http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/etc/medialib/jci/be/case_studies.Par.21254.File.dat/Clackamas_County_08.pdf
The link is to a "case study" (aka advertisement) on Clackamas County OR and their "unique design-build-operate process in partnership with Johnson Controls, Inc. and others, Clackamas County was able to swiftly construct a cost-effective and sustainable building with the County’s financial and environmental goals in mind. The Public Services Building (PSB) at the Red Soils campus combines several departments at a centralized facility to provide better services for citizens."
Thought it was of interest based on our recent assignment.
Javelina in the Front Yard
Our wild piggy neighbors!
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Assignment #7 - Sustainable Tourism
http://mediaglobal.org/article/2010-04-15/encouraging-sustainable-tourism-for-development-in-zanzibar
The article tells us that tourism in Zanzibar is depleting the natural beauty and resources there. There are a few businesses in the tourism industry who decided that this is an economic problem for them and started to act to create sustainability and change. This tourism and sustainability issue was resolved at the local level, by local business in an effort to protect their economic base and improve the quality of their land.
The increase of tourists coming to Zanzibar since the 1990s has impacted the area significantly. A 2007 feature in National Geographic Traveler Magazine rated Unguja at 53 out of 100 in terms of sustainable tourism and development practices. The reviews of Unguja, written anonymously by sustainable tourism experts indicated that the island was suffering from being developed too quickly with too many large investments without benefiting locals. Panelists rated Pemba 67 out of 100 because of its better-preserved environment and more controlled development. Despite criticisms, there are many in Zanzibar who are encouraging healthy and sustainable development that benefits both area residents and the environment.
The local hotels are making a difference through a series of environmental, ecological and economical sustainability changes. For instance, one hotel is offering accommodations where visitors stay in “eco-bungalows” replete with solar-powered lighting, solar heated water, composting toilets, and rainwater catchment systems. Another is serving local produce and encourages the purchase of local handicrafts and commerce while subsidizing medical care and contributing to education for the local population. The inn is committed to conserving energy and recycling all waste products, in addition to planting trees and shrubs in a nursery and distributing them to locals.
This issue could have been resolved by the local government instituting requirements for sustainable use of the land and resources. The local government could have instituted local law requiring the tourism industry to follow the same sustainable goals that the businesses adopted voluntarily. A state run program with laws determining what the hotels should do to meet environmental sustainability could have easily been implemented and policed.
If the government had decided to implement such policies, there would be several negative effects: business push-back because not all tourism business will want to do this or see it as beneficial; cost of creating an agency to oversee this new policy and implement the rules and regulations; costs would likely increase if the changes were implemented by local government because there would likely be an increase in fees and taxes to support implementation of such a policy. I don't think that the Zanzibar government would have been successful with its implementation of the same things the hotels did here. The hotels saw an economic benefit with increased tourism dollars and the government implementing the same would not have the same altruistic and economic benefits that the hotels are currently enjoying.
Ultimately, even if the government had decided to be the instrument of change in Zanzibar, it would likely have been successful. Although as I mentioned earlier, the businesses would probably not see the same level of income from a government run program due to the additional costs of running such a program. This is a great example of what Wheeler was trying to convey in the text when he said that change has to begin with the individual and then stretch out from there. It is genuinely nice to see the residents and businesses of Zanzibar care about the depletion of their resources and the beauty of their nation that they would (whether it be for economic or altruistic reasons) independently take on and successfully solve the problem.
The article tells us that tourism in Zanzibar is depleting the natural beauty and resources there. There are a few businesses in the tourism industry who decided that this is an economic problem for them and started to act to create sustainability and change. This tourism and sustainability issue was resolved at the local level, by local business in an effort to protect their economic base and improve the quality of their land.
The increase of tourists coming to Zanzibar since the 1990s has impacted the area significantly. A 2007 feature in National Geographic Traveler Magazine rated Unguja at 53 out of 100 in terms of sustainable tourism and development practices. The reviews of Unguja, written anonymously by sustainable tourism experts indicated that the island was suffering from being developed too quickly with too many large investments without benefiting locals. Panelists rated Pemba 67 out of 100 because of its better-preserved environment and more controlled development. Despite criticisms, there are many in Zanzibar who are encouraging healthy and sustainable development that benefits both area residents and the environment.
The local hotels are making a difference through a series of environmental, ecological and economical sustainability changes. For instance, one hotel is offering accommodations where visitors stay in “eco-bungalows” replete with solar-powered lighting, solar heated water, composting toilets, and rainwater catchment systems. Another is serving local produce and encourages the purchase of local handicrafts and commerce while subsidizing medical care and contributing to education for the local population. The inn is committed to conserving energy and recycling all waste products, in addition to planting trees and shrubs in a nursery and distributing them to locals.
This issue could have been resolved by the local government instituting requirements for sustainable use of the land and resources. The local government could have instituted local law requiring the tourism industry to follow the same sustainable goals that the businesses adopted voluntarily. A state run program with laws determining what the hotels should do to meet environmental sustainability could have easily been implemented and policed.
If the government had decided to implement such policies, there would be several negative effects: business push-back because not all tourism business will want to do this or see it as beneficial; cost of creating an agency to oversee this new policy and implement the rules and regulations; costs would likely increase if the changes were implemented by local government because there would likely be an increase in fees and taxes to support implementation of such a policy. I don't think that the Zanzibar government would have been successful with its implementation of the same things the hotels did here. The hotels saw an economic benefit with increased tourism dollars and the government implementing the same would not have the same altruistic and economic benefits that the hotels are currently enjoying.
Ultimately, even if the government had decided to be the instrument of change in Zanzibar, it would likely have been successful. Although as I mentioned earlier, the businesses would probably not see the same level of income from a government run program due to the additional costs of running such a program. This is a great example of what Wheeler was trying to convey in the text when he said that change has to begin with the individual and then stretch out from there. It is genuinely nice to see the residents and businesses of Zanzibar care about the depletion of their resources and the beauty of their nation that they would (whether it be for economic or altruistic reasons) independently take on and successfully solve the problem.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Scottsdale parties reach tentative water agreement
by Lynh Bui - Apr. 6, 2010 02:44 PM
The Arizona Republic
A proposal that could inject up to 1 billion gallons of water annually into the region's groundwater supply soon will go to the Scottsdale City Council for consideration.
The council's subcommittee on water resources met Monday to review proposals from Arizona American Water Co., city water experts and Motorola on plans that could reduce the Northeast Valley's reliance on groundwater. The proposals also would lead to cleanup of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site in Scottsdale.
Representatives of the three parties supported the proposals as an improvement from previous plans. The agreement is a reversal from the tone last year when stakeholders couldn't see eye to eye on how to manage regional water issues.
The stalemate prompted Scottsdale to examine ways to take over Arizona American Water's customers in the city, either through purchase or condemnation.
Company President Paul Townsley proposed entering into a 40-year agreement with the city to treat the private utility's allocation of renewable surface water, which could be used in place of non-renewable groundwater.
The utility would give Motorola access to its plant on Miller Road to continue treating water from PCX-1, a well owned by Salt River Project that is contaminated with industrial solvent trichloroethylene, Townsley said.
Part of the current problem is that treated water from that well is going into the Arizona Canal and not renewing the region's groundwater supply.
"I really believe that this plan is superior to the plan we heard about a year ago," Townsley said.
The plan, which could take two years to implement, has two parts:
• Arizona American Water and Scottsdale would enter into a "treat-and-transport" agreement in which the water company would pay the city to treat its allocation of Central Arizona Project water. Arizona American Water would design, finance and construct a pipeline between its water system and the city's Chaparral plant to transport the treated CAP water, which would be blended with water from the Chaparral plant and sent into the drinking-water system.
