allowed to follow either the EPA's vehicle emissions
rules or California's more stringent standards, but they are
not allowed to set their own standards. Under California's
program, after 2007, all passenger vehicles -- including pickup
trucks and SUVs -- must meet stringent tailpipe and evaporative
emission standards. In addition, manufacturers are required
to offer 6 percent of their sales as "Zero Emission Vehicles"
and 4 percent as hybrid cars by model year 2005. Since its
creation in 1990, legislation, similar to California's Low
Emission Vehicle (LEV II) program, has been adopted in New
York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. |
| back
to top |
| |
Idaho
and Wyoming Fail to Guarantee Responsible Wolf Management
(Wolflines 12/19/03)
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/wolf/wolfupdate/wulines.html
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced it will seek
to remove federal protections for the gray wolf and turn over
wolf management to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in 2004. Normally,
the "delisting" of a species is cause for celebration
but, in this case, it may prove disastrous since Idaho and
Wyoming's state wolf management plans fail to provide adequate
protection for wolves. According to a recent review of these
plans conducted by wolf biologists, the Idaho plan fails to
include adequate funding for law enforcement or laws protecting
wolves from illegal killing. Many reviewers also warned that
the plan's conservation goals conflict with both its overriding
objectives to minimize conflicts and the state's legislation
demanding eradication of wolves from the state. They also
cited a lack of public input and adequate monitoring commitments
to document downward trends that would threaten the overall
wolf population. Similarly, reviewers' concerns about Wyoming's
plan included the fact that 90 percent of the area now occupied
by wolves outside of national parks and parkways would be
opened to unregulated killing of wolves. This would make it
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prevent wolf numbers
from falling below minimum population levels. Wyoming's plan
also suffers from no enforcement funding to protect wolves
from illegal killing and a lack of public input. It is possible
to craft responsible state-based wolf management plans that
reflect the concerns of all parties and adhere to federal
law. The Montana plan is a sterling example, as noted by virtually
every reviewer. But the Idaho and Wyoming plans fail to do
so. These states need to build stronger assurances that they
will responsibly manage wolves and guarantee the sustainable
conservation of the species. For more on how your state can
protect wolves, visit: http://www.serconline.org/wolfpreservation/index.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
Expanded
Bottle Bill Back on Table in New York (Albany Times
Union 12/19/03)
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?category=CAPITOL&storyID=
200685&BCCode=&newsdate=12/19/2003
The "Bigger, Better Bottle Bill," which would add
deposits to noncarbonated beverages like water and sports
drinks, is back again, and its supporters are hopeful New
York state legislators will pass it in 2004. The bill, which
was introduced last year but failed to pass either the Assembly
or the Senate, also calls for all uncollected deposits to
be returned to state coffers. Currently, the beverage industry
keeps about $140 million annually for unredeemed deposits
on cans and bottles in New York. With a new deposit on noncarbonated
beverages, which account for about 1/4 of all drinks purchased,
the state could reap $192 million a year, according to the
New York Public Interest Research Group. Advocates for the
bill want that money to fund environmental projects. But opponents,
particularly in the beverage industry, argue that the unclaimed
deposits are needed for costs associated with taking back
the recyclable containers, and that the original deposit system
has outlived its usefulness. Thirty local, state, and national
groups, including such groups as the Sierra Club and Upper
West Side Recycling, wrote a letter to Governor Pataki urging
him to include the new bottle bill in his budget. For more
information on how your state can pass a bottle bill, visit:
http://www.serconline.org/bottlebill/index.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
California's
Washing-Machine Law Hung Out to Dry (Orange County
Register 12/18/03)
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=72176§ion=
REGION_STATE&subsection=REGION_STATE&year=2003&month=12&day=18
A regulation freeze called by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will
cause California to miss a deadline to set guidelines for
a law mandating water-efficient washing machines that could
save billions of gallons of water a year. The California Energy
Commission, which was supposed to consider the matter Wednesday,
dropped it from its agenda after the Governor's Office did
not exempt it from the freeze, meaning the regulations will
miss their Dec. 31 deadline. This delay could keep the law
from taking effect Jan. 1, 2007, as originally determined.
California has 35 million residents and faces perpetual water
issues. By targeting washing machines, which consume about
20 percent of a household's annual water use, the state would
save billions of gallons of water a year, the energy commission
said. Energy commissioner and Schwarzenegger administration
officials said there's no problem, but water-conservation
advocates disagree. "This sounds like a fumble on the
5-yard line; you just kind of hate to see that happen,"
said Ed Osann, a water consultant for the Natural Resources
Defense Council. "There's a lot of water savings riding
on this decision." Water advocates say the delays could
jeopardize the state's attempts to gain a federal waiver allowing
it to apply the water-use limits for washing machines, which
go beyond federal appliance-efficiency laws. The state needs
the waiver before the law can go into effect. For more on
how your state can conserve water, visit: http://www.serconline.org/waterconservation/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
| |
New
Hampshire Proposal to Ban Sale of Invasive Species
(Concord Monitor 12/17/03)
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/invasives_121703_2003.shtml
A proposal to help control the spread of invasive species,
which passed the state Senate and House last year, would prohibit
the sale, distribution, collection, or transportation of 18
plants and 15 insects. Three more plants would be added to
the list by January 2007, and another 16 plants would be on
a watch list. Proponents say the rules would protect the environment,
human health, and taxpayers' pocketbooks; the state does not
have a budget to control invasive species, but experts estimate
$140 billion is spent nationwide each year. Some nurseries
and plant growers in the state, however, oppose the move.
Instead of banning their sale and distribution, which would
only affect the growers' business, some said it would be better
to either make it illegal to possess those plants or allow
for a voluntary elimination. State Department of Agriculture
officials said the committee considered that language, but
opted against it because it wouldn't be feasible for all private
landowners to get rid of invasive species. "We have to
start somewhere," said Tom Durkis, state entomologist,
"and we don't have the resources to start with possession.
It's just not feasible." "The bottom line is that
the majority of the invasive plants have come from the horticulture
industry," Dana Sampson, an associate professor of horticultural
technology at the Thompson School of Applied Science at the
University of New Hampshire added. "We... have the opportunity
to keep our native environment intact… and influence
people in the state to start restoring the natural habitats
that have been destroyed. We also have the power to do this.
I hope that we are progressive enough." For more on how
your state can fight invasive species, visit: http://www.serconline.org/invasives/pkg_frameset.html. |
| back
to top |
|
|
