Original Story: yahoo.com
MIDDLETOWN, Calif. (AP) — Two of California's fastest-burning wildfires in decades overtook several Northern California towns, killing at least one person and destroying hundreds of homes and businesses and sending thousands of residents fleeing highways lined with buildings, guardrails and cars still in flames. A Minneapolis environmental lawyer is reviewing the details of this case,
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection confirmed one fatality in the wildfire north of San Francisco that raced through dry brush and exploded in size within hours. Officials also counted 400 homes, two apartment complexes and 10 businesses destroyed by the flames, department spokeswoman Lynn Valentine said.
Valentine couldn't provide details on the circumstances of the death. A call to the Lake County Sheriff's office has not been returned.
In addition, up to 1,000 structures such as barns, sheds and other outbuildings were burned, said Cal Fire spokesman Daniel Berlant.
The devastation comes after a separate wildfire to the southeast destroyed at least 81 homes.
Residents fled from Middletown, dodging smoldering telephone poles, downed power lines and fallen trees as they drove through billowing smoke. A Charleston environmental lawyer is following this story closely.
Whole blocks of houses were burned in parts of the town of more than 1,000 residents that lies about 20 miles north of the famed Napa Valley. On the west side of town, house after house was burned to their foundations, with only charred appliances and twisted metal garage doors still recognizable.
Firefighters on Sunday afternoon could be seen driving around flaming utility poles to put out spot fires. Homeowner Justin Galvin, 33, himself a firefighter, stood alone at his house, poking its shin-high, smoking ruins with a piece of scrap metal.
"This is my home. Or it was," said Galvin, who spent all night fighting another massive fire in the Sierra Nevada foothills.
Valentine said most of the destruction occurred in Middletown and Hidden Valley Lake, as well as numerous homes along a shuttered state highway.
Wind gusts that reached up to 30 miles per hour sent embers raining down on homes and made it hard for firefighters to stop the Lake County blaze from advancing, Berlant said.
Four firefighters who are members of a helicopter crew suffered second-degree burns during the initial attack on the fire Saturday afternoon. They remained hospitalized in stable condition.
The fire continued to burn in all directions, triggering the evacuation of a stretch along Highway 281, including Clear Lake Riviera, a town with about 3,000 residents. It was threatening critical communications infrastructure as well as a power plant, Cal Fire said.
The 78-square-mile fire erupted Saturday afternoon and rapidly chewed through brush and trees parched from several years of drought. Entire towns as well as residents along a 35-mile stretch of State Route 29 were evacuated. Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday declared a state of emergency to free up resources.
Brown had already declared a state of emergency for a separate 102-square-mile wildfire about 70 miles southeast of Sacramento that has destroyed at least 81 homes and turned the grassy, tree-studded Sierra Nevada foothills an eerie white. A Cleveland environmental lawyer provides professional legal counsel and extensive experience in many aspects of environmental law.
Crews increased containment on that blaze to 25 percent.
The fire, which broke out on Wednesday, was threatening about 6,400 more buildings.
Mark Ghilarducci, director of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, said this summer's fires are the most volatile he has seen in 30 years of emergency response work. The main cause behind the fast-spreading fires is dry conditions from the four-year drought, he said.
"The bushes, the trees have absolutely no moisture in them, and the humidities are so low that we are seeing these 'fire starts' just erupt into conflagrations," Ghilarducci said, according to the Sacramento Bee.
Lake County saw devastation in just the last two months. In late July, a wildfire east of Clear Lake destroyed 43 homes as it spread across 109 square miles. As firefighters drew close to surrounding that blaze, another fire erupted several miles from the community of Lower Lake on Aug. 9 and more than doubled in size overnight.
Residents in the area had to evacuate from their homes two times in as many weeks.
East of Fresno, the largest wildfire in the state continued to march westward and away from the Giant Sequoia trees, fire spokesman Dave Schmitt said. The fire, which was sparked by lightning on July 31, has charred 203 square miles and was 31 percent contained Sunday, the U.S. Forest Service said.
Firefighters have maintained a precautionary line around Grant Grove, an ancient grove of Giant Sequoia trees, and set prescribed burns to keep the flames from overrunning it.
Some fire came through the area but it hasn't done much harm, fire spokesman Frank Mosbacher told the Fresno Bee.
The grove is named for the towering General Grant tree that stands 268 feet tall. There are dozens of Sequoia groves in the Sierra Nevada, and some trees are 3,000 years old.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
LESS WATER MIGHT BE PLENTY FOR CALIFORNIA, EXPERTS SAY, AND CONSERVATION IS ONLY THE START
Original Story: latimes.com
Across California this summer, residents have been racking up water conservation numbers that defy expectations — a 27% reduction in June, followed by 31.3% in July.
Perhaps more impressive than the percentage figures, however, is the actual volume of water saved over two months: 414,800 acre-feet.
That's a lot of water — more than twice the amount projected to be available annually from two proposed storage facilities that would cost a combined $3.5 billion to build: the Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River and an expansion of Shasta Dam. A Denver natural resources lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The conservation performance raises a host of possibilities, and profound questions, for water policy analysts and managers as they contemplate California's hydrological future in an era of climate change and increased competition for an essential natural resource.
Some experts see an approach following the lead of the energy sector in California.
In the last quarter century or so, a "soft path" to energy reliability — one built on conservation, innovation and mutual incentives for buyers and sellers alike — has replaced the brute strategy of building all the generation plants needed to power all of the state all of the time.
Advocates for a comparable approach regarding water envision a mix of heightened consumer awareness, especially when it comes to landscaping options, as well as increased efficiencies in homes, industry and agriculture.
They also point to better reuse of water through groundwater reclamation, recycling and rainwater capture, and a reformulation of a financial model so that water agencies are not forced to charge more when their customers use less. A Houston energy lawyer assists landowners in resolving disputes involving operators' improper use of the land and other breaches of their contracts with landowners.
"The reality is that there are so many soft paths that we can take that might have a lot less environmental impact and be a lot less expensive, and still meet our future demand," said Newsha Ajami, director of urban water policy for Stanford's Water in the West initiative. "This is probably a smarter tack than building more infrastructure, and moving more water around long distances."
Scientist Amory Lovins popularized the term "negawatt" in the 1980s to describe the idea that there is marketable value in power not produced or consumed.
Utilities clamoring for more generation plants "have gotten into the terrible habit of looking at the top line instead of the bottom line, because for a century they've had sales and revenues going up together," Lovins observed in a 1989 speech entitled "The Negawatt Revolution."
"For some reason, it's hard for them to get used to the idea that it's perfectly all right to sell less electricity, and so bring in less revenue, as long as costs go down more than revenues do," he said.
Asked to ponder the possibilities of a "negawater" revolution, Lovins in an interview ran down a list of two dozen or more approaches that might be borrowed from the energy sector and applied to water.
They included incentives for appliance stores to stock only the most water-efficient products, fostering "robust and diverse" markets that would place a tradeable value on conserved water, and finding ways for water providers to balance their books even as they sold less water.
He even suggested retraining the state's famously energetic bar of water lawyers to become water traders instead.
Some of the suggestions, he said, already could be found piecemeal in California and elsewhere. But a comprehensive approach, Lovins said, could make California "not permanently water rich, but permanently water secure."
He pointed to work of the Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based water think tank. With the Natural Resources Defense Council, it published a report last year that identified a host of measures that, if pursued in California, could generate 10 million to 14 million acre-feet of water a year without creating major crimps in lifestyle or dents in the economy. A Birmingham natural resources lawyer is following this story closely.
The institute's Peter Gleick, a longtime proponent of a softer approach to water supply development, said the conservation response to the drought only underscored the potential.
"I think the message is pretty clear," he said. "The idea that we can build traditional infrastructure and have any hope that it will solve our water problems is an idea from the last century and not the current one. … There is still vast untapped potential to do all that we want to do in this state with less water."
While applauding the response of Californians, many water policy experts also cautioned against seeing conservation as a permanent panacea. Said Lester Snow, executive director of the California Water Foundation: "Conservation is one of the tools, but I would not want to count on it completely."
Many advocate an every-tool-in-the-shed approach, which state water board chair Felicia Marcus likes to call "belts, suspenders and flying monkeys." And that would include increased storage capacity, whether above ground in reservoirs or below in aquifers.
"The debate on storage water," said Ellen Hanak, an economist with the Public Policy Institute of California, "is more about where are we going to put the water, rather than should we do it."
Climate change, she said, might mean the Sierra snowpack will become less reliable from year to year and, if so, an increased capacity to capture and store rainwater will become crucial. In fact, the paucity of snowmelt in this drought has been its distinctive natural feature.
"That is why," Hanak said, "this drought is the drought of the future."
If a greater reliance on rainfall is the future, the Sonoma County Water Agency has been living that future for its entire 65 years. None of the water it supplies to districts serving 600,000 customers north of San Francisco comes from Sierra snowmelt or passes through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
The system lives on rainwater, and thus can be seen as something of a proving ground for the state. While residents served by the agency exceeded mandatory reduction targets for two consecutive months, ahead looms a potentially cruel paradox.
Large-scale reductions in consumption also cut into revenues for those in the business of selling water. In time, local agencies must either ask consumers to relax their water-wise efforts, curtail services and maintenance or raise rates, creating a use-less, pay-more paradigm for their customers — and a conservation buzz kill.
In the drought, the Sonoma agency has dipped into reserves to offset the decline in revenues: $6 million last year alone. Looking for a more stable foothold, General Manager Grant Davis and his colleagues are pursuing a long-term approach that will allow water conservation to continue without having to face a financial penalty.
"We have got to get to the point where you use less and ultimately pay less," Davis said.
That will require restraining demand while finding ways to move water more inexpensively, and at the same time ensuring, as Davis put it, that "every molecule that we produce is preserved and extended."
To that end, the agency attacked energy costs by turning to renewables — solar, geothermal, hydroelectric — and building a carbon-free delivery system.
It has engaged scientists in research to better understand storm systems called atmospheric rivers, which in the rainy seasons will allow dam operators to make more nuanced decisions about when to release water for flood control purposes and when to hold it.
It has improved capabilities to clean up and recycle wastewater and replenish aquifers. And it has worked with residential customers to swap out leaky toilets, install turf lawns and employ other conservation efforts.
Along Dry Creek, a major artery for the Sonoma system, the agency intends to spend $50 million to enhance the natural channel, enabling it to deliver water for customers in the summer while also meeting federal mandates to better protect the creek's fall run of coho salmon. The alternative would be a $200-million pipeline to bypass the creek.
By taking this approach, Davis said last week, standing beside the pleasantly gurgling creek, "I can say confidently that we can use less water, and stretch our water supplies further, and pay less money."
Not an unhappy outcome all around.
Across California this summer, residents have been racking up water conservation numbers that defy expectations — a 27% reduction in June, followed by 31.3% in July.
Perhaps more impressive than the percentage figures, however, is the actual volume of water saved over two months: 414,800 acre-feet.
That's a lot of water — more than twice the amount projected to be available annually from two proposed storage facilities that would cost a combined $3.5 billion to build: the Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River and an expansion of Shasta Dam. A Denver natural resources lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
The conservation performance raises a host of possibilities, and profound questions, for water policy analysts and managers as they contemplate California's hydrological future in an era of climate change and increased competition for an essential natural resource.