• Motorola would be given access to Arizona American Water's Miller Road facility to treat water from the SRP's PCX-1. That treated water, which would be separate from Arizona American Water operations, would be recharged into the ground to replenish the aquifer.
The concept, which could take two years to implement, was submitted last Thursday to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for review. Both agencies are expected to comment on the plan within the next month.
Marshall Brown, executive director of the city's water resources division, called the concept a "sustainable, good, long-term approach" to addressing the region's water issues.
Terry Lockwood, the representative for Motorola and other companies involved in the Superfund cleanup, said the plan proposed would also be beneficial because water recharged into the ground would act as a shield to prevent the Superfund plume from expanding.
But not all were supportive of the proposals.
Richard Alt, a representative for Scottsdale Citizens for Sustainable Water, said two years was too long to wait. He said the city should take over the Arizona American Water Co.
Alt represents a group of Scottsdale residents who are in Arizona American Water's service area. He said the group likely will submit a petition asking the Scottsdale City Council to take over the utility's Scottsdale customers.
"It is definitely the right thing to do to gain control of the entire city of Scottsdale's water-sustainability issue," Alt said.
Arizona American executives have repeatedly said the company is not for sale and would fight any condemnation efforts. Bob Littlefield, chairman of the water issues subcommittee, said he will request the issue go before the council for consideration. That date has not been set.
The Arizona Republic
A proposal that could inject up to 1 billion gallons of water annually into the region's groundwater supply soon will go to the Scottsdale City Council for consideration.
The council's subcommittee on water resources met Monday to review proposals from Arizona American Water Co., city water experts and Motorola on plans that could reduce the Northeast Valley's reliance on groundwater. The proposals also would lead to cleanup of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site in Scottsdale.
Representatives of the three parties supported the proposals as an improvement from previous plans. The agreement is a reversal from the tone last year when stakeholders couldn't see eye to eye on how to manage regional water issues.
The stalemate prompted Scottsdale to examine ways to take over Arizona American Water's customers in the city, either through purchase or condemnation.
Company President Paul Townsley proposed entering into a 40-year agreement with the city to treat the private utility's allocation of renewable surface water, which could be used in place of non-renewable groundwater.
The utility would give Motorola access to its plant on Miller Road to continue treating water from PCX-1, a well owned by Salt River Project that is contaminated with industrial solvent trichloroethylene, Townsley said.
Part of the current problem is that treated water from that well is going into the Arizona Canal and not renewing the region's groundwater supply.
"I really believe that this plan is superior to the plan we heard about a year ago," Townsley said.
The plan, which could take two years to implement, has two parts:
• Arizona American Water and Scottsdale would enter into a "treat-and-transport" agreement in which the water company would pay the city to treat its allocation of Central Arizona Project water. Arizona American Water would design, finance and construct a pipeline between its water system and the city's Chaparral plant to transport the treated CAP water, which would be blended with water from the Chaparral plant and sent into the drinking-water system.
• Motorola would be given access to Arizona American Water's Miller Road facility to treat water from the SRP's PCX-1. That treated water, which would be separate from Arizona American Water operations, would be recharged into the ground to replenish the aquifer.
The concept, which could take two years to implement, was submitted last Thursday to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for review. Both agencies are expected to comment on the plan within the next month.
Marshall Brown, executive director of the city's water resources division, called the concept a "sustainable, good, long-term approach" to addressing the region's water issues.
Terry Lockwood, the representative for Motorola and other companies involved in the Superfund cleanup, said the plan proposed would also be beneficial because water recharged into the ground would act as a shield to prevent the Superfund plume from expanding.
But not all were supportive of the proposals.
Richard Alt, a representative for Scottsdale Citizens for Sustainable Water, said two years was too long to wait. He said the city should take over the Arizona American Water Co.
Alt represents a group of Scottsdale residents who are in Arizona American Water's service area. He said the group likely will submit a petition asking the Scottsdale City Council to take over the utility's Scottsdale customers.
"It is definitely the right thing to do to gain control of the entire city of Scottsdale's water-sustainability issue," Alt said.
Arizona American executives have repeatedly said the company is not for sale and would fight any condemnation efforts. Bob Littlefield, chairman of the water issues subcommittee, said he will request the issue go before the council for consideration. That date has not been set.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Assignment #6 - Frameworks for Environmental Policy
Assignment #6 - Frameworks for Environmental Policy and the 21st Century Water Commission
1. The components of the 21st Century Water Commission policy which are most relevant to Cohen’s “values framework” are: a) it is an issue stemming from a fundamental behavior of our lifestyle and b) the problem raises fundamental issues of conflicting values. Humankind needs fresh water to survive. Humans use fresh water to meet basic needs of living and we use water to irrigate farmland, produce electric power and manufacture goods, additionally fresh water is a source of religious practice. Once a commodity believed to have an infinite supply, we are finding that in not only the United States, but worldwide, fresh water is becoming scarce. There needs to be a fundamental change in how the average American views fresh water. It is too easy to turn on the tap and have fresh, drinkable and affordable water. This fact makes water too easy a commodity to take for granted and further makes it prone to waste.
There is a fundamental issue of conflicting values surrounding fresh water. Water is in huge quantities, used and wasted in agriculture, mining, hydroelectric power and manufacturing ventures. In the breadbasket of the country, farmers draw water from the Ogallala Aquifer to irrigate 30% of the nation’s crops. Water is being withdrawn thirty times faster than it is naturally replenished. Lowering freshwater table levels leads to increased concentrations of pollution, subsidence on land, and smaller quantities of water to be distributed among farmers to feed a growing nation (Reilly et al., 2008). These facts are brought to light in the American Southwest where we are in a constant battle between states for allocation of the fresh water of the Colorado River. Furthermore, the American Southwest is experiencing more land subsidence, development of land fissures and depletion of surface water resources than ever before.
2. The political framework components most relevant to Cohen with regard to this measure before Congress are: a) The status of the issue on the policy agenda is eye-opening. This bill, first introduced in 2003, and every session since is to date, unsuccessful. Representative John Linder (GA-R) and Senator John Isakson introduced legislation, H.R. 135 and S. 2728. The original bills were identical. In 2003 this bill passed the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, furthermore it was debated and passed by the House. It failed to pass the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works before Congress adjourned. Subsequent sessions of Congress saw the bill introduced, but to date is has not passed Congress to become law. b) This issue does act independently of other political issues, yet it appears to be clustered with other key issues. For example, although the Act will create no new laws or mandates, there is concern that it is an attempt to give the federal government more influence over freshwater policy. The most vocal opponents of this position are Representative Candice Miller (MI-R) and Representative Vern Ehlers (MI-R), who has gone so far as to say he would “call out the local militia” in response to any attempt to move Great Lakes freshwater elsewhere. (Columbia, 2008) This concern persists despite the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and its subsequent amendments which prohibit diversion of Great Lakes freshwater unless all governors of the eight Great Lakes States approve it. This opposition on the grounds of increasing federal power is an important issue to address in order for this Commission to be fully accepted (Spangler, 2007). c) In the U.S. context, which level of government is considered primarily responsible for addressing the issue (state, federal or local)? State governments hold the primary power over water resources in their respective states. There are several interstate compacts, like the Colorado Compact, which allocates the resources of the Colorado River among the Upper Basin and Lower Basin states. This Commission hopes to make recommendations to help resolve interstate conflicts like the Colorado Compact in which California uses more than its equitable share of the water from the Colorado River.
3. Science and Technology: Cohen points out that problems caused by the impact of technological innovation on the environment are not easy to measure. The problems take a long time to develop, and sometimes it is hard to establish a causal relationship between and environmental problem and the introduction of a specific technology. (Cohen, 27) Water is not unique in this realm of environmental issues – clean water was the initial need to be addressed nationally (and globally). We did just that very thing with the Clean Water Act and its progeny. Now we are suffering the consequences of the overuse of water.
