Oil and gas development is becoming increasingly controversial in the U.S., in part because of uncertainty about the causes of groundwater contamination in active gas fields. Debates about whether contamination is caused specifically by hydraulic fracturing and whether gas wells should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act rage, but without the relatively rare smoking gun, the question whether oil and gas development has caused contamination evades both scientific and legal determinations. The inability to determine causation is a problem that fuels public distrust of government and industry and deserves a serious effort to solve.In 2010, 2,682 wells were drilled in Pennsylvania, about 500 more than in Colorado’s Garfield County. Home to the Piceance Basin, Garfield County’s natural gas boom commenced in about 2004. That year, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) permitted 796 wells in Garfield County -- a number that climbed steadily to 2,888 by 2008, the peak year to date. Whereas oil and gas development was previously concentrated offshore and in more confined parts of the Gulf Coast and Rocky Mountains, it is now occurring in more heavily populated areas such as Pennsylvania. Although the industry sparked controversy in its traditional territory, the volume of the public opposition has increased as development has invaded more populous regions and much of this controversy is fueled by concerns about water quality.During a 2009 public hearing on the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on oil and gas development, protesters in New York City held anti-development signs, interrupted official presentations and were escorted out of the venue. The New York legislature imposed a moratorium in November 2010 in order to allow the Department of Environmental Conservation to better study modern oil and gas development techniques, and federal legislators from New York, Pennsylvania and Colorado have called for federal regulation of the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process under the auspices of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Some of the reasons that oil and gas development is so controversial are that it is an industrial activity that is allowed under common law to encroach upon residential areas where it causes nuisance noise, odor and pollution. But it is also implicated in instances of ambient groundwater contamination that have not been fully resolved. This lack of resolution serves as a rallying cry for anti-development groups, and results partly from failures to adequately address issues of causation and proof. Public pressure, in turn, has spawned legislative proposals such as the so-called FRAC Act.
在美国，石油和天然气开发正变得越来越有争议，部分原因在于对活跃气田地下水污染原因的不确定性。关于污染是否是由水力压裂造成的，以及天然气井是否应该受到《安全饮用水法》(Safe Drinking Water Act)的监管，争论十分激烈，但由于缺乏相对罕见的确凿证据，石油和天然气开发是否造成了污染的问题在科学和法律上都没有定论。无法确定因果关系是一个引发公众对政府和行业不信任的问题，值得认真努力解决。2010年，宾夕法尼亚州钻了2682口井，比科罗拉多州加菲尔德县多出约500口。作为Piceance盆地的所在地，Garfield县的天然气热潮始于2004年左右。当年，科罗拉多州石油和天然气保护委员会(COGCC)在加菲尔德县批准了796口井，到2008年，这一数字稳步攀升至2888口，是迄今为止的峰值。以前，油气开发主要集中在近海、墨西哥湾沿岸和落基山脉等较为封闭的地区，而现在则集中在宾夕法尼亚等人口稠密的地区。尽管该行业在其传统领域引发了争议，但随着开发活动侵入人口更多的地区，公众反对的声音越来越大，其中大部分争议是由对水质的担忧引起的。在2009年纽约环境保护部关于石油和天然气开发的补充通用环境影响声明的公开听证会上，纽约市的抗议者举着反对开发的标语，打断了官方的演讲，并被护送出会场。纽约州立法机构于2010年11月颁布了一项暂停令，以便环境保护部更好地研究现代石油和天然气开发技术，纽约州、宾夕法尼亚州和科罗拉多州的联邦立法者呼吁在《安全饮用水法》(SDWA)的支持下，对水力压裂(fracking)过程进行联邦监管。石油和天然气开发如此有争议的一些原因是，根据普通法，它是一种工业活动，可以侵占居民区，从而产生滋扰的噪音、气味和污染。但它也涉及到尚未完全解决的地下水污染问题。缺乏解决方案是反发展组织的战斗口号，部分原因是未能充分解决因果关系和证据问题。反过来，公众压力催生了所谓的FRAC法案等立法提案。
{"title":"Proving Whether or Not Contamination is Caused by Oil and Gas Operations","authors":"J. H. Jordan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1879485","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1879485","url":null,"abstract":"Oil and gas development is becoming increasingly controversial in the U.S., in part because of uncertainty about the causes of groundwater contamination in active gas fields. Debates about whether contamination is caused specifically by hydraulic fracturing and whether gas wells should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act rage, but without the relatively rare smoking gun, the question whether oil and gas development has caused contamination evades both scientific and legal determinations. The inability to determine causation is a problem that fuels public distrust of government and industry and deserves a serious effort to solve.In 2010, 2,682 wells were drilled in Pennsylvania, about 500 more than in Colorado’s Garfield County. Home to the Piceance Basin, Garfield County’s natural gas boom commenced in about 2004. That year, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) permitted 796 wells in Garfield County -- a number that climbed steadily to 2,888 by 2008, the peak year to date. Whereas oil and gas development was previously concentrated offshore and in more confined parts of the Gulf Coast and Rocky Mountains, it is now occurring in more heavily populated areas such as Pennsylvania. Although the industry sparked controversy in its traditional territory, the volume of the public opposition has increased as development has invaded more populous regions and much of this controversy is fueled by concerns about water quality.During a 2009 public hearing on the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on