Some experts see an approach following the lead of the energy sector in California.
In the last quarter century or so, a "soft path" to energy reliability — one built on conservation, innovation and mutual incentives for buyers and sellers alike — has replaced the brute strategy of building all the generation plants needed to power all of the state all of the time.
Advocates for a comparable approach regarding water envision a mix of heightened consumer awareness, especially when it comes to landscaping options, as well as increased efficiencies in homes, industry and agriculture.
They also point to better reuse of water through groundwater reclamation, recycling and rainwater capture, and a reformulation of a financial model so that water agencies are not forced to charge more when their customers use less. A Houston energy lawyer assists landowners in resolving disputes involving operators' improper use of the land and other breaches of their contracts with landowners.
"The reality is that there are so many soft paths that we can take that might have a lot less environmental impact and be a lot less expensive, and still meet our future demand," said Newsha Ajami, director of urban water policy for Stanford's Water in the West initiative. "This is probably a smarter tack than building more infrastructure, and moving more water around long distances."
Scientist Amory Lovins popularized the term "negawatt" in the 1980s to describe the idea that there is marketable value in power not produced or consumed.
Utilities clamoring for more generation plants "have gotten into the terrible habit of looking at the top line instead of the bottom line, because for a century they've had sales and revenues going up together," Lovins observed in a 1989 speech entitled "The Negawatt Revolution."
"For some reason, it's hard for them to get used to the idea that it's perfectly all right to sell less electricity, and so bring in less revenue, as long as costs go down more than revenues do," he said.
Asked to ponder the possibilities of a "negawater" revolution, Lovins in an interview ran down a list of two dozen or more approaches that might be borrowed from the energy sector and applied to water.
They included incentives for appliance stores to stock only the most water-efficient products, fostering "robust and diverse" markets that would place a tradeable value on conserved water, and finding ways for water providers to balance their books even as they sold less water.
He even suggested retraining the state's famously energetic bar of water lawyers to become water traders instead.
Some of the suggestions, he said, already could be found piecemeal in California and elsewhere. But a comprehensive approach, Lovins said, could make California "not permanently water rich, but permanently water secure."
He pointed to work of the Pacific Institute, an Oakland-based water think tank. With the Natural Resources Defense Council, it published a report last year that identified a host of measures that, if pursued in California, could generate 10 million to 14 million acre-feet of water a year without creating major crimps in lifestyle or dents in the economy. A Birmingham natural resources lawyer is following this story closely.
The institute's Peter Gleick, a longtime proponent of a softer approach to water supply development, said the conservation response to the drought only underscored the potential.
"I think the message is pretty clear," he said. "The idea that we can build traditional infrastructure and have any hope that it will solve our water problems is an idea from the last century and not the current one. … There is still vast untapped potential to do all that we want to do in this state with less water."
While applauding the response of Californians, many water policy experts also cautioned against seeing conservation as a permanent panacea. Said Lester Snow, executive director of the California Water Foundation: "Conservation is one of the tools, but I would not want to count on it completely."
Many advocate an every-tool-in-the-shed approach, which state water board chair Felicia Marcus likes to call "belts, suspenders and flying monkeys." And that would include increased storage capacity, whether above ground in reservoirs or below in aquifers.
"The debate on storage water," said Ellen Hanak, an economist with the Public Policy Institute of California, "is more about where are we going to put the water, rather than should we do it."
Climate change, she said, might mean the Sierra snowpack will become less reliable from year to year and, if so, an increased capacity to capture and store rainwater will become crucial. In fact, the paucity of snowmelt in this drought has been its distinctive natural feature.
"That is why," Hanak said, "this drought is the drought of the future."
If a greater reliance on rainfall is the future, the Sonoma County Water Agency has been living that future for its entire 65 years. None of the water it supplies to districts serving 600,000 customers north of San Francisco comes from Sierra snowmelt or passes through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
The system lives on rainwater, and thus can be seen as something of a proving ground for the state. While residents served by the agency exceeded mandatory reduction targets for two consecutive months, ahead looms a potentially cruel paradox.
Large-scale reductions in consumption also cut into revenues for those in the business of selling water. In time, local agencies must either ask consumers to relax their water-wise efforts, curtail services and maintenance or raise rates, creating a use-less, pay-more paradigm for their customers — and a conservation buzz kill.
In the drought, the Sonoma agency has dipped into reserves to offset the decline in revenues: $6 million last year alone. Looking for a more stable foothold, General Manager Grant Davis and his colleagues are pursuing a long-term approach that will allow water conservation to continue without having to face a financial penalty.
"We have got to get to the point where you use less and ultimately pay less," Davis said.
That will require restraining demand while finding ways to move water more inexpensively, and at the same time ensuring, as Davis put it, that "every molecule that we produce is preserved and extended."
To that end, the agency attacked energy costs by turning to renewables — solar, geothermal, hydroelectric — and building a carbon-free delivery system.
It has engaged scientists in research to better understand storm systems called atmospheric rivers, which in the rainy seasons will allow dam operators to make more nuanced decisions about when to release water for flood control purposes and when to hold it.
It has improved capabilities to clean up and recycle wastewater and replenish aquifers. And it has worked with residential customers to swap out leaky toilets, install turf lawns and employ other conservation efforts.
Along Dry Creek, a major artery for the Sonoma system, the agency intends to spend $50 million to enhance the natural channel, enabling it to deliver water for customers in the summer while also meeting federal mandates to better protect the creek's fall run of coho salmon. The alternative would be a $200-million pipeline to bypass the creek.
By taking this approach, Davis said last week, standing beside the pleasantly gurgling creek, "I can say confidently that we can use less water, and stretch our water supplies further, and pay less money."
Not an unhappy outcome all around.
Friday, August 21, 2015
EVEN IN THE DROUGHT, AMERICA IS LEAKING WATER
Original Story: cnbc.com
One-third of the country is in a drought, according to the federal government, affecting 95 million people. Despite the urgency, America is still losing a lot of water it still has.
For example: There are nearly a quarter-million water main breaks a year, according to the American Water Works Association. Two trillion gallons of drinkable water are lost annually due to a variety of reasons, including leaks, though that number is an educated guess. Nobody really knows for sure. Perma-Pier plumbing repair specializes in all residential and commercial foundation specific plumbing.
The underground infrastructure is getting old and needs to be replaced, but no one wants to pay for it. "It's hard to own something you don't see," said Madelyn Glickfeld of the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability.
Nowhere is the job of laying new pipe more daunting than in Los Angeles, where there are 7,000 miles of freshwater pipes under the city. "That's enough pipe to go from here all the way to New York and back," said Marty Adams, assistant general manager at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Many of the pipes are almost a century old, including one that burst in spectacular fashion last year, flooding Sunset Boulevard and much of UCLA. Just this week in Newport Beach, a million gallons of water flooded a neighborhood because of a ruptured main.
The problem in many cities is that the infrastructure was built in with construction. "The original investments that are embedded in everyone's house price and every building cost, those have all now worn out, and so now we need new rate money to go in and replace all that," said Adams. Poor construction or corrosion can cause unexpected pipe damage at any time, requiring plumbing repair services.
The DWP is trying to persuade ratepayers to pay 18 percent more on average to fund a speed-up in pipe replacement. What kind of speed-up? The department claims it can replace about 100 to 200 feet of pipe a day, and to replace the whole system would take nearly 300 years—three centuries—a number that seems incomprehensible. A rate hike would provide the funds to cut that time in half, adding $2.7 billion in the next five years alone. Adams said faster pipe replacement has a proven record, cutting the number of water main breaks by 40 percent.
But even as pipe bursts have become a common occurrence, the DWP faces a tough sell. It also deals with negative stories about mismanagement of funds, and in a city that uses half a billion gallons of drinkable water a day, Adams recognizes the challenge in persuading customers to pay more to maintain something they don't even think about. "It's underground, it's not very fancy, it doesn't get you anything new," he said.
The problem in many cities is that the infrastructure was built in with construction. "The original investments that are embedded in everyone's house price and every building cost, those have all now worn out, and so now we need new rate money to go in and replace all that," said Adams.
The DWP is trying to persuade ratepayers to pay 18 percent more on average to fund a speed-up in pipe replacement. What kind of speed-up? The department claims it can replace about 100 to 200 feet of pipe a day, and to replace the whole system would take nearly 300 years—three centuries—a number that seems incomprehensible. A rate hike would provide the funds to cut that time in half, adding $2.7 billion in the next five years alone. Adams said faster pipe replacement has a proven record, cutting the number of water main breaks by 40 percent. A Chicago environmental attorney is following this story closely.
But even as pipe bursts have become a common occurrence, the DWP faces a tough sell. It also deals with negative stories about mismanagement of funds, and in a city that uses half a billion gallons of drinkable water a day, Adams recognizes the challenge in persuading customers to pay more to maintain something they don't even think about. "It's underground, it's not very fancy, it doesn't get you anything new," he said.
One-third of the country is in a drought, according to the federal government, affecting 95 million people. Despite the urgency, America is still losing a lot of water it still has.
For example: There are nearly a quarter-million water main breaks a year, according to the American Water Works Association. Two trillion gallons of drinkable water are lost annually due to a variety of reasons, including leaks, though that number is an educated guess. Nobody really knows for sure. Perma-Pier plumbing repair specializes in all residential and commercial foundation specific plumbing.
The underground infrastructure is getting old and needs to be replaced, but no one wants to pay for it. "It's hard to own something you don't see," said Madelyn Glickfeld of the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability.
Nowhere is the job of laying new pipe more daunting than in Los Angeles, where there are 7,000 miles of freshwater pipes under the city. "That's enough pipe to go from here all the way to New York and back," said Marty Adams, assistant general manager at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Many of the pipes are almost a century old, including one that burst in spectacular fashion last year, flooding Sunset Boulevard and much of UCLA. Just this week in Newport Beach, a million gallons of water flooded a neighborhood because of a ruptured main.
The problem in many cities is that the infrastructure was built in with construction. "The original investments that are embedded in everyone's house price and every building cost, those have all now worn out, and so now we need new rate money to go in and replace all that," said Adams. Poor construction or corrosion can cause unexpected pipe damage at any time, requiring plumbing repair services.
The DWP is trying to persuade ratepayers to pay 18 percent more on average to fund a speed-up in pipe replacement. What kind of speed-up? The department claims it can replace about 100 to 200 feet of pipe a day, and to replace the whole system would take nearly 300 years—three centuries—a number that seems incomprehensible. A rate hike would provide the funds to cut that time in half, adding $2.7 billion in the next five years alone. Adams said faster pipe replacement has a proven record, cutting the number of water main breaks by 40 percent.
But even as pipe bursts have become a common occurrence, the DWP faces a tough sell. It also deals with negative stories about mismanagement of funds, and in a city that uses half a billion gallons of drinkable water a day, Adams recognizes the challenge in persuading customers to pay more to maintain something they don't even think about. "It's underground, it's not very fancy, it doesn't get you anything new," he said.
The problem in many cities is that the infrastructure was built in with construction. "The original investments that are embedded in everyone's house price and every building cost, those have all now worn out, and so now we need new rate money to go in and replace all that," said Adams.