The Commission historically is at a juncture that it would be a great national asset to combine all the regional knowledge and ideas into one nationally available resource.
a) There is a certainty about the causes and effects of the overuse of water resources. We know there is a prolific overuse of the nation’s natural water resources and because of the overuse we are creating a deficit in the overall amount of water resources available for the United States and this is further complicated by the knowledge that the overuse is a leading cause of pollution in our waterways and aquifers. b) Control and mitigation technologies are widely available and we have experience with their management. Dr. Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, commented on the legislation, pointing out “water technologies and research efforts are scattered among disparate and uncoordinated federal agencies and departments.” Dr. Gleick would like to see a re-evaluation of the control and mitigation technologies presently available across the various federal, state and local levels and have this Commission coalesce these programs into one nationally based, easily accessible program for federal state and local leaders to utilize in their regional water issues.
4. Policy Design Framework – a) The policy design reflects strategic thinking. It is not based on political considerations, stakeholder compromises or lucky guesses. b) The regulated community does not appear to understand what this Commission is asking them to do and while there appears to be limited opposition there is limited support. As was noted in the research done at Columbia University in 2008, this Commission will not create any new laws or mandates. There appears to be concern about the federal government gaining more influence over freshwater policy. Cohen tells us that the goal of regulation is to influence individual or organizational behavior. (Cohen, 31) As previously mentioned, this Commission is about recommending a national strategy to preserve our freshwater resources, not create new “command and control” regulations.
5. Management Framework- a) We have an enormous amount of experience in addressing this issue. The problem is that historically the water resource issue has been primarily focused in regions (southwest, southeast, great lakes) not nationally except for the water commission, federally created and funded in the 1980’s. The legislation requires that the Commission must consider how future climate change may impact freshwater supply and quality, based on scientific projections. The Commission’s recommendations must also consider existing freshwater management programs used by states, municipalities, and the private sector. While the Commission’s broader purpose is to help ensure an adequate and reliable freshwater supply for the US, the legislation requires that the Commission develop a comprehensive national water strategy with five explicit goals regarding existing management systems and four goals aimed at the consideration of the potential impacts of climate change and population growth on freshwater availability and quality. (Columbia, 2008) Federal agency cooperation will also play an integral role in the ongoing research. When requested by Commission members, federal agencies are obligated to 1) honor requests of information from the Commission within 30 days, and 2) temporarily assign members of their staff on a reimbursable basis to assist the previously stated duties of the Commission. Id
1. The components of the 21st Century Water Commission policy which are most relevant to Cohen’s “values framework” are: a) it is an issue stemming from a fundamental behavior of our lifestyle and b) the problem raises fundamental issues of conflicting values. Humankind needs fresh water to survive. Humans use fresh water to meet basic needs of living and we use water to irrigate farmland, produce electric power and manufacture goods, additionally fresh water is a source of religious practice. Once a commodity believed to have an infinite supply, we are finding that in not only the United States, but worldwide, fresh water is becoming scarce. There needs to be a fundamental change in how the average American views fresh water. It is too easy to turn on the tap and have fresh, drinkable and affordable water. This fact makes water too easy a commodity to take for granted and further makes it prone to waste.
There is a fundamental issue of conflicting values surrounding fresh water. Water is in huge quantities, used and wasted in agriculture, mining, hydroelectric power and manufacturing ventures. In the breadbasket of the country, farmers draw water from the Ogallala Aquifer to irrigate 30% of the nation’s crops. Water is being withdrawn thirty times faster than it is naturally replenished. Lowering freshwater table levels leads to increased concentrations of pollution, subsidence on land, and smaller quantities of water to be distributed among farmers to feed a growing nation (Reilly et al., 2008). These facts are brought to light in the American Southwest where we are in a constant battle between states for allocation of the fresh water of the Colorado River. Furthermore, the American Southwest is experiencing more land subsidence, development of land fissures and depletion of surface water resources than ever before.
2. The political framework components most relevant to Cohen with regard to this measure before Congress are: a) The status of the issue on the policy agenda is eye-opening. This bill, first introduced in 2003, and every session since is to date, unsuccessful. Representative John Linder (GA-R) and Senator John Isakson introduced legislation, H.R. 135 and S. 2728. The original bills were identical. In 2003 this bill passed the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, furthermore it was debated and passed by the House. It failed to pass the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works before Congress adjourned. Subsequent sessions of Congress saw the bill introduced, but to date is has not passed Congress to become law. b) This issue does act independently of other political issues, yet it appears to be clustered with other key issues. For example, although the Act will create no new laws or mandates, there is concern that it is an attempt to give the federal government more influence over freshwater policy. The most vocal opponents of this position are Representative Candice Miller (MI-R) and Representative Vern Ehlers (MI-R), who has gone so far as to say he would “call out the local militia” in response to any attempt to move Great Lakes freshwater elsewhere. (Columbia, 2008) This concern persists despite the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and its subsequent amendments which prohibit diversion of Great Lakes freshwater unless all governors of the eight Great Lakes States approve it. This opposition on the grounds of increasing federal power is an important issue to address in order for this Commission to be fully accepted (Spangler, 2007). c) In the U.S. context, which level of government is considered primarily responsible for addressing the issue (state, federal or local)? State governments hold the primary power over water resources in their respective states. There are several interstate compacts, like the Colorado Compact, which allocates the resources of the Colorado River among the Upper Basin and Lower Basin states. This Commission hopes to make recommendations to help resolve interstate conflicts like the Colorado Compact in which California uses more than its equitable share of the water from the Colorado River.
3. Science and Technology: Cohen points out that problems caused by the impact of technological innovation on the environment are not easy to measure. The problems take a long time to develop, and sometimes it is hard to establish a causal relationship between and environmental problem and the introduction of a specific technology. (Cohen, 27) Water is not unique in this realm of environmental issues – clean water was the initial need to be addressed nationally (and globally). We did just that very thing with the Clean Water Act and its progeny. Now we are suffering the consequences of the overuse of water.
The Commission historically is at a juncture that it would be a great national asset to combine all the regional knowledge and ideas into one nationally available resource.
a) There is a certainty about the causes and effects of the overuse of water resources. We know there is a prolific overuse of the nation’s natural water resources and because of the overuse we are creating a deficit in the overall amount of water resources available for the United States and this is further complicated by the knowledge that the overuse is a leading cause of pollution in our waterways and aquifers. b) Control and mitigation technologies are widely available and we have experience with their management. Dr. Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, commented on the legislation, pointing out “water technologies and research efforts are scattered among disparate and uncoordinated federal agencies and departments.” Dr. Gleick would like to see a re-evaluation of the control and mitigation technologies presently available across the various federal, state and local levels and have this Commission coalesce these programs into one nationally based, easily accessible program for federal state and local leaders to utilize in their regional water issues.
4. Policy Design Framework – a) The policy design reflects strategic thinking. It is not based on political considerations, stakeholder compromises or lucky guesses. b) The regulated community does not appear to understand what this Commission is asking them to do and while there appears to be limited opposition there is limited support. As was noted in the research done at Columbia University in 2008, this Commission will not create any new laws or mandates. There appears to be concern about the federal government gaining more influence over freshwater policy. Cohen tells us that the goal of regulation is to influence individual or organizational behavior. (Cohen, 31) As previously mentioned, this Commission is about recommending a national strategy to preserve our freshwater resources, not create new “command and control” regulations.