oil and gas development, protesters in New York City held anti-development signs, interrupted official presentations and were escorted out of the venue. The New York legislature imposed a moratorium in November 2010 in order to allow the Department of Environmental Conservation to better study modern oil and gas development techniques, and federal legislators from New York, Pennsylvania and Colorado have called for federal regulation of the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process under the auspices of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Some of the reasons that oil and gas development is so controversial are that it is an industrial activity that is allowed under common law to encroach upon residential areas where it causes nuisance noise, odor and pollution. But it is also implicated in instances of ambient groundwater contamination that have not been fully resolved. This lack of resolution serves as a rallying cry for anti-development groups, and results partly from failures to adequately address issues of causation and proof. Public pressure, in turn, has spawned legislative proposals such as the so-called FRAC Act.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128621528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is commonplace in Australian policy debate for groups presumed to be adversely affected by proposed policies to provide estimates of the undesirable consequences of change. A highly public example of the above is the claim by the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), based on work done in 2009 by Concept Economics (2009), that the then-planned Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would result in 23,510 fewer jobs in Australian mining than would otherwise be the case. Our research reports findings using three different data series and methods, and presents analyses aimed at improving the understanding of, and putting into an aggregate economy context, the projected mining sector “job losses” as a result of the 2009 planned ETS. The essential points concerning the size and meaning of mining sector employment effects should not be in dispute; the alleged “jobs loss” aspect of the climate change policy debate is not in any sense important to the overall policy discourse. Our major motivation lies well beyond the potential mining jobs implications from the ETS, which is used only as an example to illustrate the use and misuse of employment data in policy debate.
{"title":"How Many Jobs is 23,510, Really?","authors":"Bruce J. Chapman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1873643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1873643","url":null,"abstract":"It is commonplace in Australian policy debate for groups presumed to be adversely affected by proposed policies to provide estimates of the undesirable consequences of change. A highly public example of the above is the claim by the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), based on work done in 2009 by Concept Economics (2009), that the then-planned Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would result in 23,510 fewer jobs in Australian mining than would otherwise be the case. Our research reports findings using three different data series and methods, and presents analyses aimed at improving the understanding of, and putting into an aggregate economy context, the projected mining sector “job losses” as a result of the 2009 planned ETS. The essential points concerning the size and meaning of mining sector employment effects should not be in dispute; the alleged “jobs loss” aspect of the climate change policy debate is not in any sense important to the overall policy discourse. Our major motivation lies well beyond the potential mining jobs implications from the ETS, which is used only as an example to illustrate the use and misuse of employment data in policy debate.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132449822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-06-16DOI: 10.1163/157180812X620667
Robert A. Makgill, H. Rennie
In this paper we set out the key components of Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) legislation and show how the Resource Management Act 1991 implements ICM in New Zealand. In Part II of this paper we briefly discuss why ICM is needed and the definition of ICM. We then identify the key tools for delivering ICM. Part III outlines three general components that we consider need to be provided for in any successful legislative framework for ICM. These are policy goals, legislative provision and decision making bodies. The RMA is then assessed to determine the extent to which it makes provision for these components. Parts IV to VIII discuss five specific kinds of tools that we consider an ICM legal framework should make provision for in order to give effect to ICM in decision making. These are: jurisdiction over the coastal environment, integrated planning, a consent process, public participation and informed decision making. We then consider how successfully each of these kinds of policy is implemented under the RMA. Part IX acknowledges that the ability of ICM to successfully manage intensive use and conflict is not without criticism. We briefly consider these criticisms in light of New Zealand’s experience with the RMA.