The DWP is trying to persuade ratepayers to pay 18 percent more on average to fund a speed-up in pipe replacement. What kind of speed-up? The department claims it can replace about 100 to 200 feet of pipe a day, and to replace the whole system would take nearly 300 years—three centuries—a number that seems incomprehensible. A rate hike would provide the funds to cut that time in half, adding $2.7 billion in the next five years alone. Adams said faster pipe replacement has a proven record, cutting the number of water main breaks by 40 percent. A Chicago environmental attorney is following this story closely.
But even as pipe bursts have become a common occurrence, the DWP faces a tough sell. It also deals with negative stories about mismanagement of funds, and in a city that uses half a billion gallons of drinkable water a day, Adams recognizes the challenge in persuading customers to pay more to maintain something they don't even think about. "It's underground, it's not very fancy, it doesn't get you anything new," he said.
Monday, July 20, 2015
SHRINKING COLORADO RIVER IS A GROWING CONCERN FOR YUMA FARMERS — AND MILLIONS OF WATER USERS
Original Story: latimes.com
The Colorado River begins as snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains and ends 1,450 miles south in Mexico after making a final sacrifice to the United States: water for the farm fields in this powerhouse of American produce.
Throughout the winter, perfect heads of romaine, red-and-green lettuce, spinach and broccoli are whisked from the warm desert soil here onto refrigerated trucks that deliver them to grocery stores across the continent. If you eat a green salad between Thanksgiving and April, whether in Minnesota, Montreal or Modesto, odds are good that some of it was grown in or around Yuma. A Houston water rights lawyer is following this story closely.
The summer freshness on all of those winter plates reflects the marvel of engineering the Colorado has become — and why managing the river in the Southwest's changing landscape seems so daunting.
The Colorado is suffering from a historic drought that has exposed the region's dependence on a single, vulnerable resource. Nearly 40 million people in seven states depend on the river, a population some forecasts say could nearly double in the next 50 years.
The drought, now in its 16th year, has made one fact brutally clear: The Colorado cannot continue to meet the current urban, agricultural, hydroelectric and recreational demands on it — and the point at which the river will fall short could come sooner than anyone thought.A San Antonio water rights lawyer represents clients in issues that arise int he water rights litigation context, in mediation, arbitration, and trial in state and federal courts.
That is true even after an unusually wet spring in the Rocky Mountains, where runoff feeds the Colorado and its tributaries.
In the decades to come, federal officials say, significant shortages are likely to force water-supply cutbacks in parts of the basin, the first in the more than 90 years that the river has been managed under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. A Fairfield County natural resources attorney represents clients in water rights issues.
They would not apply evenly. In Arizona, which would take the steepest cuts, officials are warning that the elaborate conservation measures and infrastructure put in place in the 1980s to guard against shortages will probably not be sufficient. As the drought continues, serious shortages and more severe cutbacks have become more likely.
Farmers who grow cattle feed and cotton in central Arizona could be forced to let fields lie fallow, maybe for good, and cities like Phoenix might have to begin reusing wastewater and even capping urban growth, the region's economic engine.
Here in Yuma, though, there may be no cuts at all. Thanks to the seemingly endless idiosyncrasies of the rules governing the Colorado, much of metropolitan Phoenix could theoretically become a ghost town while Yuma keeps planting lettuce in the desert.
The looming shortages have opened a contentious new conversation here in Arizona, with increasing calls for rethinking the way the state divides the water it also shares with six other states, including California. Some experts say that a recalibration is in order — that while it may not make sense for millions of people to live in the arid West, people should take precedence over growing leafy greens on an industrial scale.
In a 2013 study, the Bureau of Reclamation suggested transferring about a million acre-feet of water from farms. Academics say it is only a matter of time before agriculture is forced to yield some of its supply — and that farmers could benefit financially from such transfers.
That kind of talk is rattling farmers in Yuma. They know they have water priority but not necessarily political priority.
"They believe there's a target on their backs," said Tom Buschatzke, who leads the Arizona Department of Water Resources. "I believe they're right."
Farmers here do not intend to go quietly. Some come from families that were here when the big cities of the modern Southwest were little more than crossroads.
"We have a legal right to this," said Mark Smith, who farms about 500 acres in Yuma and leads one of six irrigation districts in the area. "The guys who say this is an easy fix — it's not an easy fix. We're growing vital crops."
"This is a national debate," Smith added, "because we're supplying the entire nation."
Few rivers are asked to work as hard at the Colorado. Ranchers in western Colorado use the river to water pastures for beef cattle, while Denver and its suburbs channel it east across the mountains to enable city living. Las Vegas and other southern Nevada communities draw up to 90% of their water from the Colorado. Hoover Dam and others convert its flow into power. After Arizona and California take their share, the river exits — evaporates, really — through the dry remnants of a delta leading to the Gulf of California.
If a shortage is declared, California is one state that would not face any immediate cutbacks, thanks to an agreement reached with Arizona in 1968. That pact allowed Arizona to build one of the nation's most ambitious water-supply systems, the Central Arizona Project, but it also ensured that much of Arizona would take steep cuts if a shortage is declared.
Yuma is an exception.
Wedged into a wrinkle of borderland between California and Mexico, farms here have been drawing water from the Colorado since the late 19th century. Their early presence here earned the area the most-senior water rights in Arizona and some of the most-senior in the basin. Of the approximately 15 million acre-feet of water allocated for use each year across the entire basin, about 1 million acre-feet — nearly 7% of all of the water — goes to just 150,000 acres of farmland here.
By comparison, the 5 million water users in Phoenix and Tucson share about 1.5 million acre-feet. California has rights to the largest share, 4.4 million acre-feet, and even under the most dire scenarios it is virtually certain to always receive it. The law of the river says so. A Denver natural resources lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
Yet even as parties in the basin are often wary of one another — and not equal partners — most emphasize the need to work together under the current rules. The alternative, some fear, is that the federal government will intervene.
"There are many who have advocated for years that you have to change it significantly," said Wade Noble, a lawyer for the Yuma County Agricultural Water Coalition. "We, of course, resist that because with our priority we benefit from the [current] law the most."
In February, Noble helped draft a report by the coalition intended as a preemptive strike against anyone eyeing Yuma water. In it, Yuma leaders argue that the region has become more productive and profitable while also reducing its water use as it has shifted its focus to winter vegetables over the last four decades.
Yet the region still uses an extraordinary amount of water. High soil salinity has led farmers to flood fields in an attempt to wash salt away from fragile roots, then provide more water for irrigation. And in an era seeing the rise of seasonal, locally grown foods, Yuma strikes some as emblematic of old ways of thinking about what people should eat and when.
Then again, farmers in Yuma say cities have been allowed to grow with little concern for the water required to sustain them. They note, too, that most of their crops align with a growing emphasis on healthful eating.
"They are doing a lot of things right," said Robert Glennon, a law professor at the University of Arizona who specializes in water issues.
But Glennon has also warned that Yuma farmers and others in the arid West may have only so much control over their fate — a lesson farmers in parts of California, dependent on other rivers, are learning during the historic drought there. He has encouraged farmers to reduce production so they can sell or lease a portion of their water rights to cities. Research shows that a cut of just 4% in certain agricultural areas could increase the water supply by 50% for some cities, he said. An Austin water rights lawyer regularly assists water districts, municipalities, industry, and landowners in all aspects of water law.
Farmers here say the entire region was settled on an ethic of national service. The Bureau of Reclamation began building canals feeding off the Colorado in the first years of the 20th century.
Edward C. Cuming arrived in the summer of 1902, an Irishman who had first migrated to Alberta, Canada, before moving south. Cuming homesteaded 160 acres just south of Yuma, irrigating them with the new canals. The Depression forced him to sell 40 acres but also led to a new era of government support for the area.
The Civilian Conservation Corps, established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, expanded and improved irrigation canals across the Yuma area. One of those channels, stamped "CCC 1940," is known as the Cuming Canal. It runs directly in front of fields now owned by Edward Cuming's grandson, Jim Cuming.
"When we had an abundant supply of water, the farmer was doing a great job," said Cuming, 77, sitting on a concrete culvert above the Cuming Canal while cloudy Colorado River water surged beneath him.
"Now all of a sudden he's a villain because he uses too much to produce your fruit and fiber."
The Colorado River begins as snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains and ends 1,450 miles south in Mexico after making a final sacrifice to the United States: water for the farm fields in this powerhouse of American produce.
Throughout the winter, perfect heads of romaine, red-and-green lettuce, spinach and broccoli are whisked from the warm desert soil here onto refrigerated trucks that deliver them to grocery stores across the continent. If you eat a green salad between Thanksgiving and April, whether in Minnesota, Montreal or Modesto, odds are good that some of it was grown in or around Yuma. A Houston water rights lawyer is following this story closely.
The summer freshness on all of those winter plates reflects the marvel of engineering the Colorado has become — and why managing the river in the Southwest's changing landscape seems so daunting.
The Colorado is suffering from a historic drought that has exposed the region's dependence on a single, vulnerable resource. Nearly 40 million people in seven states depend on the river, a population some forecasts say could nearly double in the next 50 years.
The drought, now in its 16th year, has made one fact brutally clear: The Colorado cannot continue to meet the current urban, agricultural, hydroelectric and recreational demands on it — and the point at which the river will fall short could come sooner than anyone thought.A San Antonio water rights lawyer represents clients in issues that arise int he water rights litigation context, in mediation, arbitration, and trial in state and federal courts.
That is true even after an unusually wet spring in the Rocky Mountains, where runoff feeds the Colorado and its tributaries.
In the decades to come, federal officials say, significant shortages are likely to force water-supply cutbacks in parts of the basin, the first in the more than 90 years that the river has been managed under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. A Fairfield County natural resources attorney represents clients in water rights issues.
They would not apply evenly. In Arizona, which would take the steepest cuts, officials are warning that the elaborate conservation measures and infrastructure put in place in the 1980s to guard against shortages will probably not be sufficient. As the drought continues, serious shortages and more severe cutbacks have become more likely.
Farmers who grow cattle feed and cotton in central Arizona could be forced to let fields lie fallow, maybe for good, and cities like Phoenix might have to begin reusing wastewater and even capping urban growth, the region's economic engine.
Here in Yuma, though, there may be no cuts at all. Thanks to the seemingly endless idiosyncrasies of the rules governing the Colorado, much of metropolitan Phoenix could theoretically become a ghost town while Yuma keeps planting lettuce in the desert.
The looming shortages have opened a contentious new conversation here in Arizona, with increasing calls for rethinking the way the state divides the water it also shares with six other states, including California. Some experts say that a recalibration is in order — that while it may not make sense for millions of people to live in the arid West, people should take precedence over growing leafy greens on an industrial scale.
In a 2013 study, the Bureau of Reclamation suggested transferring about a million acre-feet of water from farms. Academics say it is only a matter of time before agriculture is forced to yield some of its supply — and that farmers could benefit financially from such transfers.
That kind of talk is rattling farmers in Yuma. They know they have water priority but not necessarily political priority.
"They believe there's a target on their backs," said Tom Buschatzke, who leads the Arizona Department of Water Resources. "I believe they're right."
Farmers here do not intend to go quietly. Some come from families that were here when the big cities of the modern Southwest were little more than crossroads.
"We have a legal right to this," said Mark Smith, who farms about 500 acres in Yuma and leads one of six irrigation districts in the area. "The guys who say this is an easy fix — it's not an easy fix. We're growing vital crops."