5. Management Framework- a) We have an enormous amount of experience in addressing this issue. The problem is that historically the water resource issue has been primarily focused in regions (southwest, southeast, great lakes) not nationally except for the water commission, federally created and funded in the 1980’s. The legislation requires that the Commission must consider how future climate change may impact freshwater supply and quality, based on scientific projections. The Commission’s recommendations must also consider existing freshwater management programs used by states, municipalities, and the private sector. While the Commission’s broader purpose is to help ensure an adequate and reliable freshwater supply for the US, the legislation requires that the Commission develop a comprehensive national water strategy with five explicit goals regarding existing management systems and four goals aimed at the consideration of the potential impacts of climate change and population growth on freshwater availability and quality. (Columbia, 2008) Federal agency cooperation will also play an integral role in the ongoing research. When requested by Commission members, federal agencies are obligated to 1) honor requests of information from the Commission within 30 days, and 2) temporarily assign members of their staff on a reimbursable basis to assist the previously stated duties of the Commission. Id
Monday, March 22, 2010
More are noticing the "tragedy of the commons"
This is an editorial comment from a Flagstaff resident back in 2008 in the Arizona Daily Sun. I found it while doing some research at the office and felt it was thought provoking and wanted to share it with the class.
Editorial Board: Overpopulation beginning to threaten way of life
Topics of discussion this week at the advisory board meeting were: new forest fees; Wing Mountain snowplay area becoming crowded, with mountains of trash left behind, and adequate parking an issue; smog obliterating the pristine vistas of our Grand Canyon; Phoenix seeing a population growth of one million people since the last census. Added to the mix came my own sad realization of a current Flagstaff reality, gridlock traffic, which didn't used to exist, period.
What's behind all this? Ask the authorities who have done the studies — it's overpopulation. If we are not careful, humankind will become like so many rats in a maze. You think oil is a hot-button issue now? It won't be long until we will have water wars. After all, you can't drink oil. (And by the way, are you aware that when 19th century explorer, John Wesley Powell, first encountered the now- Phoenix desert, and was asked his opinion about its suitability for settlement, he answered, "No — there's not enough water."?)
I'm not completely up on what the candidates say about this issue, or if they even address it. I'm asking each individual reading this to start talking about it with others, and begin coming up with solutions. We are an amazing nation of doers and innovators, this is America!
And, yes, I remember that the Lord our God said, "Go forth and multiply." He said that when the Earth was EMPTY.
Heidi Nichols is a 32-year Flagstaff resident and a parent- educator.
Editorial Board: Overpopulation beginning to threaten way of life
Topics of discussion this week at the advisory board meeting were: new forest fees; Wing Mountain snowplay area becoming crowded, with mountains of trash left behind, and adequate parking an issue; smog obliterating the pristine vistas of our Grand Canyon; Phoenix seeing a population growth of one million people since the last census. Added to the mix came my own sad realization of a current Flagstaff reality, gridlock traffic, which didn't used to exist, period.
What's behind all this? Ask the authorities who have done the studies — it's overpopulation. If we are not careful, humankind will become like so many rats in a maze. You think oil is a hot-button issue now? It won't be long until we will have water wars. After all, you can't drink oil. (And by the way, are you aware that when 19th century explorer, John Wesley Powell, first encountered the now- Phoenix desert, and was asked his opinion about its suitability for settlement, he answered, "No — there's not enough water."?)
I'm not completely up on what the candidates say about this issue, or if they even address it. I'm asking each individual reading this to start talking about it with others, and begin coming up with solutions. We are an amazing nation of doers and innovators, this is America!
And, yes, I remember that the Lord our God said, "Go forth and multiply." He said that when the Earth was EMPTY.
Heidi Nichols is a 32-year Flagstaff resident and a parent- educator.
Department of Interior - Climate Change - Alaska
The Department of the Interior announced this month its selection of the University of Alaska as the first of eight planned regional Climate Change Centers in the nation. Seven more will be selected in the next two years, all of which will be designed to give land managers more and better information to protect natural resources and cultural resources from evolving weather patterns.
This strategy also calls for 18 landscape conservation cooperatives that are supposed to look for practical solutions for managing migration patterns, threats to flora and fauna and other related impacts on a regional basin.
See: http://doi.gov/whatwedo/climatestrategy/index.cfm
This strategy also calls for 18 landscape conservation cooperatives that are supposed to look for practical solutions for managing migration patterns, threats to flora and fauna and other related impacts on a regional basin.
See: http://doi.gov/whatwedo/climatestrategy/index.cfm
Assignment #5 - The Task Part 2:
1. Other countries do not have the right to exploit forests and other natural resources as Europe and the U.S. did to increase their economic well-being. This concept reminds me of my mother telling me, “Just because your friends are jumping off the cliff, does not mean that you have to follow.”
Europe and the U.S paid and are paying the costs of the exploitation of their natural resources. While we are slowly “turning the tide,” to allow other nations to destroy the environment for the sake of economic wealth, just because we did is ludicrous. Although, as the author tells us, there is a growing resentment of poorer nations toward the environmental sermons from developed countries like the U.S. (Vig 303)
Ultimately, we globally need to look at the costs past, present and future. As Vig points out the case of China in Chapter 14, its rapid development (touted as economic miracle) is an environmental disaster. As we move to a greater global community, Vig points out in Chapter 15; scholars foresee even wider consequences of global environmental change for the international community. We, as a world population are spiraling out of control and close to catastrophe. (Vig 327) It is only as a global population that we can come together and work on the protection of natural resources to the benefit of all.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate? Industrialized nations should have high expectations for developing nations in the climate change debate. While Vig points out that the poorer nations are resentful of the U.S. and Europe, it is important to keep the feet of the developing nations to the fire of reducing climate change. The industrial nations should be looking for the developing countries to find cleaner and more efficient means of feeding their populations and stimulate economic development without destroying natural resources.
a) Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate? Equity must be a goal in this debate. We are a world at risk, not just a nation at risk. The U.S., according to Vig, is working to follow Obama’s plan to reduce climate change. 1) the need for accelerated R&D on alternative sources of energy, including advanced biofuels; 2) the need to invest far more in existing renewable energy technologies, like wind generation; 3) the need to accelerate energy efficiency programs and conservation programs; 4) the need to create a national cap-and-trade program to control GHG emissions and 5) the need to reengage in international climate change negotiations and to restore U.S. leadership in this area. (Vig 354) The U.S. cannot do it alone. The Kyoto principle and other climate change commitments must be made globally. Of course, simply saying that you are interested in this goal will not do. Developing nations and industrialized alike must demonstrate a willingness to help one another to reach this crucial worldwide goal.
b) What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not? A developing nation that values economic development over reducing emissions should still be required to participate in the global effort to reduce overall emissions. This is an all or nothing quest to save the planet and its valuable resources. As Vig discussed in the readings, China is a recent case study in what can happen when economic pressures outweigh environmental ones. As Vig points out, with China, the U.S. and the rest of the world will have to get much smarter about how to cooperate with China in order to assist its environmental protection efforts. Above all, Vig states that the U.S. must devise a limited and coherent set of priorities. China’s needs are vast (not unlike many developing nations) and its capacity is poor; therefore, launching one or two significant initiatives over the next five to ten years would do more good than a vast array of uncoordinated projects. (Vig 322) Industrialized nations need to reach out in significant ways to the developing nations and demonstrate restraint in their own nations to promote environmental change.
c) Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations? Developing nations should also have high expectations of industrialized nations. They are the focus of much consternation and debate in the global market and they have a right to say, hey, you industrialized and wealthy nations need to help us reach the common goal of climate change control and natural resource development. Developing nations should expect and receive guidance and support from the industrialized nations as those nations continue to tweek and change their focus on protecting the environment. Vig points out in the text that within the U.S. there is an effort to find a more integrated approach to environmental regulation instead of the wide range of laws and agencies we have presently to work on the issues. (Vig 363) This point coincides with my opinion that developing nations have the right to demand assistance and guidance from the wealthier and more environmentally experienced industrialized nations. After all, we do not live in the same world that our grandparents did. We are slowly becoming a global state with a global economy. That means we all have to cooperate. It is life or death for the world.