{"title":"A Model for Integrated Coastal Management Legislation: A Principled Analysis of New Zealand’s Resource Management Act 1991","authors":"Robert A. Makgill, H. Rennie","doi":"10.1163/157180812X620667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/157180812X620667","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we set out the key components of Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) legislation and show how the Resource Management Act 1991 implements ICM in New Zealand. In Part II of this paper we briefly discuss why ICM is needed and the definition of ICM. We then identify the key tools for delivering ICM. Part III outlines three general components that we consider need to be provided for in any successful legislative framework for ICM. These are policy goals, legislative provision and decision making bodies. The RMA is then assessed to determine the extent to which it makes provision for these components. Parts IV to VIII discuss five specific kinds of tools that we consider an ICM legal framework should make provision for in order to give effect to ICM in decision making. These are: jurisdiction over the coastal environment, integrated planning, a consent process, public participation and informed decision making. We then consider how successfully each of these kinds of policy is implemented under the RMA. Part IX acknowledges that the ability of ICM to successfully manage intensive use and conflict is not without criticism. We briefly consider these criticisms in light of New Zealand’s experience with the RMA.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114796389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed in response to increased pollution in the nation’s navigable waters caused by industrial actors and others. Congress sought to achieve two goals with the CWA: eliminate pollution discharges into the nation’s waters, and achieve national uniformity in a water pollution control scheme. However, Congress recognized that complete elimination of all pollution discharges was not immediately achievable. As a result, it created a dual-permitting scheme under the CWA, authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to issue permits for the discharge of “dredged or fill” material into navigable waters. The 2009 Supreme Court decision in Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council reveals that the line separating the EPA’s and the Corps’ respective permitting authority has become blurred. In this case, the Court upheld the Corps’ issuance of a fill permit to a gold mining project seeking to discharge mining waste into a nearby lake. The Court held that the Corps, and not the EPA, possesses the authority to issue permits for the discharge of fill material, regardless of whether the fill is also considered a pollutant under the CWA. Additionally, the Court held that the strict EPA-promulgated effluent discharge limitations for new sources of discharge do not apply to Corps permits. The Court’s opinion threatens to undermine the two goals of the CWA because it opens the door for industrial actors to circumvent the stricter EPA permit requirements by simply ensuring their waste disposal contains a sufficient amount of fill. The EPA’s uniform, technology-based permit requirements are stricter than the Corps’, which evaluates permit applications on a case-by-case basis with no governing effluent limitations. After Coeur Alaska, the CWA could be upended by industrial actors seeking to avoid a stricter EPA permit in favor of a Corps permit. Although the EPA may veto any Corps permit, this power is rarely used. I propose multiple solutions to ensure both of Congress’s goals of the CWA are met, ultimately advocating for an amendment to the CWA that would force Corps permits to comply with EPA-promulgated effluent pollution standards. This solution would have prevented the Corps permit issuance in the Coeur Alaska case, and it would uphold the integrity of the CWA into the future.