"This is a national debate," Smith added, "because we're supplying the entire nation."
Few rivers are asked to work as hard at the Colorado. Ranchers in western Colorado use the river to water pastures for beef cattle, while Denver and its suburbs channel it east across the mountains to enable city living. Las Vegas and other southern Nevada communities draw up to 90% of their water from the Colorado. Hoover Dam and others convert its flow into power. After Arizona and California take their share, the river exits — evaporates, really — through the dry remnants of a delta leading to the Gulf of California.
If a shortage is declared, California is one state that would not face any immediate cutbacks, thanks to an agreement reached with Arizona in 1968. That pact allowed Arizona to build one of the nation's most ambitious water-supply systems, the Central Arizona Project, but it also ensured that much of Arizona would take steep cuts if a shortage is declared.
Yuma is an exception.
Wedged into a wrinkle of borderland between California and Mexico, farms here have been drawing water from the Colorado since the late 19th century. Their early presence here earned the area the most-senior water rights in Arizona and some of the most-senior in the basin. Of the approximately 15 million acre-feet of water allocated for use each year across the entire basin, about 1 million acre-feet — nearly 7% of all of the water — goes to just 150,000 acres of farmland here.
By comparison, the 5 million water users in Phoenix and Tucson share about 1.5 million acre-feet. California has rights to the largest share, 4.4 million acre-feet, and even under the most dire scenarios it is virtually certain to always receive it. The law of the river says so. A Denver natural resources lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
Yet even as parties in the basin are often wary of one another — and not equal partners — most emphasize the need to work together under the current rules. The alternative, some fear, is that the federal government will intervene.
"There are many who have advocated for years that you have to change it significantly," said Wade Noble, a lawyer for the Yuma County Agricultural Water Coalition. "We, of course, resist that because with our priority we benefit from the [current] law the most."
In February, Noble helped draft a report by the coalition intended as a preemptive strike against anyone eyeing Yuma water. In it, Yuma leaders argue that the region has become more productive and profitable while also reducing its water use as it has shifted its focus to winter vegetables over the last four decades.
Yet the region still uses an extraordinary amount of water. High soil salinity has led farmers to flood fields in an attempt to wash salt away from fragile roots, then provide more water for irrigation. And in an era seeing the rise of seasonal, locally grown foods, Yuma strikes some as emblematic of old ways of thinking about what people should eat and when.
Then again, farmers in Yuma say cities have been allowed to grow with little concern for the water required to sustain them. They note, too, that most of their crops align with a growing emphasis on healthful eating.
"They are doing a lot of things right," said Robert Glennon, a law professor at the University of Arizona who specializes in water issues.
But Glennon has also warned that Yuma farmers and others in the arid West may have only so much control over their fate — a lesson farmers in parts of California, dependent on other rivers, are learning during the historic drought there. He has encouraged farmers to reduce production so they can sell or lease a portion of their water rights to cities. Research shows that a cut of just 4% in certain agricultural areas could increase the water supply by 50% for some cities, he said. An Austin water rights lawyer regularly assists water districts, municipalities, industry, and landowners in all aspects of water law.
Farmers here say the entire region was settled on an ethic of national service. The Bureau of Reclamation began building canals feeding off the Colorado in the first years of the 20th century.
Edward C. Cuming arrived in the summer of 1902, an Irishman who had first migrated to Alberta, Canada, before moving south. Cuming homesteaded 160 acres just south of Yuma, irrigating them with the new canals. The Depression forced him to sell 40 acres but also led to a new era of government support for the area.
The Civilian Conservation Corps, established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, expanded and improved irrigation canals across the Yuma area. One of those channels, stamped "CCC 1940," is known as the Cuming Canal. It runs directly in front of fields now owned by Edward Cuming's grandson, Jim Cuming.
"When we had an abundant supply of water, the farmer was doing a great job," said Cuming, 77, sitting on a concrete culvert above the Cuming Canal while cloudy Colorado River water surged beneath him.
"Now all of a sudden he's a villain because he uses too much to produce your fruit and fiber."
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
SHALE GAS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Original Story: nytimes.com
Every columnist has his or her “go to” sources, people we rely on for their deep understanding of a particular subject, and a mode of thinking about that subject we find persuasive. For me, one such person is Michael Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations. An Austin energy lawyer is following this story closely.
Levi believes in the power of facts. Though sensitive to the importance of dealing with climate change, he doesn’t indulge in the hyperbole that you sometimes hear from environmentalists. And while he appreciates the economic import of fracking and shale gas, he isn’t afraid to call out the industry on its problems. Early in the fracking boom, he went to Pennsylvania to observe what drilling for shale gas was doing to communities — and came away believing that “it was going to stir up much more local controversy than many were assuming.” Which is exactly what happened.
For the latest issue of Democracy, a quarterly magazine focused on progressive ideas, Levi has written an article titled “Fracking and the Climate Debate,” which he described to me the other day as a kind of summing up of his views about the role of cheap natural gas and fracking in the fight against climate change. A Tulsa energy lawyer represent clients in energy matters including drilling contracts, fracking, mineral rights, and renewable energy disputes.
There are many people, of course, who believe that natural gas shouldn’t have any role at all in the climate change fight; while it may emit half the carbon dioxide of coal, it is still a fossil fuel that will keep us from going all-in on renewable energy. And the methane that can leak from fracked wells is a potent greenhouse gas that can negate natural gas’s advantage over coal.
There are others who see natural gas as a panacea. They believe that so long as we keep increasing production of inexpensive natural gas — mooting the need to build more coal-fired power plants, and even making it possible to shut some down — then we will be doing more than enough to control carbon emissions. In his article, Levi says, in effect: You’re both wrong. A Baton Rouge energy lawyer provides professional legal counsel and extensive experience in many aspects of energy law.
After recounting a little history — was it really only a half dozen years ago that environmentalists like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. were promoting natural gas as a “step towards saving our planet”? — Levi delves into the three rationales behind their abrupt change of heart. One is the disruption that fracking imposes on communities. The second is the methane problem. The third is the “rapid progress” being made by renewable energy, which many environmentalists believe makes further reliance on natural gas unnecessary.
Levi believes that appropriate rules by both state and federal governments can mitigate the first two problems. Indeed, he believes that the industry needs to be better regulated for its own sake; otherwise, people will continue to fear the worst. As for renewables, the hard truth is that if the country were to move away from natural gas, the big winner would be coal, not solar or wind.
But that doesn’t mean that those who cling to the “free-market fundamentalist dream that a thriving shale gas industry will make climate policy unnecessary” have got it right. On the contrary, writes Levi, “merely making natural gas more abundant may do little, if anything, to curb carbon dioxide emissions.” How can this be? The answer is that, although cheap natural gas is helpful in that it “shoves aside coal,” it also boosts economic growth (which means more emissions), and “gives an edge to industries that are heavy energy users and big emitters.” These two conflicting forces effectively cancel each other out.
The best way to maximize the good that shale gas can do, concludes Levi, is to make it a key component of an overall energy policy that is bent on driving down carbon emissions. The government could promote policies to move the country away from coal, “which accounts for three-quarters of carbon dioxide produced in U.S. electricity generation.” A San Antonio energy lawyer represents clients in fee mineral and royalty transactions, in negotiating the terms of seismic permits, option agreements, oil and gas leases, easements, and surface and subsurface use agreements, as well as in uranium leasing transactions.
And while he doesn’t say so explicitly, he does seem to see shale gas as a potential bridge to renewables: If the government enacted policies that “reward emission cuts” no matter what technology achieves that goal, then coal users would gravitate to natural gas, while natural gas users might well move toward renewables. Government would also have to encourage policies that “drive down the cost of zero-based emissions.”
My own belief is that shale gas has been a blessing for all kinds of reasons: It has given us a degree of energy security that we haven’t seen in many decades, and has been a key source of economic growth. And, no matter how much environmentalists gnash their teeth, it is here to stay. That’s why the responsible approach is not to wish it away, but to exploit its benefits while straightforwardly addressing its problems. Ideologues will never get that done. That’s why Michael Levi’s realism — and his pragmatism — are so critical to hear.
Every columnist has his or her “go to” sources, people we rely on for their deep understanding of a particular subject, and a mode of thinking about that subject we find persuasive. For me, one such person is Michael Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations. An Austin energy lawyer is following this story closely.
Levi believes in the power of facts. Though sensitive to the importance of dealing with climate change, he doesn’t indulge in the hyperbole that you sometimes hear from environmentalists. And while he appreciates the economic import of fracking and shale gas, he isn’t afraid to call out the industry on its problems. Early in the fracking boom, he went to Pennsylvania to observe what drilling for shale gas was doing to communities — and came away believing that “it was going to stir up much more local controversy than many were assuming.” Which is exactly what happened.
For the latest issue of Democracy, a quarterly magazine focused on progressive ideas, Levi has written an article titled “Fracking and the Climate Debate,” which he described to me the other day as a kind of summing up of his views about the role of cheap natural gas and fracking in the fight against climate change. A Tulsa energy lawyer represent clients in energy matters including drilling contracts, fracking, mineral rights, and renewable energy disputes.
There are many people, of course, who believe that natural gas shouldn’t have any role at all in the climate change fight; while it may emit half the carbon dioxide of coal, it is still a fossil fuel that will keep us from going all-in on renewable energy. And the methane that can leak from fracked wells is a potent greenhouse gas that can negate natural gas’s advantage over coal.
There are others who see natural gas as a panacea. They believe that so long as we keep increasing production of inexpensive natural gas — mooting the need to build more coal-fired power plants, and even making it possible to shut some down — then we will be doing more than enough to control carbon emissions. In his article, Levi says, in effect: You’re both wrong. A Baton Rouge energy lawyer provides professional legal counsel and extensive experience in many aspects of energy law.
After recounting a little history — was it really only a half dozen years ago that environmentalists like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. were promoting natural gas as a “step towards saving our planet”? — Levi delves into the three rationales behind their abrupt change of heart. One is the disruption that fracking imposes on communities. The second is the methane problem. The third is the “rapid progress” being made by renewable energy, which many environmentalists believe makes further reliance on natural gas unnecessary.
Levi believes that appropriate rules by both state and federal governments can mitigate the first two problems. Indeed, he believes that the industry needs to be better regulated for its own sake; otherwise, people will continue to fear the worst. As for renewables, the hard truth is that if the country were to move away from natural gas, the big winner would be coal, not solar or wind.
But that doesn’t mean that those who cling to the “free-market fundamentalist dream that a thriving shale gas industry will make climate policy unnecessary” have got it right. On the contrary, writes Levi, “merely making natural gas more abundant may do little, if anything, to curb carbon dioxide emissions.” How can this be? The answer is that, although cheap natural gas is helpful in that it “shoves aside coal,” it also boosts economic growth (which means more emissions), and “gives an edge to industries that are heavy energy users and big emitters.” These two conflicting forces effectively cancel each other out.
The best way to maximize the good that shale gas can do, concludes Levi, is to make it a key component of an overall energy policy that is bent on driving down carbon emissions. The government could promote policies to move the country away from coal, “which accounts for three-quarters of carbon dioxide produced in U.S. electricity generation.” A San Antonio energy lawyer represents clients in fee mineral and royalty transactions, in negotiating the terms of seismic permits, option agreements, oil and gas leases, easements, and surface and subsurface use agreements, as well as in uranium leasing transactions.