Europe and the U.S paid and are paying the costs of the exploitation of their natural resources. While we are slowly “turning the tide,” to allow other nations to destroy the environment for the sake of economic wealth, just because we did is ludicrous. Although, as the author tells us, there is a growing resentment of poorer nations toward the environmental sermons from developed countries like the U.S. (Vig 303)
Ultimately, we globally need to look at the costs past, present and future. As Vig points out the case of China in Chapter 14, its rapid development (touted as economic miracle) is an environmental disaster. As we move to a greater global community, Vig points out in Chapter 15; scholars foresee even wider consequences of global environmental change for the international community. We, as a world population are spiraling out of control and close to catastrophe. (Vig 327) It is only as a global population that we can come together and work on the protection of natural resources to the benefit of all.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate? Industrialized nations should have high expectations for developing nations in the climate change debate. While Vig points out that the poorer nations are resentful of the U.S. and Europe, it is important to keep the feet of the developing nations to the fire of reducing climate change. The industrial nations should be looking for the developing countries to find cleaner and more efficient means of feeding their populations and stimulate economic development without destroying natural resources.
a) Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate? Equity must be a goal in this debate. We are a world at risk, not just a nation at risk. The U.S., according to Vig, is working to follow Obama’s plan to reduce climate change. 1) the need for accelerated R&D on alternative sources of energy, including advanced biofuels; 2) the need to invest far more in existing renewable energy technologies, like wind generation; 3) the need to accelerate energy efficiency programs and conservation programs; 4) the need to create a national cap-and-trade program to control GHG emissions and 5) the need to reengage in international climate change negotiations and to restore U.S. leadership in this area. (Vig 354) The U.S. cannot do it alone. The Kyoto principle and other climate change commitments must be made globally. Of course, simply saying that you are interested in this goal will not do. Developing nations and industrialized alike must demonstrate a willingness to help one another to reach this crucial worldwide goal.
b) What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not? A developing nation that values economic development over reducing emissions should still be required to participate in the global effort to reduce overall emissions. This is an all or nothing quest to save the planet and its valuable resources. As Vig discussed in the readings, China is a recent case study in what can happen when economic pressures outweigh environmental ones. As Vig points out, with China, the U.S. and the rest of the world will have to get much smarter about how to cooperate with China in order to assist its environmental protection efforts. Above all, Vig states that the U.S. must devise a limited and coherent set of priorities. China’s needs are vast (not unlike many developing nations) and its capacity is poor; therefore, launching one or two significant initiatives over the next five to ten years would do more good than a vast array of uncoordinated projects. (Vig 322) Industrialized nations need to reach out in significant ways to the developing nations and demonstrate restraint in their own nations to promote environmental change.
c) Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations? Developing nations should also have high expectations of industrialized nations. They are the focus of much consternation and debate in the global market and they have a right to say, hey, you industrialized and wealthy nations need to help us reach the common goal of climate change control and natural resource development. Developing nations should expect and receive guidance and support from the industrialized nations as those nations continue to tweek and change their focus on protecting the environment. Vig points out in the text that within the U.S. there is an effort to find a more integrated approach to environmental regulation instead of the wide range of laws and agencies we have presently to work on the issues. (Vig 363) This point coincides with my opinion that developing nations have the right to demand assistance and guidance from the wealthier and more environmentally experienced industrialized nations. After all, we do not live in the same world that our grandparents did. We are slowly becoming a global state with a global economy. That means we all have to cooperate. It is life or death for the world.
Assignment #5 - Final Paper Topic
The bill that is the starting point of my environmental policy paper is is HR 135 - The Establishment of the 21st Century Water Commission.
Rep. Linder from Georgia introduced this bill again, for the fifth time since 2003. He hopes to establish a nine person commission with a three year life and a budget of nine million. The nine would compose commission and staff and be salaried. The hope is for the commission to study and come up with recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy for the U.S.
The commission is a good idea and would be focusing on strategy rather than policy. Linder would like the commission to focus on conflicts and duplication of effort in federal agencies and water quality issues. On the flipside, the bill indicates that the director will be appointed by the Speaker of the House. Shouldn't the commission of nine determine who is the director? The horizon of the commission is fifty years, which is really a drop in the bucket(no pun intended. It would be better to have a long range strategy of 100 years in my mind.
Rep. Linder from Georgia introduced this bill again, for the fifth time since 2003. He hopes to establish a nine person commission with a three year life and a budget of nine million. The nine would compose commission and staff and be salaried. The hope is for the commission to study and come up with recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy for the U.S.
The commission is a good idea and would be focusing on strategy rather than policy. Linder would like the commission to focus on conflicts and duplication of effort in federal agencies and water quality issues. On the flipside, the bill indicates that the director will be appointed by the Speaker of the House. Shouldn't the commission of nine determine who is the director? The horizon of the commission is fifty years, which is really a drop in the bucket(no pun intended. It would be better to have a long range strategy of 100 years in my mind.
Passage of the Health Care Bill - Is it a symptom of Tragedy of the Commons?
This is more a question to my esteemed fellow students. Reading the article in the New York Times this morning, I was thinking about the tragedy of the commons for healthcare. I think that this dilemma too is linked to the population in our nation and the lack of medical resources to care for everyone (at a reasonable cost). Certainly there are other things at work here, politcs for one, and money for big business for another, yet I still keep coming back to the recent readings and wondering how we make all these issues work out for the current generations and those to come.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Assignment 4 - Environmental Justice
http://www.sfbayview.com/2010/showdown-hunters-point-shipyard-2010-a-good-offense-is-the-best-defense/
In San Francisco, California one of the old naval shipyards is loaded with hazardous contamination and sits at sea level, potentially affecting the lives of people and oceanic life in the area. "Uses of particular concern include federal and state designated Superfund sites, underground storage tanks, gas stations and vehicle garages, dry cleaners, heavy manufacturing and toxic industries." All of these hazardous land uses are present within the project area defined by the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) published on Nov. 12, 2009, according to the referenced article.
In California, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970. It was enacted in response to the awareness that the environmental impacts of a development project in planning must be carefully considered to avoid hazardous, costly and unanticipated damage to human health, safety, property and the environment. The environmental impact report demonstrated that there were indeed hazardous materials that need to be removed, yet the report did not specifically address that there were segments of the population that would be harmed (according to the author).
According to the People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER) the government is not effectively addressing the contamination issues and that there are several segments of the population at risk. The populations that will be affected are the poorer neighborhoods surrounding the shipyard, as there are new developments currently planned, there are daycare centers and schools nearby in which the group POWER is concerned with the potential contact with the hazardous materials. Additionally, while the clean up and construction efforts have been on-going for a least a decade, there are now a group of peligran falcons who have nested in the machinery on site which also have to be addressed.
"Working with land use attorney Sue Hestor, POWER has held education and strategy sessions to challenge the Phase II DEIR. In collaboration with a “Hail Mary Pass” coalition of environmental activists, POWER succeeded in extending the public comment period of the 4,400-page DEIR that was released as a deceptive strategy during the December holiday season to Jan. 12, 2010."