《清洁水法》(CWA)的通过是为了应对由工业行为者和其他因素造成的国家通航水域日益严重的污染。国会试图通过《清洁水法》实现两个目标:消除向全国水域排放的污染，实现全国水污染控制方案的统一。然而，国会认识到，完全消除所有污染排放不可能立即实现。因此，它根据《清洁水法》制定了一项双重许可计划，授权环境保护署(EPA)颁发向通航水域排放污染物的许可证，授权美国陆军工程兵团(Corps of engineering)颁发向通航水域排放“疏浚或填埋”材料的许可证。2009年，最高法院对“阿拉斯加中心公司诉阿拉斯加东南部保护委员会”一案的判决表明，环境保护局和海洋兵团各自的许可权力之间的界限已经变得模糊。在这个案件中，法院支持军团对一个金矿开采项目发放填埋许可证，该项目试图将采矿废料排放到附近的湖泊中。法院认为，无论填充物是否也被认为是《清洁水法》规定的污染物，该公司而不是环境保护署都有权签发填充物排放许可证。此外，法院认为，环保署颁布的针对新排放源的严格的污水排放限制不适用于军团许可证。法院的意见有可能破坏《清洁水法》的两个目标，因为它为工业行为者打开了一扇门，使他们可以通过简单地确保其废物处置中含有足够数量的填充物来规避更严格的环境保护局许可要求。环保署统一的、基于技术的许可证要求比海军陆战队的更严格，海军陆战队的许可证申请是在个案的基础上进行评估的，没有管理废水的限制。在“阿拉斯加之心”事件之后，工业行为者可能会试图避免更严格的EPA许可，而倾向于兵团许可，从而颠覆《清洁能源法》。虽然环境保护署可以否决任何军团的许可，但这种权力很少被使用。我提出了多种解决方案，以确保国会对《清洁水法》的两个目标都能实现，并最终主张对《清洁水法》进行修订，以迫使海军陆战队的许可证符合环保署颁布的污水污染标准。这一解决方案将阻止Coeur Alaska案例中Corps许可证的发放，并将在未来维护CWA的完整性。
{"title":"Filling the Regulatory Gap: A Proposal for Restructuring the Clean Water Act’s Two-Permit System","authors":"Robert B. Moreno","doi":"10.15779/Z38CK23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38CK23","url":null,"abstract":"The Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed in response to increased pollution in the nation’s navigable waters caused by industrial actors and others. Congress sought to achieve two goals with the CWA: eliminate pollution discharges into the nation’s waters, and achieve national uniformity in a water pollution control scheme. However, Congress recognized that complete elimination of all pollution discharges was not immediately achievable. As a result, it created a dual-permitting scheme under the CWA, authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to issue permits for the discharge of “dredged or fill” material into navigable waters. The 2009 Supreme Court decision in Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council reveals that the line separating the EPA’s and the Corps’ respective permitting authority has become blurred. In this case, the Court upheld the Corps’ issuance of a fill permit to a gold mining project seeking to discharge mining waste into a nearby lake. The Court held that the Corps, and not the EPA, possesses the authority to issue permits for the discharge of fill material, regardless of whether the fill is also considered a pollutant under the CWA. Additionally, the Court held that the strict EPA-promulgated effluent discharge limitations for new sources of discharge do not apply to Corps permits. The Court’s opinion threatens to undermine the two goals of the CWA because it opens the door for industrial actors to circumvent the stricter EPA permit requirements by simply ensuring their waste disposal contains a sufficient amount of fill. The EPA’s uniform, technology-based permit requirements are stricter than the Corps’, which evaluates permit applications on a case-by-case basis with no governing effluent limitations. After Coeur Alaska, the CWA could be upended by industrial actors seeking to avoid a stricter EPA permit in favor of a Corps permit. Although the EPA may veto any Corps permit, this power is rarely used. I propose multiple solutions to ensure both of Congress’s goals of the CWA are met, ultimately advocating for an amendment to the CWA that would force Corps permits to comply with EPA-promulgated effluent pollution standards. This solution would have prevented the Corps permit issuance in the Coeur Alaska case, and it would uphold the integrity of the CWA into the future.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122822734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
These comments respond specifically to a question raised in the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources’ “White Paper on a Clean Energy Standard.” These comments argue that the Committee should consider lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis as one factor in determining whether an energy resource, or a specific project, is a “clean energy” resource for the purposes of a clean energy standard. Lifecycle analysis is increasingly recognized as a necessary assessment for understanding the full greenhouse gas consequences of generating electricity, or producing transportation fuels, with a particular resource. Applying a lifecycle analysis in a clean energy standard will help ensure that a clean energy mandate maximizes greenhouse gas reductions. In addition, a lifecycle analysis can help identify cost-effective opportunities for reducing emissions from new energy projects. These comments do not provide a full assessment or recommendation for how to incorporate lifecycle analysis into a clean energy standard. Nor do these comments recommend the inclusion or exclusion of any resources in a clean energy standard. Rather, these comments merely highlight the importance of including a lifecycle assessment of greenhouse gases in determining whether a resource qualifies as a “clean energy” resource.