And while he doesn’t say so explicitly, he does seem to see shale gas as a potential bridge to renewables: If the government enacted policies that “reward emission cuts” no matter what technology achieves that goal, then coal users would gravitate to natural gas, while natural gas users might well move toward renewables. Government would also have to encourage policies that “drive down the cost of zero-based emissions.”
My own belief is that shale gas has been a blessing for all kinds of reasons: It has given us a degree of energy security that we haven’t seen in many decades, and has been a key source of economic growth. And, no matter how much environmentalists gnash their teeth, it is here to stay. That’s why the responsible approach is not to wish it away, but to exploit its benefits while straightforwardly addressing its problems. Ideologues will never get that done. That’s why Michael Levi’s realism — and his pragmatism — are so critical to hear.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
CALIFORNIA'S THIRST SHOULD BE NATION'S WAKE-UP CALL
Original Story: freep.com
California Gov. Jerry Brown broke the bad news from a parched field bereft of greenery or moisture: "We should be standing on 5 feet of snow," he said. "We are in a historic drought."
For Californians, a fourth consecutive year of below-average rainfall and snowmelt will mean the first mandatory water restrictions in the state's history.
But those of us living in the other 49 states won't be exempt from the fallout. California farmers, who provide about half the country's fruits and vegetables, have already lost hundreds of thousands of acres of previously productive farmland. The impact on produce prices at your local grocery store will only intensify if the drought, already reckoned the worst in California's recorded history, persists.
As U.S. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, noted, "the entire nation should take notice that the most productive agricultural state in the country has entered uncharted territory." A Tulsa natural resources lawyer is following this story closely.
Californians have contended with water shortages for more than a century, and meteorologists and climate scientists disagree about the extent to which climate change is culpable for the current crisis.
Most say that natural variability accounts for the state's dramatically reduced rainfall, although a group of researchers at Stanford University blame greenhouse gas emissions.
But California's lack of rain has been exacerbated by a warming trend that is more conclusively linked to man-made climate change. Higher temperatures accelerate evaporation and reduce the snowpack that has historically served as a natural reservoir for California farmers. This year's snowpack measures just 6% of the historical average. A Chicago auto accident lawyer is following this stroy closely.
Brown's drought-fighting strategy has so far focused on a combination of long-term efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and conservation initiatives. The 25% reduction mandated for California's towns and cities this week was imposed only after the state fell far short of the 20% reduction that Brown sought when he issued voluntary conservation standards in January 2014.
Republican legislators skeptical that Californians can conserve or ration their way out of the current drought have called for new water projects that could boost the state's fresh water supply. They are the ideological brethren of the drill-baby-drill crowd that seeks to parry a looming energy shortage by increasing the domestic production of oil, coal and natural gas. An Atlanta natural resources lawyer represents clients in environmental, land use, and natural resources matters.
But many of these supply-side efforts are energy-intensive, threatening to deepen California's dependency on fossil fuels even as the drought reduces hydroelectric power.
Our proximity to abundant supplies of freshwater may give many Michiganders a false sense of security, at least until they wander into the produce aisle. But Brown's emergency edict makes it clear that the consequences of climate change are growing less theoretical, and more concrete, with each passing season.
Global warming is the challenge to which all of our destinies are increasingly linked. Michigan policymakers to whom California's troubles seem remote are missing the point, and squandering an important learning opportunity.
California Gov. Jerry Brown broke the bad news from a parched field bereft of greenery or moisture: "We should be standing on 5 feet of snow," he said. "We are in a historic drought."
For Californians, a fourth consecutive year of below-average rainfall and snowmelt will mean the first mandatory water restrictions in the state's history.
But those of us living in the other 49 states won't be exempt from the fallout. California farmers, who provide about half the country's fruits and vegetables, have already lost hundreds of thousands of acres of previously productive farmland. The impact on produce prices at your local grocery store will only intensify if the drought, already reckoned the worst in California's recorded history, persists.
As U.S. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, noted, "the entire nation should take notice that the most productive agricultural state in the country has entered uncharted territory." A Tulsa natural resources lawyer is following this story closely.
Californians have contended with water shortages for more than a century, and meteorologists and climate scientists disagree about the extent to which climate change is culpable for the current crisis.
Most say that natural variability accounts for the state's dramatically reduced rainfall, although a group of researchers at Stanford University blame greenhouse gas emissions.
But California's lack of rain has been exacerbated by a warming trend that is more conclusively linked to man-made climate change. Higher temperatures accelerate evaporation and reduce the snowpack that has historically served as a natural reservoir for California farmers. This year's snowpack measures just 6% of the historical average. A Chicago auto accident lawyer is following this stroy closely.
Brown's drought-fighting strategy has so far focused on a combination of long-term efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and conservation initiatives. The 25% reduction mandated for California's towns and cities this week was imposed only after the state fell far short of the 20% reduction that Brown sought when he issued voluntary conservation standards in January 2014.
Republican legislators skeptical that Californians can conserve or ration their way out of the current drought have called for new water projects that could boost the state's fresh water supply. They are the ideological brethren of the drill-baby-drill crowd that seeks to parry a looming energy shortage by increasing the domestic production of oil, coal and natural gas. An Atlanta natural resources lawyer represents clients in environmental, land use, and natural resources matters.
But many of these supply-side efforts are energy-intensive, threatening to deepen California's dependency on fossil fuels even as the drought reduces hydroelectric power.
Our proximity to abundant supplies of freshwater may give many Michiganders a false sense of security, at least until they wander into the produce aisle. But Brown's emergency edict makes it clear that the consequences of climate change are growing less theoretical, and more concrete, with each passing season.
Global warming is the challenge to which all of our destinies are increasingly linked. Michigan policymakers to whom California's troubles seem remote are missing the point, and squandering an important learning opportunity.
Monday, October 27, 2014
BP OFFERS A LESSON IN HOW TO SUGARCOAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER
Original Story: latimes.com
The giant oil company BP doesn't do small-scale.
Not only is it responsible for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill -- "unprecedented" in its "volume, depth, and spatial scale," in the words of the National Research Council -- but the firm has mounted what certainly looks like an unprecedented PR campaign to minimize the damage, along with a years-long effort to dodge the financial consequences of its spill.
This week, Politico provided the company with another valuable platform for its PR -- a two-page online spread titled "No, BP Didn't Ruin the Gulf." The piece was written by one Geoff Morrell, who turns out to be the oil company's spokesman, as you'll discover if you read down to the bottom of the screen.
As we honor the life and career of the just-departed former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, we should mark this groundbreaking advance in Washington journalism: a corporate advertisement presented as "opinion." It's not evident that BP paid for its placement in Politico, but whether it forked over nothing, a little or a lot, it scored well: as we write, Morrell's piece is demurely sharing space on Politico Magazine's home page with reported articles on Ebola policy, the Supreme Court's influence on election rules, and the fall of Atlantic City. A Corpus Christi Energy Lawyer is experienced in legal issues that arise from energy disputes.
But it's not Politico's credibility that's at issue here; it's BP's. Let's examine whether the oil company has any.
Morrell begins by posing an overarching question: "What impact did the spill actually have on the Gulf Coast environment?"
The answer, if you study the findings of experts, is that the spill has had massive impacts. These include immediate effects on sea fowl, marine mammals, and coral; and long-term effects on dolphins, sea turtles, fish and wildlife populations, and the gulf food web. Moreover, many effects are still imponderable at this time, because no one has studied an oil spill of this magnitude in a unique ecosystem such as the gulf. Assessing the damage may take decades, covering generations of animals. A Charleston Environmental Lawyer has experience representing clients in all areas of general environmental law.
BP sidesteps that point. Morrell mentions several predictions that were made in the immediate aftermath of the spill, and that were manifestly conjectural -- "tar balls...all the way to Europe," "a permanent end" to the gulf seafood industry, tourism revenues depressed for years.
"None of those things happened," Morrell states, as if that proves that there were no major effects. The only effects he acknowledges are short-term--11 workers killed, birds, fish and wildlife killed. "And with a camera trained 24/7 on the wellhead," he writes, "a sense of alarm was understandable while the well was flowing." (Yes, durn that camera -- if only the spill unfolded without witnesses, things would have been so much better.) A Boston Business Lawyer is experienced in providing legal advice to business clients on a variety of legal matters.
As for longer-term effects, Morrell attributes many of the reports to "advocacy groups (that) cherry-pick evidence and promote studies that paint an incomplete and inaccurate picture." He then proceeds to cherry-pick ostensibly exaggerated impacts: "For example, these groups claim the spill harmed the Gulf’s oyster population," he writes. "What they don’t say is that government sampling in 2010, 2011 and 2012 did not document a single visibly oiled oyster bed.
Here's what Morrell didn't say: The gulf oyster harvest is today near a historical low. Because oysters take three years to reach maturity, according to the Gulf Seafood Institute, gulf harvesters fear that they're seeing the oil spill impacts right now. According to historical cycles, oyster landings "currently should be trending upwards; but they’re not." Is this a consequence of the Deepwater Horizon spill? The most anyone can say is that the jury is still out. But it's certainly way too early to declare the impact "fiction," as BP would prefer.
In short, the questions about the impact of the oil spill haven't yet been answered. Not even close. BP has an obvious corporate interest in treating the spill as yesterday's news. It's not. BP has been adjudicated the legally responsible party for the Deepwater Horizon disaster. It's a litigant facing billions of dollars in claims and penalties. It doesn't have an "opinion" worth reading, only a legal interest to promote. When a news organization such as Politico helps it promote its own interest, neither partner looks good.
The giant oil company BP doesn't do small-scale.
Not only is it responsible for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill -- "unprecedented" in its "volume, depth, and spatial scale," in the words of the National Research Council -- but the firm has mounted what certainly looks like an unprecedented PR campaign to minimize the damage, along with a years-long effort to dodge the financial consequences of its spill.
This week, Politico provided the company with another valuable platform for its PR -- a two-page online spread titled "No, BP Didn't Ruin the Gulf." The piece was written by one Geoff Morrell, who turns out to be the oil company's spokesman, as you'll discover if you read down to the bottom of the screen.
As we honor the life and career of the just-departed former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, we should mark this groundbreaking advance in Washington journalism: a corporate advertisement presented as "opinion." It's not evident that BP paid for its placement in Politico, but whether it forked over nothing, a little or a lot, it scored well: as we write, Morrell's piece is demurely sharing space on Politico Magazine's home page with reported articles on Ebola policy, the Supreme Court's influence on election rules, and the fall of Atlantic City. A Corpus Christi Energy Lawyer is experienced in legal issues that arise from energy disputes.
But it's not Politico's credibility that's at issue here; it's BP's. Let's examine whether the oil company has any.
Morrell begins by posing an overarching question: "What impact did the spill actually have on the Gulf Coast environment?"
The answer, if you study the findings of experts, is that the spill has had massive impacts. These include immediate effects on sea fowl, marine mammals, and coral; and long-term effects on dolphins, sea turtles, fish and wildlife populations, and the gulf food web. Moreover, many effects are still imponderable at this time, because no one has studied an oil spill of this magnitude in a unique ecosystem such as the gulf. Assessing the damage may take decades, covering generations of animals. A Charleston Environmental Lawyer has experience representing clients in all areas of general environmental law.