Vig discusses the dilemma of collective action for environmental protection. He says that these occur when individuals would be better off if they cooperated in pursuit of a common goal. I read this piece several times and it appears to be overly slanted from the perspective of a very concerned citizens' group that may not fully understand the science behind the EIR and the Phase II report. The situation is a little different in this story than in readings. This is an impact created by governmental use, the naval ship yard, and not private business. BUT, I think the outcomes are similar. The government is working with the public to clean up and restore the area for livability. Secondly, Argandona points out that ethical management systems are a set of internal efforts to formulate, plan and implement policies to achieve certain outcomes that will result in the company performing its ethical duties more satisfactorily and the people who work for the company (in this case the governmental agency, the Navy) improving ethically. Simply because my article is not based in environmental justice issues from private companies does make the obligations discussed by our authors any less relevant. To the contrary, the government should be held to a higher standard in their own efforts to protect human health and the environment. What is the old saying, "He who lives in a glass house, should not throw stones."
In San Francisco, California one of the old naval shipyards is loaded with hazardous contamination and sits at sea level, potentially affecting the lives of people and oceanic life in the area. "Uses of particular concern include federal and state designated Superfund sites, underground storage tanks, gas stations and vehicle garages, dry cleaners, heavy manufacturing and toxic industries." All of these hazardous land uses are present within the project area defined by the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) published on Nov. 12, 2009, according to the referenced article.
In California, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970. It was enacted in response to the awareness that the environmental impacts of a development project in planning must be carefully considered to avoid hazardous, costly and unanticipated damage to human health, safety, property and the environment. The environmental impact report demonstrated that there were indeed hazardous materials that need to be removed, yet the report did not specifically address that there were segments of the population that would be harmed (according to the author).
According to the People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER) the government is not effectively addressing the contamination issues and that there are several segments of the population at risk. The populations that will be affected are the poorer neighborhoods surrounding the shipyard, as there are new developments currently planned, there are daycare centers and schools nearby in which the group POWER is concerned with the potential contact with the hazardous materials. Additionally, while the clean up and construction efforts have been on-going for a least a decade, there are now a group of peligran falcons who have nested in the machinery on site which also have to be addressed.
"Working with land use attorney Sue Hestor, POWER has held education and strategy sessions to challenge the Phase II DEIR. In collaboration with a “Hail Mary Pass” coalition of environmental activists, POWER succeeded in extending the public comment period of the 4,400-page DEIR that was released as a deceptive strategy during the December holiday season to Jan. 12, 2010."
Vig discusses the dilemma of collective action for environmental protection. He says that these occur when individuals would be better off if they cooperated in pursuit of a common goal. I read this piece several times and it appears to be overly slanted from the perspective of a very concerned citizens' group that may not fully understand the science behind the EIR and the Phase II report. The situation is a little different in this story than in readings. This is an impact created by governmental use, the naval ship yard, and not private business. BUT, I think the outcomes are similar. The government is working with the public to clean up and restore the area for livability. Secondly, Argandona points out that ethical management systems are a set of internal efforts to formulate, plan and implement policies to achieve certain outcomes that will result in the company performing its ethical duties more satisfactorily and the people who work for the company (in this case the governmental agency, the Navy) improving ethically. Simply because my article is not based in environmental justice issues from private companies does make the obligations discussed by our authors any less relevant. To the contrary, the government should be held to a higher standard in their own efforts to protect human health and the environment. What is the old saying, "He who lives in a glass house, should not throw stones."
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
New York Times March 9, 2010
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
PUERTOLLANO, Spain — Two years ago, this gritty mining city hosted a brief 21st-century gold rush. Long famous for coal, Puertollano discovered another energy source it had overlooked: the relentless, scorching sun.
Armed with generous incentives from the Spanish government to jump-start a national solar energy industry, the city set out to replace its failing coal economy by attracting solar companies, with a campaign slogan: “The Sun Moves Us.”
Soon, Puertollano, home to the Museum of the Mining Industry, had two enormous solar power plants, factories making solar panels and silicon wafers, and clean energy research institutes. Half the solar power installed globally in 2008 was installed in Spain.
Farmers sold land for solar plants. Boutiques opened. And people from all over the world, seeing business opportunities, moved to the city, which had suffered from 20 percent unemployment and a population exodus.
But as low-quality, poorly designed solar plants sprang up on Spain’s plateaus, Spanish officials came to realize that they would have to subsidize many of them indefinitely, and that the industry they had created might never produce efficient green energy on its own.
In September the government abruptly changed course, cutting payments and capping solar construction. Puertollano’s brief boom turned bust. Factories and stores shut, thousands of workers lost jobs, foreign companies and banks abandoned contracts that had already been negotiated.
“We lost the opportunity to be at the vanguard of renewables — we were not only generating electricity, but also a strong economy,” said JoaquÃn Carlos Hermoso Murillo, Puertollano’s mayor since 2004. “Why are they limiting solar power, when the sun is unlimited?”
Puertollano’s wrenching fall points to the delicate policy calculations needed to stimulate nascent solar industries and create green jobs, and might serve as a cautionary tale for the United States, where a similar exercise is now under way.
For now, electricity generation from the sun’s rays needs to be subsidized because it requires the purchase of new equipment and investment in evolving technologies. But costs are rapidly dropping. And regulators are still learning how to structure stimulus payments so that they yield a stable green industry that supports itself, rather than just costly energy and an economic flash in the pan like Spain’s.
“The industry as a whole learned a lot from what happened in Spain,” said Cassidy DeLine, who analyzes the European solar market for Emerging Energy Research, a firm based in Cambridge, Mass. She noted that other countries had since set subsidies lower and issued stricter standards for solar plants.
Yet, despite the pain that Spain’s incentives ended up causing, in many ways they fulfilled their promise, Ms. DeLine said.
“Even though incentives can create bubbles and bursts, without them this industry won’t take off,” she said. “The U.S. is really behind Europe on this, and if we wait until solar is cost-competitive on its own, we may miss the boat and an opportunity to shape the market.”
The most robust Spanish solar companies survived the downturn, have restructured and are re-emerging as global players.
For example, when the government changed course, Siliken Renewable Energy, originally a producer of solar panels, shut its factories for five months and cut its staff to 600 from 1,200. But after shifting its focus to external markets like Italy, France and the United States, and diversifying into solar support services, the company now turns a profit.
“We were a company that banks trusted, so we could make the shift,” said Antonio Navarro, a company spokesman. “But a lot of little companies disappeared.”
The period was particularly difficult because it coincided with the global economic crisis, he said.
To encourage development of solar power and reduce dependence on fossil fuels, Europe has generally relied on so-called feed-in tariffs, through which governments pay a hefty premium for electricity from renewable resources. Regulators in the United States have favored less direct incentives like requiring municipalities to buy a percentage of their electricity from companies making renewable energy, although a few cities and states, most notably Vermont, are experimenting with the feed-in concept.
When it was announced in the summer of 2007, Spain’s premium payment for solar power was the most generous anywhere — 58 cents per kilowatt-hour — with few strings attached.
In retrospect it was far too high. “Everyone from all over the world was installing in Spain as fast as they could, and every biologist who could add was working in solar,” said Pedro Banda, director general of the Institute of Concentration Photovoltaic Systems, one of the research institutes in Puertollano.
Even inefficient, poorly designed plants could make a profit, and speculation in solar building permits was common.
Although Spain’s long-term goal had been to produce 400 megawatts of electricity from solar panels by 2010, it reached that milestone by the end of 2007.
In 2008 the nation connected 2.5 gigawatts of solar power into its grid, more than quintupling its previous capacity and making it second to Germany, the world leader. But many of the hastily opened plants offered no hope of being cost-competitive with conventional power, being poorly designed or located where sunshine was inadequate, for example.
Designs for solar power plants vary. The most common type uses photovoltaic panels to generate electricity. Others, called thermal solar plants, use mirrors to focus the sun’s energy on a liquid that, when heated, drives a steam turbine.