{"title":"Comments of Colin R. Hagan Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in Response to the ‘White Paper on a Clean Energy Standard’","authors":"Colin R. Hagan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1807372","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1807372","url":null,"abstract":"These comments respond specifically to a question raised in the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources’ “White Paper on a Clean Energy Standard.” These comments argue that the Committee should consider lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis as one factor in determining whether an energy resource, or a specific project, is a “clean energy” resource for the purposes of a clean energy standard. Lifecycle analysis is increasingly recognized as a necessary assessment for understanding the full greenhouse gas consequences of generating electricity, or producing transportation fuels, with a particular resource. Applying a lifecycle analysis in a clean energy standard will help ensure that a clean energy mandate maximizes greenhouse gas reductions. In addition, a lifecycle analysis can help identify cost-effective opportunities for reducing emissions from new energy projects. These comments do not provide a full assessment or recommendation for how to incorporate lifecycle analysis into a clean energy standard. Nor do these comments recommend the inclusion or exclusion of any resources in a clean energy standard. Rather, these comments merely highlight the importance of including a lifecycle assessment of greenhouse gases in determining whether a resource qualifies as a “clean energy” resource.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127543476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following the 2008 world food crisis, many international investors have engaged in a race for land acquisition and food production. This new form of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is increasingly criticised in the public sphere, which commonly refers to it as a ‘land grab.’ In the absence of consequent primary sources relating to the subject matter, however, this working document provides an overview of what the authors describe as an ‘agri-FDI’ trend, based on the cross analysis of secondary sources. It first draws a geographical map of the trend as a means to emphasise who invests and where. Second, it considers the origins of the trend are, including the 2008 food crises and the impact of increased demand for biofuel. This document, overall, constitutes the basis of a forthcoming paper which, in turn, will formulate hypotheses and questions as to whether agriculture-oriented investments differ from traditional FDI.
{"title":"Acquiring Land Abroad for Agricultural Purposes: ‘Land Grab’ or Agri-FDI? Report of the Surrey International Law Centre and Environmental Regulatory Research Group","authors":"Antoine Martin, M. M. Ayalew","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1788948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1788948","url":null,"abstract":"Following the 2008 world food crisis, many international investors have engaged in a race for land acquisition and food production. This new form of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is increasingly criticised in the public sphere, which commonly refers to it as a ‘land grab.’ In the absence of consequent primary sources relating to the subject matter, however, this working document provides an overview of what the authors describe as an ‘agri-FDI’ trend, based on the cross analysis of secondary sources. It first draws a geographical map of the trend as a means to emphasise who invests and where. Second, it considers the origins of the trend are, including the 2008 food crises and the impact of increased demand for biofuel. This document, overall, constitutes the basis of a forthcoming paper which, in turn, will formulate hypotheses and questions as to whether agriculture-oriented investments differ from traditional FDI.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114199682","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Article investigates how the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the courts are implementing the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition on "adverse modification" of "critical habitat." That prohibition appears to be one of environmental law’s most ambitious mandates, but its actual meaning and effect are contested. Using a database of over 4,000 "biological opinions," interviews with agency staff, and a review of judicial decisions considering the adverse modification prohibition, the Article assesses the extent to which the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the courts are relying on the adverse modification prohibition to provide habitat protection. It also assesses the extent to which they are providing habitat protection by invoking other ESA provisions. The Article concludes that agency practice and some judicial decisions substantially depart from statutory requirements, with problematic results, but that the agencies still are providing substantial habitat protection through other means. It then considers the implications of these findings, first for ongoing debates about ESA implementation and reform and then for broader discussions about legal strategies for responding to small environmental harms and the incremental degradation they cause.