BP sidesteps that point. Morrell mentions several predictions that were made in the immediate aftermath of the spill, and that were manifestly conjectural -- "tar balls...all the way to Europe," "a permanent end" to the gulf seafood industry, tourism revenues depressed for years.
"None of those things happened," Morrell states, as if that proves that there were no major effects. The only effects he acknowledges are short-term--11 workers killed, birds, fish and wildlife killed. "And with a camera trained 24/7 on the wellhead," he writes, "a sense of alarm was understandable while the well was flowing." (Yes, durn that camera -- if only the spill unfolded without witnesses, things would have been so much better.) A Boston Business Lawyer is experienced in providing legal advice to business clients on a variety of legal matters.
As for longer-term effects, Morrell attributes many of the reports to "advocacy groups (that) cherry-pick evidence and promote studies that paint an incomplete and inaccurate picture." He then proceeds to cherry-pick ostensibly exaggerated impacts: "For example, these groups claim the spill harmed the Gulf’s oyster population," he writes. "What they don’t say is that government sampling in 2010, 2011 and 2012 did not document a single visibly oiled oyster bed.
Here's what Morrell didn't say: The gulf oyster harvest is today near a historical low. Because oysters take three years to reach maturity, according to the Gulf Seafood Institute, gulf harvesters fear that they're seeing the oil spill impacts right now. According to historical cycles, oyster landings "currently should be trending upwards; but they’re not." Is this a consequence of the Deepwater Horizon spill? The most anyone can say is that the jury is still out. But it's certainly way too early to declare the impact "fiction," as BP would prefer.
In short, the questions about the impact of the oil spill haven't yet been answered. Not even close. BP has an obvious corporate interest in treating the spill as yesterday's news. It's not. BP has been adjudicated the legally responsible party for the Deepwater Horizon disaster. It's a litigant facing billions of dollars in claims and penalties. It doesn't have an "opinion" worth reading, only a legal interest to promote. When a news organization such as Politico helps it promote its own interest, neither partner looks good.
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY WATER AGENCY DECLARES SUPPLY EMERGENCY
Original Story: latimes.com
The Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District declared a water supply emergency Wednesday amid record-low levels.
The agency, which supplies retailers that serve several San Gabriel Valley cities, said levels will continue to drop if this winter doesn’t provide above-average rainfall and if the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California doesn’t provide significant water to replenish groundwater.
The resolution adopting a water supply emergency was approved by the board of directors and called for a number of conservation actions. An Austin Energy Lawyer is experienced in resolving disputes involving improper use of land and breach of contract issues.
It also demands that the Metropolitan Water District deliver water requested by the San Gabriel agency for groundwater replenishment at the same cost as the other member agencies that pay “full service” water rates.
“Today’s action by the board is necessary to continue the reliable and safe operation of the basin’s water supply,” said Anthony Fellow, board president of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. “Groundwater levels continue to hit record lows and weather forecasts predict continued drought-like conditions.” A Tulsa Energy Lawyer represents clients in energy cases.
The three years of below-average rain and limited availability of imported water needed for groundwater replenishment have left the main San Gabriel Basin at a record-low level, the district said.
Groundwater levels could drop an additional 20 feet or more without water deliveries and if this winter is as dry as last year’s.
The Metropolitan Water District “will play a critical role in stretching its already thin water supplies to help San Gabriel Valley communities make it through this drought,” Fellow said.
The Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District declared a water supply emergency Wednesday amid record-low levels.
The agency, which supplies retailers that serve several San Gabriel Valley cities, said levels will continue to drop if this winter doesn’t provide above-average rainfall and if the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California doesn’t provide significant water to replenish groundwater.
The resolution adopting a water supply emergency was approved by the board of directors and called for a number of conservation actions. An Austin Energy Lawyer is experienced in resolving disputes involving improper use of land and breach of contract issues.
It also demands that the Metropolitan Water District deliver water requested by the San Gabriel agency for groundwater replenishment at the same cost as the other member agencies that pay “full service” water rates.
“Today’s action by the board is necessary to continue the reliable and safe operation of the basin’s water supply,” said Anthony Fellow, board president of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. “Groundwater levels continue to hit record lows and weather forecasts predict continued drought-like conditions.” A Tulsa Energy Lawyer represents clients in energy cases.
The three years of below-average rain and limited availability of imported water needed for groundwater replenishment have left the main San Gabriel Basin at a record-low level, the district said.
Groundwater levels could drop an additional 20 feet or more without water deliveries and if this winter is as dry as last year’s.
The Metropolitan Water District “will play a critical role in stretching its already thin water supplies to help San Gabriel Valley communities make it through this drought,” Fellow said.
Monday, September 29, 2014
STUDY: LAKE ERIE SILT DUMPING ISN’T FUELING ALGAE
Original Story: detroitnews.com
Toledo, Ohio — A federal agency that has resisted calls to stop depositing tons of mud and soil in western Lake Erie said new research shows that the dumping isn’t contributing to the rising number of harmful algae outbreaks in recent few years.
The study released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that silt dumped into the lake isn’t a primary source of the phosphorus that feeds the algae, which produces toxins that this summer fouled the tap water for 400,000 people in Ohio and southeastern Michigan.
Environmental regulators and political leaders in Ohio have been trying to stop the dumping since the 1980s, arguing that it harms water quality and fish in the lake. The Army Corps has maintained that it’s safe and much cheaper to dump the sediment into the lake than storing it.
Researchers believe as much as two-thirds of the phosphorus in Lake Erie comes from farm fertilizers and livestock manure. Some also comes from sewage treatment plants and leaking septic tanks.
But many environmental groups also have long suspected there was a connection between the increasing algae growth and the dumping of silt in the western end of the lake.
Two members of Ohio’s congressional delegation proposed legislation last week that would force the Army Corps to end dumping sediment from Great Lakes shipping channels into the open water.
A day later, the Army Corps released the results of the 18-month study conducted by two outside engineering consulting firms that concluded dumping dredged sediment in the lake had no measurable impact on the amount of phosphorus in the water.
Two of the main backers of the federal bill — Republican Bob Latta and Democrat Marcy Kaptur, both of northwestern Ohio — said through their offices that the Army Corps’ study did not change their view that the dumping should be stopped.
Latta said that while coming up with the legislation he spoke with a number of experts about what causes the algae growth.
“Preventing the discharge of dredged materials is just one piece of the puzzle,” he said in a statement. “The goal of this legislation is not to shut down or slow navigation channels, but rather implement best management practices for our Great Lakes.”
Kristy Meyer, of the Ohio Environmental Council, said that while depositing sediment in the lake isn’t a main cause of the algae problem, ending the practice will help. There are other environmental reasons to consider as well, she said, including water quality and how dumping affects fish.
Pressure to stop the dumping had been increasing even before Toledo’s water supply was contaminated for two days in early August.
State lawmakers this past spring approved spending $10 million to research alternative uses for the silt dredged from northern Ohio’s harbors. Silt is usually stored because of the costs involved in putting it to a new use. The Army Corps and Ohio’s Environmental Protection Agency pledged to work together on finding new uses.
Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler has set a goal of significantly reducing or eliminating the dumping of sediment dredged from Toledo’s harbor within five years.
Around the Great Lakes, Minnesota and Wisconsin have laws prohibiting nearly all open-water dumping while some other states have taken steps to reduce it.
Toledo, Ohio — A federal agency that has resisted calls to stop depositing tons of mud and soil in western Lake Erie said new research shows that the dumping isn’t contributing to the rising number of harmful algae outbreaks in recent few years.
The study released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that silt dumped into the lake isn’t a primary source of the phosphorus that feeds the algae, which produces toxins that this summer fouled the tap water for 400,000 people in Ohio and southeastern Michigan.
Environmental regulators and political leaders in Ohio have been trying to stop the dumping since the 1980s, arguing that it harms water quality and fish in the lake. The Army Corps has maintained that it’s safe and much cheaper to dump the sediment into the lake than storing it.
Researchers believe as much as two-thirds of the phosphorus in Lake Erie comes from farm fertilizers and livestock manure. Some also comes from sewage treatment plants and leaking septic tanks.
But many environmental groups also have long suspected there was a connection between the increasing algae growth and the dumping of silt in the western end of the lake.
Two members of Ohio’s congressional delegation proposed legislation last week that would force the Army Corps to end dumping sediment from Great Lakes shipping channels into the open water.
A day later, the Army Corps released the results of the 18-month study conducted by two outside engineering consulting firms that concluded dumping dredged sediment in the lake had no measurable impact on the amount of phosphorus in the water.
Two of the main backers of the federal bill — Republican Bob Latta and Democrat Marcy Kaptur, both of northwestern Ohio — said through their offices that the Army Corps’ study did not change their view that the dumping should be stopped.
Latta said that while coming up with the legislation he spoke with a number of experts about what causes the algae growth.
“Preventing the discharge of dredged materials is just one piece of the puzzle,” he said in a statement. “The goal of this legislation is not to shut down or slow navigation channels, but rather implement best management practices for our Great Lakes.”
Kristy Meyer, of the Ohio Environmental Council, said that while depositing sediment in the lake isn’t a main cause of the algae problem, ending the practice will help. There are other environmental reasons to consider as well, she said, including water quality and how dumping affects fish.
Pressure to stop the dumping had been increasing even before Toledo’s water supply was contaminated for two days in early August.
State lawmakers this past spring approved spending $10 million to research alternative uses for the silt dredged from northern Ohio’s harbors. Silt is usually stored because of the costs involved in putting it to a new use. The Army Corps and Ohio’s Environmental Protection Agency pledged to work together on finding new uses.
Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler has set a goal of significantly reducing or eliminating the dumping of sediment dredged from Toledo’s harbor within five years.
Around the Great Lakes, Minnesota and Wisconsin have laws prohibiting nearly all open-water dumping while some other states have taken steps to reduce it.
MEXICAN CARTELS STEAL BILLIONS FROM OIL INDUSTRY
Original Story: news.yahoo.com
CIUDAD MIER, Mexico (AP) — Mexico overcame 75 years of nationalist pride to reform its flagging, state-owned oil industry. But as it prepares to develop rich shale fields along the Gulf Coast, and attract foreign investors, another challenge awaits: taming the brutal drug cartels that rule the region and are stealing billions of dollars' worth of oil from pipelines.
Figures released by Petroleos Mexicanos last week show the gangs are becoming more prolific and sophisticated. So far this year, thieves across Mexico have drilled 2,481 illegal taps into state-owned pipelines, up more than one-third from the same period of 2013. Pemex estimates it's lost some 7.5 million barrels worth $1.15 billion.
Pemex director Emilio Lozoya called the trend "worrisome."
More than a fifth of the illegal taps occurred in Tamaulipas, the Gulf state neighboring Texas that is a cornerstone for Mexico's future oil plans. It has Mexico's largest fields of recoverable shale gas, the natural gas extracted by fracturing rock layers, or fracking.
Mexico, overall, is believed to have the world's sixth-largest reserves of shale gas — equivalent to 60 billion barrels of crude oil. That's more than twice the total amount of oil that Mexico has produced by conventional means over the last century.