In its haste to create a solar industry, Spain made some miscalculations: solar plants can be set up so quickly and easily that the rush into the industry was much faster than anticipated. And the lavish subsidies inflated Spanish solar installation costs at a time when they were rapidly decreasing elsewhere — in part because of increasing competition from panel makers in China, but also because higher volumes produced economies of scale.
In Spain, the tariff, now adjusted quarterly, is about 39 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity from freestanding solar power plants, and slightly higher for panels on rooftops.
Germany’s tariff, 53 cents per kilowatt-hour, is expected to fall at least 15 percent this summer, and there are proposals before Parliament to eliminate subsidies for solar plants on farmland.
The bonus payments required to make solar energy financially viable vary, depending on local sunshine and the cost of conventional energy. Experts predict that, possibly by next year, Italy will be the first place where solar-generated electricity will not need subsidies to compete with electricity from fossil fuel. Italy has abundant sun and sky-high energy rates, given that it imports most of its fossil fuel.
Even with the reduced incentives and local economic downturn, the solar industry gave Puertollano something of a face-lift and, potentially, a new economic future. Research institutes there are developing cutting-edge technologies. Unemployment, though now up around 10 percent, has not returned to the 20 percent figure. The city is home to a number of solar businesses: a new 50-megawatt thermal-solar plant owned by the Spanish energy giant Iberdrola created hundreds of jobs.
Although coal mines still dot the landscape and a petrochemical factory remains one of Puertollano’s largest employers, that new solar plant sits just next door, with more than 100,000 parabolic mirrors in neat rows on about 400 acres of former farmland. Clean and white as a hospital ward, it silently turns sunshine into Spanish electricity.
Comment:
This is an interesting article considering the huge push for solar in Arizona and the western U.S. now. Hopefully we can learn from Spain's mistakes in their rush to create solar energy and over-do subsidies.
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
PUERTOLLANO, Spain — Two years ago, this gritty mining city hosted a brief 21st-century gold rush. Long famous for coal, Puertollano discovered another energy source it had overlooked: the relentless, scorching sun.
Armed with generous incentives from the Spanish government to jump-start a national solar energy industry, the city set out to replace its failing coal economy by attracting solar companies, with a campaign slogan: “The Sun Moves Us.”
Soon, Puertollano, home to the Museum of the Mining Industry, had two enormous solar power plants, factories making solar panels and silicon wafers, and clean energy research institutes. Half the solar power installed globally in 2008 was installed in Spain.
Farmers sold land for solar plants. Boutiques opened. And people from all over the world, seeing business opportunities, moved to the city, which had suffered from 20 percent unemployment and a population exodus.
But as low-quality, poorly designed solar plants sprang up on Spain’s plateaus, Spanish officials came to realize that they would have to subsidize many of them indefinitely, and that the industry they had created might never produce efficient green energy on its own.
In September the government abruptly changed course, cutting payments and capping solar construction. Puertollano’s brief boom turned bust. Factories and stores shut, thousands of workers lost jobs, foreign companies and banks abandoned contracts that had already been negotiated.
“We lost the opportunity to be at the vanguard of renewables — we were not only generating electricity, but also a strong economy,” said JoaquÃn Carlos Hermoso Murillo, Puertollano’s mayor since 2004. “Why are they limiting solar power, when the sun is unlimited?”
Puertollano’s wrenching fall points to the delicate policy calculations needed to stimulate nascent solar industries and create green jobs, and might serve as a cautionary tale for the United States, where a similar exercise is now under way.
For now, electricity generation from the sun’s rays needs to be subsidized because it requires the purchase of new equipment and investment in evolving technologies. But costs are rapidly dropping. And regulators are still learning how to structure stimulus payments so that they yield a stable green industry that supports itself, rather than just costly energy and an economic flash in the pan like Spain’s.
“The industry as a whole learned a lot from what happened in Spain,” said Cassidy DeLine, who analyzes the European solar market for Emerging Energy Research, a firm based in Cambridge, Mass. She noted that other countries had since set subsidies lower and issued stricter standards for solar plants.
Yet, despite the pain that Spain’s incentives ended up causing, in many ways they fulfilled their promise, Ms. DeLine said.
“Even though incentives can create bubbles and bursts, without them this industry won’t take off,” she said. “The U.S. is really behind Europe on this, and if we wait until solar is cost-competitive on its own, we may miss the boat and an opportunity to shape the market.”
The most robust Spanish solar companies survived the downturn, have restructured and are re-emerging as global players.
For example, when the government changed course, Siliken Renewable Energy, originally a producer of solar panels, shut its factories for five months and cut its staff to 600 from 1,200. But after shifting its focus to external markets like Italy, France and the United States, and diversifying into solar support services, the company now turns a profit.
“We were a company that banks trusted, so we could make the shift,” said Antonio Navarro, a company spokesman. “But a lot of little companies disappeared.”
The period was particularly difficult because it coincided with the global economic crisis, he said.
To encourage development of solar power and reduce dependence on fossil fuels, Europe has generally relied on so-called feed-in tariffs, through which governments pay a hefty premium for electricity from renewable resources. Regulators in the United States have favored less direct incentives like requiring municipalities to buy a percentage of their electricity from companies making renewable energy, although a few cities and states, most notably Vermont, are experimenting with the feed-in concept.
When it was announced in the summer of 2007, Spain’s premium payment for solar power was the most generous anywhere — 58 cents per kilowatt-hour — with few strings attached.
In retrospect it was far too high. “Everyone from all over the world was installing in Spain as fast as they could, and every biologist who could add was working in solar,” said Pedro Banda, director general of the Institute of Concentration Photovoltaic Systems, one of the research institutes in Puertollano.
Even inefficient, poorly designed plants could make a profit, and speculation in solar building permits was common.
Although Spain’s long-term goal had been to produce 400 megawatts of electricity from solar panels by 2010, it reached that milestone by the end of 2007.
In 2008 the nation connected 2.5 gigawatts of solar power into its grid, more than quintupling its previous capacity and making it second to Germany, the world leader. But many of the hastily opened plants offered no hope of being cost-competitive with conventional power, being poorly designed or located where sunshine was inadequate, for example.
Designs for solar power plants vary. The most common type uses photovoltaic panels to generate electricity. Others, called thermal solar plants, use mirrors to focus the sun’s energy on a liquid that, when heated, drives a steam turbine.
In its haste to create a solar industry, Spain made some miscalculations: solar plants can be set up so quickly and easily that the rush into the industry was much faster than anticipated. And the lavish subsidies inflated Spanish solar installation costs at a time when they were rapidly decreasing elsewhere — in part because of increasing competition from panel makers in China, but also because higher volumes produced economies of scale.
In Spain, the tariff, now adjusted quarterly, is about 39 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity from freestanding solar power plants, and slightly higher for panels on rooftops.
Germany’s tariff, 53 cents per kilowatt-hour, is expected to fall at least 15 percent this summer, and there are proposals before Parliament to eliminate subsidies for solar plants on farmland.
The bonus payments required to make solar energy financially viable vary, depending on local sunshine and the cost of conventional energy. Experts predict that, possibly by next year, Italy will be the first place where solar-generated electricity will not need subsidies to compete with electricity from fossil fuel. Italy has abundant sun and sky-high energy rates, given that it imports most of its fossil fuel.
Even with the reduced incentives and local economic downturn, the solar industry gave Puertollano something of a face-lift and, potentially, a new economic future. Research institutes there are developing cutting-edge technologies. Unemployment, though now up around 10 percent, has not returned to the 20 percent figure. The city is home to a number of solar businesses: a new 50-megawatt thermal-solar plant owned by the Spanish energy giant Iberdrola created hundreds of jobs.