{"title":"Critical Habitat and the Challenge of Regulating Small Harms","authors":"Dave Owen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1775126","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1775126","url":null,"abstract":"This Article investigates how the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the courts are implementing the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition on \"adverse modification\" of \"critical habitat.\" That prohibition appears to be one of environmental law’s most ambitious mandates, but its actual meaning and effect are contested. Using a database of over 4,000 \"biological opinions,\" interviews with agency staff, and a review of judicial decisions considering the adverse modification prohibition, the Article assesses the extent to which the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the courts are relying on the adverse modification prohibition to provide habitat protection. It also assesses the extent to which they are providing habitat protection by invoking other ESA provisions. The Article concludes that agency practice and some judicial decisions substantially depart from statutory requirements, with problematic results, but that the agencies still are providing substantial habitat protection through other means. It then considers the implications of these findings, first for ongoing debates about ESA implementation and reform and then for broader discussions about legal strategies for responding to small environmental harms and the incremental degradation they cause.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124364415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was left politically and economically weak, and with very little bargaining power. The European Union (EU) initiated several policy instruments with Russia to bolster the latter’s economy. A few former Soviet Union republics became members of the EU, adding to its size and power. However, once V. Putin became the President of Russia, the dynamics of the EU-Russian relationship changed. Putin’s goal was to make Russia an ‘Energy Superpower’ by having state control over the strategic sectors within and outside Russia. Besides being a state monopoly in the gas sector, Gazprom also expanded by acquiring downstream assets in the EU. However, any foreign investment participation in Russia is considerably discouraged by the Foreign Strategic Investment Law. EU has also similarly put roadblocks in Gazprom’s expansion plans by introducing the Third Energy Package in 2009. The ghost of Cold War haunts the EU-Russian relationship, which has become fraught with myths, distrust and political face-offs. The EU wants Russia to invest in the energy sector and increase production and yet it continues to promote energy independence as a policy goal. It comes as no surprise that Russia wants to deal with individual states in the EU rather than deal with EU as a whole to protect its interests. This has fragmented the EU, with some states pursuing their separate agenda of energy security while some are openly antagonistic towards any form of partnership, often making the several EU-Russia energy policies meaningless. It appears that the neighbors have lost the ability to hear each other - there is a total absence of co-operative mindset. This research paper attempts to explore the policy instruments adopted and their varying degrees of success. The paper will then seek to locate the reasons for the ineffectiveness of these mechanisms.
{"title":"EU-Russia Energy Policy – Why is it Incoherent and Ineffective?","authors":"P. Chatterjee","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1915908","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1915908","url":null,"abstract":"Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was left politically and economically weak, and with very little bargaining power. The European Union (EU) initiated several policy instruments with Russia to bolster the latter’s economy. A few former Soviet Union republics became members of the EU, adding to its size and power. However, once V. Putin became the President of Russia, the dynamics of the EU-Russian relationship changed. Putin’s goal was to make Russia an ‘Energy Superpower’ by having state control over the strategic sectors within and outside Russia. Besides being a state monopoly in the gas sector, Gazprom also expanded by acquiring downstream assets in the EU. However, any foreign investment participation in Russia is considerably discouraged by the Foreign Strategic Investment Law. EU has also similarly put roadblocks in Gazprom’s expansion plans by introducing the Third Energy Package in 2009. The ghost of Cold War haunts the EU-Russian relationship, which has become fraught with myths, distrust and political face-offs. The EU wants Russia to invest in the energy sector and increase production and yet it continues to promote energy independence as a policy goal. It comes as no surprise that Russia wants to deal with individual states in the EU rather than deal with EU as a whole to protect its interests. This has fragmented the EU, with some states pursuing their separate agenda of energy security while some are openly antagonistic towards any form of partnership, often making the several EU-Russia energy policies meaningless. It appears that the neighbors have lost the ability to hear each other - there is a total absence of co-operative mindset. This research paper attempts to explore the policy instruments adopted and their varying degrees of success. The paper will then seek to locate the reasons for the ineffectiveness of these mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114984112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jakarta, a city with 9 million populations is suffering from acute water and sanitation problems. Only half of Jakarta’s population is connected to the network and the rate of non revenue water is almost 50%. With only 1.9% of the population is connected to sewerage, Jakarta’s rivers and canals is the regular dumping site of daily wastes. Groundwater is polluted with pathogens. Jakarta has 13 major rivers, in which only 1 (one) is healthy. On the upstream, riverbanks are occupied by settlers, farming and industry. Upstream catchment areas are deforested and occupied by villas, causing flood to Jakarta during monsoon rains. Experts warn that unsustainable abstraction of groundwater alone (not combined with climate change threats and upstream deforestation) would be able to drawn Jakarta further into the sea by 2025. Can the Human Right to Water fill in the gap on the existing effort in mitigating this disaster or, on the contrary, will act as an impediment towards an ongoing reform? This paper will start by elaborating the concept of the human right to water and its linkages with water quality. It will then evaluate the legal and regulatory framework of water resources management in Indonesia. The expected result is a constructive criticism of the legal and regulatory framework on water resources management – from a human rights perspective.