The energy reform passed in December loosened Mexico's protectionist policies, opening the way for Pemex to seek foreign investors and expertise to help it exploit its shale fields. It hopes to draw $10 billion to $15 billion in private investment each year.
The attractiveness of the venture may hinge on bringing Tamaulipas under control.
"The energy reform won't be viable if we aren't successful ... in solving the problem of crime and impunity," said Sen. David Penchyna, who heads the Senate Energy Commission. "The biggest challenge we Mexicans have, and I say it without shame, is Tamaulipas."
One foreign oil company that had a brush with violence appears undeterred.
In early April, gunmen opened fire at a hotel in Ciudad Mier, in Tamaulipas' rough Rio Grande Valley, where eight employees of Weatherford International Ltd., a Swiss-based oil services company, were staying.
They were not injured, and Weatherford said in an email message that "Mexico continues to be a focused market for us with growing potential in 2014 and 2015."
But other potential bidders may be put off by such incidents.
Energy analyst David Goldwyn said the Mexico government is going to have to be a lot clearer about its security plan for most shale exploration and production companies, which don't have experience working in risky areas.
"What's the government going to do, what kind of protection, what is it going to allow the operators to do inside their fence line?" he said in a recent conference call with reporters.
Two rival gangs, the Zetas and the Gulf cartel, long have used Tamaulipas as a route to ferry drugs and migrants to the United States and, in recent years, diversified their business: stealing gas and crude and selling it to refineries in Texas or to gas stations on either side of the border.
At least twice a day, the gangs pull up to one of the hundreds of pipelines that crisscross the state. Workers quickly shovel down a couple of yards (meters) to uncover a pipeline and siphon their booty into a stolen tanker truck, said army Col. Juan Carlos Guzman, whose troops have raided a number of such illegal taps.
A dirt farm road led down to one site outside Ciudad Victoria, 180 miles southwest of McAllen, Texas. About a half-mile from a nearby highway, thieves had dug out a pit and inserted a large needle-like device into the pipeline. By the time soldiers arrived, the gang members had fled, and only the driver of the half-loaded gasoline truck was arrested.
The knowledge needed to tap into the pressurized pipelines leads authorities to suspect the gangs have infiltrated Pemex or co-opted company workers.
"It is impossible to do this without information on the timing and level of flows," said Marco Antonio Bernal, a federal congressman from Tamaulipas who is drafting legislation to toughen punishment for pipeline thefts.
The suspicions were reinforced earlier this month when detectives nabbed a Gulf cartel leader who was found carrying a fake Pemex employee credential, complete with his photo and a false name.
Pemex is installing more automated pipeline shut-off valves operated remotely from a control room in Mexico City. Such controls allow them to not only stop spills often caused by illegal taps but to avoid having to send workers out to unpopulated, dangerous areas to turn off valves manually.
With thousands of miles of pipeline stretching over far-flung regions of Tamaulipas, stopping oil theft is proving hard to do. Mexico has taken steps to rein in the cartels, putting military leaders in charge of the state's security and sending in soldiers, marines and federal police to patrol key cities.
Arrests and violence have taken out so many key Zetas leaders that the cartel's members have taken to camping out in the bush, dragooning Central American migrants into their ranks. They live off the land and change campsites constantly to avoid detection.
"They don't have structures. They sleep under the trees, near rivers to get water," said Gen. Mario Lopez Miguez, who commands nearly 600 soldiers at a base in the once cartel-dominated town of Ciudad Mier.
The Gulf cartel, for its part, remains in control of Tamaulipas' largest city, Reynosa, which sits across from McAllen, although the military has increased its patrols, making some residents feel safer.
"The situation has gotten a lot better," said Nora Gonzalez, who runs a secondhand furniture shop near downtown Reynosa.
Still, just a few blocks away, Reynosa remains dangerous.
A reporter asking residents about the crime situation was quickly approached by a young man driving a battered car with no license plates.
"Where are you from? What are you doing here? Identify yourself," said the young man, using language similar to that of drug cartel lookouts, known as "halcones," or falcons.
"How much money are you carrying? Pull over," the man demanded, as the reporter opted to drive away.
CIUDAD MIER, Mexico (AP) — Mexico overcame 75 years of nationalist pride to reform its flagging, state-owned oil industry. But as it prepares to develop rich shale fields along the Gulf Coast, and attract foreign investors, another challenge awaits: taming the brutal drug cartels that rule the region and are stealing billions of dollars' worth of oil from pipelines.
Figures released by Petroleos Mexicanos last week show the gangs are becoming more prolific and sophisticated. So far this year, thieves across Mexico have drilled 2,481 illegal taps into state-owned pipelines, up more than one-third from the same period of 2013. Pemex estimates it's lost some 7.5 million barrels worth $1.15 billion.
Pemex director Emilio Lozoya called the trend "worrisome."
More than a fifth of the illegal taps occurred in Tamaulipas, the Gulf state neighboring Texas that is a cornerstone for Mexico's future oil plans. It has Mexico's largest fields of recoverable shale gas, the natural gas extracted by fracturing rock layers, or fracking.
Mexico, overall, is believed to have the world's sixth-largest reserves of shale gas — equivalent to 60 billion barrels of crude oil. That's more than twice the total amount of oil that Mexico has produced by conventional means over the last century.
The energy reform passed in December loosened Mexico's protectionist policies, opening the way for Pemex to seek foreign investors and expertise to help it exploit its shale fields. It hopes to draw $10 billion to $15 billion in private investment each year.
The attractiveness of the venture may hinge on bringing Tamaulipas under control.
"The energy reform won't be viable if we aren't successful ... in solving the problem of crime and impunity," said Sen. David Penchyna, who heads the Senate Energy Commission. "The biggest challenge we Mexicans have, and I say it without shame, is Tamaulipas."
One foreign oil company that had a brush with violence appears undeterred.
In early April, gunmen opened fire at a hotel in Ciudad Mier, in Tamaulipas' rough Rio Grande Valley, where eight employees of Weatherford International Ltd., a Swiss-based oil services company, were staying.
They were not injured, and Weatherford said in an email message that "Mexico continues to be a focused market for us with growing potential in 2014 and 2015."
But other potential bidders may be put off by such incidents.
Energy analyst David Goldwyn said the Mexico government is going to have to be a lot clearer about its security plan for most shale exploration and production companies, which don't have experience working in risky areas.
"What's the government going to do, what kind of protection, what is it going to allow the operators to do inside their fence line?" he said in a recent conference call with reporters.
Two rival gangs, the Zetas and the Gulf cartel, long have used Tamaulipas as a route to ferry drugs and migrants to the United States and, in recent years, diversified their business: stealing gas and crude and selling it to refineries in Texas or to gas stations on either side of the border.
At least twice a day, the gangs pull up to one of the hundreds of pipelines that crisscross the state. Workers quickly shovel down a couple of yards (meters) to uncover a pipeline and siphon their booty into a stolen tanker truck, said army Col. Juan Carlos Guzman, whose troops have raided a number of such illegal taps.
A dirt farm road led down to one site outside Ciudad Victoria, 180 miles southwest of McAllen, Texas. About a half-mile from a nearby highway, thieves had dug out a pit and inserted a large needle-like device into the pipeline. By the time soldiers arrived, the gang members had fled, and only the driver of the half-loaded gasoline truck was arrested.
The knowledge needed to tap into the pressurized pipelines leads authorities to suspect the gangs have infiltrated Pemex or co-opted company workers.
"It is impossible to do this without information on the timing and level of flows," said Marco Antonio Bernal, a federal congressman from Tamaulipas who is drafting legislation to toughen punishment for pipeline thefts.
The suspicions were reinforced earlier this month when detectives nabbed a Gulf cartel leader who was found carrying a fake Pemex employee credential, complete with his photo and a false name.
Pemex is installing more automated pipeline shut-off valves operated remotely from a control room in Mexico City. Such controls allow them to not only stop spills often caused by illegal taps but to avoid having to send workers out to unpopulated, dangerous areas to turn off valves manually.
With thousands of miles of pipeline stretching over far-flung regions of Tamaulipas, stopping oil theft is proving hard to do. Mexico has taken steps to rein in the cartels, putting military leaders in charge of the state's security and sending in soldiers, marines and federal police to patrol key cities.
Arrests and violence have taken out so many key Zetas leaders that the cartel's members have taken to camping out in the bush, dragooning Central American migrants into their ranks. They live off the land and change campsites constantly to avoid detection.
"They don't have structures. They sleep under the trees, near rivers to get water," said Gen. Mario Lopez Miguez, who commands nearly 600 soldiers at a base in the once cartel-dominated town of Ciudad Mier.
The Gulf cartel, for its part, remains in control of Tamaulipas' largest city, Reynosa, which sits across from McAllen, although the military has increased its patrols, making some residents feel safer.
"The situation has gotten a lot better," said Nora Gonzalez, who runs a secondhand furniture shop near downtown Reynosa.
Still, just a few blocks away, Reynosa remains dangerous.
A reporter asking residents about the crime situation was quickly approached by a young man driving a battered car with no license plates.
"Where are you from? What are you doing here? Identify yourself," said the young man, using language similar to that of drug cartel lookouts, known as "halcones," or falcons.
"How much money are you carrying? Pull over," the man demanded, as the reporter opted to drive away.
Friday, April 25, 2014
MAJOR OIL, GAS FIRM TO LIST FRACKING CHEMICALS
Original Story: USAToday.com
PITTSBURGH (AP) — A major supplier to the oil and gas industry says it will begin disclosing 100% of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid, with no exemptions for trade secrets. The move by Baker Hughes of Houston is a shift for a major firm; it's unclear if others will follow suit.
The oil and gas industry has said the fracking chemicals are disclosed at tens of thousands of wells, but environmental and health groups and government regulators say a loophole that allows companies to hide chemical "trade secrets" has been a major problem.
A statement on the Baker Hughes website said the company believes it's possible to disclose 100% "of the chemical ingredients we use in hydraulic fracturing fluids without compromising our formulations," to increase public trust.
"This really good news. It's a step in the right direction," said Dr. Bernard Goldstein, the former dean of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. "One hopes that the entire industry goes along with it."
But Goldstein noted one "major hedge" in the Baker Hughes position, since the company said it will provide complete lists of the products and chemical ingredients used in frack fluids "where accepted by our customers and relevant governmental authorities."
Still, Goldstein said the Baker Hughes language sets a new standard for transparency and "clearly distinguishes them from Halliburton," another major industry supplier.
Baker Hughes spokeswoman Melanie Kania wrote in an email that it will take "several months" for the new policy to take effect. She said the end result will be a "single list" that provides "all the chemical constituents" for frack fluids, with no trade secrets.
Amy Mall, a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the Baker Hughes move is a positive step, and that "if one company can do it, it's very clear all companies can do it." Mall said NRDC doesn't believe companies should use the trade secret argument to hide drilling chemicals.
A spokeswoman for Houston-based Halliburton, another major oil and gas supplier, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A boom in drilling has led to tens of thousands of new wells being drilled in recent years using the fracking process. A mix of water, sand and chemicals is forced into deep underground formations to break rock apart and free oil and gas. That's led to major economic benefits but also fears that the chemicals used in the process could spread to water supplies.
The mix of chemicals varies by company and region — and some of the chemicals are toxic and could cause health problems in significant doses — so the lack of full transparency has worried landowners and public health experts.