{"title":"The Potential Role of the Human Right to Water in the Management of Indonesia’s Water Resources","authors":"Mohamad Mova Al'Afghani","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1723205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1723205","url":null,"abstract":"Jakarta, a city with 9 million populations is suffering from acute water and sanitation problems. Only half of Jakarta’s population is connected to the network and the rate of non revenue water is almost 50%. With only 1.9% of the population is connected to sewerage, Jakarta’s rivers and canals is the regular dumping site of daily wastes. Groundwater is polluted with pathogens. Jakarta has 13 major rivers, in which only 1 (one) is healthy. On the upstream, riverbanks are occupied by settlers, farming and industry. Upstream catchment areas are deforested and occupied by villas, causing flood to Jakarta during monsoon rains. Experts warn that unsustainable abstraction of groundwater alone (not combined with climate change threats and upstream deforestation) would be able to drawn Jakarta further into the sea by 2025. Can the Human Right to Water fill in the gap on the existing effort in mitigating this disaster or, on the contrary, will act as an impediment towards an ongoing reform? This paper will start by elaborating the concept of the human right to water and its linkages with water quality. It will then evaluate the legal and regulatory framework of water resources management in Indonesia. The expected result is a constructive criticism of the legal and regulatory framework on water resources management – from a human rights perspective.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121380004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This working paper deals with the U.S. approach for governing the safety of offshore oil and gas operations and preventing major accidents during exploratory drilling and production. It evaluates the statutory and regulatory framework, and agency implementation and reliance on industrial standards, and then suggests reforms to improve the efficacy of this governance system. References are made to the blowout at the drilling rig operated by British Petroleum to support the evaluation and reforms. References are also made to Norwegian laws and regulations governing oil and gas operations in the North Sea. As one of the world’s largest sources of offshore oil and natural gas, Norway has achieved a high level of safety and offers a proven alternative approach for consideration in the development of an improved U.S. approach. Several additional sections are being developed to complete this working paper.
{"title":"Preventing Accidents in Offshore Oil and Gas Operations: The U.S. Approach and Some Contrasting Features of the Norwegian Approach","authors":"M. Baram","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1705812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1705812","url":null,"abstract":"This working paper deals with the U.S. approach for governing the safety of offshore oil and gas operations and preventing major accidents during exploratory drilling and production. It evaluates the statutory and regulatory framework, and agency implementation and reliance on industrial standards, and then suggests reforms to improve the efficacy of this governance system. References are made to the blowout at the drilling rig operated by British Petroleum to support the evaluation and reforms. References are also made to Norwegian laws and regulations governing oil and gas operations in the North Sea. As one of the world’s largest sources of offshore oil and natural gas, Norway has achieved a high level of safety and offers a proven alternative approach for consideration in the development of an improved U.S. approach. Several additional sections are being developed to complete this working paper.","PeriodicalId":346805,"journal":{"name":"Natural Resources Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"242 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116668623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：