Many companies voluntarily disclose the contents of their fracking fluids through FracFocus.org, a website partially funded by the oil and gas industry that tracks fracking operations nationwide. But critics say the website has loose reporting standards and allows companies to avoid disclosure by declaring certain chemicals as trade secrets.
An Energy Department task force report issued in March that found that 84% of the wells registered on FracFocus invoked a trade secret exemption for at least one chemical. The Task Force said it "favors full disclosure of all known constituents added to fracturing fluid with few, if any exceptions."
The FracFocus website is managed by the Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, both based in Oklahoma, and is funded by industry and the Energy Department.
Gerry Baker of the Oil and Gas Compact said he doesn't know of any other major supplier that has made a pledge similar to the one from Baker Hughes.
"It's a business decision on their part," Baker said. "Somehow, they've committed to this at the highest levels" of disclosure.
The Interior Department is expected to finalize proposed regulation for hydraulic fracturing on public lands by the end of the year. The measure would apply to some 700 million acres of federal lands and 56 million acres of lands controlled by federally recognized Indian tribes.
The rule proposed last year would require companies drilling for oil and natural gas to disclose chemicals used in fracking operations. The information would be made public.
The DOE said 25 states now mandate public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, including 15 that use FracFocus as a reporting tool.
Industry groups oppose the disclosure rule, saying it would be costly for businesses, with little environmental or safety benefit. The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's top lobbying group, has praised the efforts of states to adopt the FracFocus database for disclosing chemicals, but has said additional federal regulations could jeopardize economic growth.
Asked about the Baker Hughes plan, API spokesman Zachary Cikanek said in an email that they "also welcome additional efforts by individual companies to increase public engagement and transparency."
PITTSBURGH (AP) — A major supplier to the oil and gas industry says it will begin disclosing 100% of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid, with no exemptions for trade secrets. The move by Baker Hughes of Houston is a shift for a major firm; it's unclear if others will follow suit.
The oil and gas industry has said the fracking chemicals are disclosed at tens of thousands of wells, but environmental and health groups and government regulators say a loophole that allows companies to hide chemical "trade secrets" has been a major problem.
A statement on the Baker Hughes website said the company believes it's possible to disclose 100% "of the chemical ingredients we use in hydraulic fracturing fluids without compromising our formulations," to increase public trust.
"This really good news. It's a step in the right direction," said Dr. Bernard Goldstein, the former dean of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. "One hopes that the entire industry goes along with it."
But Goldstein noted one "major hedge" in the Baker Hughes position, since the company said it will provide complete lists of the products and chemical ingredients used in frack fluids "where accepted by our customers and relevant governmental authorities."
Still, Goldstein said the Baker Hughes language sets a new standard for transparency and "clearly distinguishes them from Halliburton," another major industry supplier.
Baker Hughes spokeswoman Melanie Kania wrote in an email that it will take "several months" for the new policy to take effect. She said the end result will be a "single list" that provides "all the chemical constituents" for frack fluids, with no trade secrets.
Amy Mall, a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the Baker Hughes move is a positive step, and that "if one company can do it, it's very clear all companies can do it." Mall said NRDC doesn't believe companies should use the trade secret argument to hide drilling chemicals.
A spokeswoman for Houston-based Halliburton, another major oil and gas supplier, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A boom in drilling has led to tens of thousands of new wells being drilled in recent years using the fracking process. A mix of water, sand and chemicals is forced into deep underground formations to break rock apart and free oil and gas. That's led to major economic benefits but also fears that the chemicals used in the process could spread to water supplies.
The mix of chemicals varies by company and region — and some of the chemicals are toxic and could cause health problems in significant doses — so the lack of full transparency has worried landowners and public health experts.
Many companies voluntarily disclose the contents of their fracking fluids through FracFocus.org, a website partially funded by the oil and gas industry that tracks fracking operations nationwide. But critics say the website has loose reporting standards and allows companies to avoid disclosure by declaring certain chemicals as trade secrets.
An Energy Department task force report issued in March that found that 84% of the wells registered on FracFocus invoked a trade secret exemption for at least one chemical. The Task Force said it "favors full disclosure of all known constituents added to fracturing fluid with few, if any exceptions."
The FracFocus website is managed by the Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, both based in Oklahoma, and is funded by industry and the Energy Department.
Gerry Baker of the Oil and Gas Compact said he doesn't know of any other major supplier that has made a pledge similar to the one from Baker Hughes.
"It's a business decision on their part," Baker said. "Somehow, they've committed to this at the highest levels" of disclosure.
The Interior Department is expected to finalize proposed regulation for hydraulic fracturing on public lands by the end of the year. The measure would apply to some 700 million acres of federal lands and 56 million acres of lands controlled by federally recognized Indian tribes.
The rule proposed last year would require companies drilling for oil and natural gas to disclose chemicals used in fracking operations. The information would be made public.
The DOE said 25 states now mandate public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, including 15 that use FracFocus as a reporting tool.
Industry groups oppose the disclosure rule, saying it would be costly for businesses, with little environmental or safety benefit. The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's top lobbying group, has praised the efforts of states to adopt the FracFocus database for disclosing chemicals, but has said additional federal regulations could jeopardize economic growth.
Asked about the Baker Hughes plan, API spokesman Zachary Cikanek said in an email that they "also welcome additional efforts by individual companies to increase public engagement and transparency."
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
KEYSTONE ROUTE RULING SHOULD BE OVERTURNED, NEBRASKA SAYS
Original Story: Bloomberg News
A court challenge holding up TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline should be dismissed, Nebraska’s governor said, urging his state’s high court to allow the project to move forward.
The case is delaying the Obama administration’s review of the project, the president said April 18. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman yesterday asked the state’s top court to throw out a trial judge’s ruling that the route for the pipeline was approved without proper authority. The court may not hear the case until at least September and may not rule until after mid-presidential term congressional elections in November.A Tulsa Oil and Gas Lawyer said he has had not had a case quite like this before.
TransCanada is awaiting a U.S. permit to build the northern leg of Keystone XL, which would supply U.S. Gulf Coast refineries with crude from Alberta’s oil sands. Because it crosses an international boundary, the proposal requires U.S. State Department approval.
Based in Calgary, TransCanada is seeking to build the 830,000 barrel-a-day, 1,179-mile (1,897-kilometer) conduit running from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would connect to an existing network.
Backers of the project say it will create jobs. Opponents have countered it will contribute to global warming. If the Nebraska Supreme Court upholds the trial outcome, Keystone will need to apply to the state’s Public Service Commission for approval. Under law the commission has seven months to review such applications.
Judge’s Ruling
Judge Stephanie Stacy in Lincoln ruled on Feb. 19 that legislation enabling Heineman and TransCanada to bypass the commission when planning the pipeline route violated the state’s constitution.
Stacy erred in allowing a challenge by three property owners to move forward because they hadn’t shown they had been injured as taxpayers by the state’s plan, Heineman, a Republican, said in a filing yesterday with the supreme court.
State Attorney General Jon Bruning, a Republican running to succeed Heineman as governor, argued in the filing that the trial judge set too low a threshold for taxpayers to bring court challenges to state legislation.
Bruning also argued the not all crude oil pipelines qualified as “common carriers” falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.
U.S. Senate
David Domina, a lawyer for the landowners, is seeking the Democratic Party nomination to run for U.S. Senate in the state, where he would follow Republican Mike Johanns, who is retiring after a single term.
Domina didn’t immediately reply to an e-mail seeking comment on the governor’s arguments yesterday’s filing. A San Antonio Oil and Gas Lawyer would not comment on the case.
He argued in the trial court that the challenged legislation, which took effect in 2012, improperly divested the constitutionally-created Public Service Commission of jurisdiction over pipeline routing, placing it with the governor and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
Stacy rejected the state’s contention that pipeline routing was outside the PSC’s purview.
In her Feb. 19 decision, Stacy agreed with the landowners that the shift in authority effected by the legislation was improper.
“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which such provisions could be constitutional,” she said. Addressing the state’s argument that its outlay of funds under the law, later recouped when TransCanada paid it $5.15 million, didn’t deprive the three plaintiffs of standing to sue.
“While private reimbursement of public expenditures may be good fiscal policy, it should not be used as a legislative tool to insulate allegedly unconstitutional laws from taxpayer challenge,” she said.
The case is Thompson v. Heineman, S-14-000158, Nebraska Supreme Court (Lincoln).
A court challenge holding up TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline should be dismissed, Nebraska’s governor said, urging his state’s high court to allow the project to move forward.
The case is delaying the Obama administration’s review of the project, the president said April 18. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman yesterday asked the state’s top court to throw out a trial judge’s ruling that the route for the pipeline was approved without proper authority. The court may not hear the case until at least September and may not rule until after mid-presidential term congressional elections in November.A Tulsa Oil and Gas Lawyer said he has had not had a case quite like this before.
TransCanada is awaiting a U.S. permit to build the northern leg of Keystone XL, which would supply U.S. Gulf Coast refineries with crude from Alberta’s oil sands. Because it crosses an international boundary, the proposal requires U.S. State Department approval.
Based in Calgary, TransCanada is seeking to build the 830,000 barrel-a-day, 1,179-mile (1,897-kilometer) conduit running from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would connect to an existing network.
Backers of the project say it will create jobs. Opponents have countered it will contribute to global warming. If the Nebraska Supreme Court upholds the trial outcome, Keystone will need to apply to the state’s Public Service Commission for approval. Under law the commission has seven months to review such applications.
Judge’s Ruling
Judge Stephanie Stacy in Lincoln ruled on Feb. 19 that legislation enabling Heineman and TransCanada to bypass the commission when planning the pipeline route violated the state’s constitution.
Stacy erred in allowing a challenge by three property owners to move forward because they hadn’t shown they had been injured as taxpayers by the state’s plan, Heineman, a Republican, said in a filing yesterday with the supreme court.
State Attorney General Jon Bruning, a Republican running to succeed Heineman as governor, argued in the filing that the trial judge set too low a threshold for taxpayers to bring court challenges to state legislation.
Bruning also argued the not all crude oil pipelines qualified as “common carriers” falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.
U.S. Senate
David Domina, a lawyer for the landowners, is seeking the Democratic Party nomination to run for U.S. Senate in the state, where he would follow Republican Mike Johanns, who is retiring after a single term.
Domina didn’t immediately reply to an e-mail seeking comment on the governor’s arguments yesterday’s filing. A San Antonio Oil and Gas Lawyer would not comment on the case.
He argued in the trial court that the challenged legislation, which took effect in 2012, improperly divested the constitutionally-created Public Service Commission of jurisdiction over pipeline routing, placing it with the governor and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
Stacy rejected the state’s contention that pipeline routing was outside the PSC’s purview.
In her Feb. 19 decision, Stacy agreed with the landowners that the shift in authority effected by the legislation was improper.
“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which such provisions could be constitutional,” she said. Addressing the state’s argument that its outlay of funds under the law, later recouped when TransCanada paid it $5.15 million, didn’t deprive the three plaintiffs of standing to sue.
“While private reimbursement of public expenditures may be good fiscal policy, it should not be used as a legislative tool to insulate allegedly unconstitutional laws from taxpayer challenge,” she said.
The case is Thompson v. Heineman, S-14-000158, Nebraska Supreme Court (Lincoln).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)