Although coal mines still dot the landscape and a petrochemical factory remains one of Puertollano’s largest employers, that new solar plant sits just next door, with more than 100,000 parabolic mirrors in neat rows on about 400 acres of former farmland. Clean and white as a hospital ward, it silently turns sunshine into Spanish electricity.
Comment:
This is an interesting article considering the huge push for solar in Arizona and the western U.S. now. Hopefully we can learn from Spain's mistakes in their rush to create solar energy and over-do subsidies.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Department of Interior -Water SMART Initiative
On February 22, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed a secretarial order establishing an initiative called WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow). WaterSMART calls for water conservation actions to increase available water supplies of 350,000 acre feet by 2012 for agricultural, municipal, industrial and environmental uses. Several parts of the order aim at improving water management through conservation and assisting water managers to make wise decisions about water use.
More information at website:
http://doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/waterSMARTOrder.pdf
More information at website:
http://doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/waterSMARTOrder.pdf
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Environmental Justice - For Rural AZ too!
The problem of environmental justice is not just one for inner cities. Particularly in AZ, where we have many depressed, rural communities it is important to lead to way to clean environmental damage, restore property value and help these communities come back and flourish.
ADEQ's Brownfields program is also looking at the depressed, rural communities in AZ for redevelopment. In a public meeting from Kingman in 2008, ADEQ addressed its Brownfields funding for rural communities:
Arcelious Stephens, ADEQ Brownfields Coordinator, explained that there are two segments of Brownfields funding – federal and state. There is a lot to the definition of “Brownfields”, but the bottom line is there is room for creativity and “thinking outside the box.”
Abandoned industrial properties can be associated with blight, environmental risk, decreased property values, and safety concerns. The federal and state Brownfields programs are designed to address all of these issues. Properties with hazardous substances, petroleum substances and mind-scarred land are eligible for funding. Asbestos, on the other hand, needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for funding. For state Brownfields funds, governmental entities and non-profit organizations are eligible. The program is designed to help move properties in rural Arizona toward redevelopment. There is no competition with the state’s metropolitan areas. “This is about you.”
Many rural communities have obtained funding, including Winslow, Avondale, St. Johns, Globe, Yuma County, Wickenburg and Willcox.
ADEQ's Brownfields program is also looking at the depressed, rural communities in AZ for redevelopment. In a public meeting from Kingman in 2008, ADEQ addressed its Brownfields funding for rural communities:
Arcelious Stephens, ADEQ Brownfields Coordinator, explained that there are two segments of Brownfields funding – federal and state. There is a lot to the definition of “Brownfields”, but the bottom line is there is room for creativity and “thinking outside the box.”
Abandoned industrial properties can be associated with blight, environmental risk, decreased property values, and safety concerns. The federal and state Brownfields programs are designed to address all of these issues. Properties with hazardous substances, petroleum substances and mind-scarred land are eligible for funding. Asbestos, on the other hand, needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for funding. For state Brownfields funds, governmental entities and non-profit organizations are eligible. The program is designed to help move properties in rural Arizona toward redevelopment. There is no competition with the state’s metropolitan areas. “This is about you.”
Many rural communities have obtained funding, including Winslow, Avondale, St. Johns, Globe, Yuma County, Wickenburg and Willcox.
Environmental Justice for All
The articles this week discuss the problem of lack of justice, environmental justice for certain segments of the population. Primarily, people of color and those living in the inner-cities face a greater chance of exposure to pollution and environmental contamination than those in suburban, middle class neighborhoods. According to Konisky, Scholars have conducted scores of empirical studies evaluating whether areas with larger numbers of minority and lower-income populations are disproportionately
subjected to environmental burdens. On balance, there is now good evidence to support claims of inequities both in the location of polluting facilities and in the exposure to pollution (Ringquist, 2005).
Most improvements to open space and environmental clean up are directed toward the predominately white, middle class neighborhoods. These suburbs ignore the inner city issues at their own peril because the suburbs are only as prosperous as their city center. If the inner city dies, it won't be long before the suburbs follow.
The readings indicate that Bill Clinton attempted to address this issue. President Clinton's executive order in 1994 directly addressed how federal agencies should look at environmental justice issues for the programs pertaining to human health and the environment, to ensure that no race or segment of the population was taking a greater burden than anyone else. Since then there are improvements on the federal level, but the readings indicate that the trickle down effect to the programs of state and local agencies are still behind.
subjected to environmental burdens. On balance, there is now good evidence to support claims of inequities both in the location of polluting facilities and in the exposure to pollution (Ringquist, 2005).
Most improvements to open space and environmental clean up are directed toward the predominately white, middle class neighborhoods. These suburbs ignore the inner city issues at their own peril because the suburbs are only as prosperous as their city center. If the inner city dies, it won't be long before the suburbs follow.
The readings indicate that Bill Clinton attempted to address this issue. President Clinton's executive order in 1994 directly addressed how federal agencies should look at environmental justice issues for the programs pertaining to human health and the environment, to ensure that no race or segment of the population was taking a greater burden than anyone else. Since then there are improvements on the federal level, but the readings indicate that the trickle down effect to the programs of state and local agencies are still behind.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Panel Discussion in NM About AZ Water Settlements Act
This is an interesting article, shows how stakeholder groups interact sometimes...
Panel mulls Arizona Water Settlement Act
By Terrance Vestal Sun-News reporter
Silver City Sun News
Posted: 02/20/2010 01:00:00 AM MST
SILVER CITY -- A panel discussion on the basics of the Arizona Water Settlement Act revealed that opinions on the topic are as fluid as the Gila River itself.
The discussion, held Thursday at Western New Mexico University's Global Resource Center Auditorium, featured panelists Peter White, staff attorney for the New Mexico State Engineer's Office for 27 years; Charles "Tink" Jackson, district manager for the State Engineer's Office in Deming; Allyson Siwik, executive director of the Gila Conservation Coalition; Hugh B. McKeen, Catron County rancher and commissioner; and Anthony Gutierrez, Grant County planner.
The Arizona Water Settlement Act is the culmination of legislative battles that have raged for more than 50 years between California, Arizona and New Mexico over water rights and entitlements. It also will impact how and how much water southwestern New Mexico could use in the future.
The Act allocates some $66 million for any water utilization project that meets a water supply demand in southwest New Mexico. The spectrum for proposed projects, according to the Act, runs the gamut from infrastructure, conservation/water demand management projects to educational campaigns. There is another $128 million available for construction of a water development project to divert and consume 14,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Gila River and its tributary, the San Francisco.
A "stakeholders" group that includes a number of representatives from local, state and federal agencies as well as private interests will make the decision on what projects might be funded.
During the discussion, White and Jackson both touched on the historical aspects of the issue, which stretches back to 1935 and the Globe Equity Decree. White said the decree determines and regulates the rights of water users on the Gila River in Arizona and 10 miles up the Gila River in New Mexico.
White and Jackson pointed out that the issue didn't really start to get hot for New Mexico until the 1950s and 1960s.
Jackson said in 1952 Arizona sued California over Colorado River supply and the controversy grew to include the settlement of rights on the Gila River between New Mexico and Arizona. California claimed that Arizona could meet some of its needs with Gila River water.
New Mexico had neither the financial resources or political clout to keep up a legal battle, so it had to resolve its water needs through negotiations, Jackson said.
Negotiations, legal wrangling, agreements and amendments to agreements evolved into the Arizona Water Settlement Act, which was approved by Congress in 2004.
At Thursday's meeting, Siwik said making decisions regarding what projects to fund and whether to divert the Gila River is difficult, time consuming and requires studies and analysis to make the best decision. She said the stakeholder planning group has been doing this for the past five years.
Siwik said based on the most recent studies and reports, "no need for an additional 14,0000 acre-feet of water per year from the Gila River has been demonstrated.
"Conservation and sustainable use of groundwater can secure our water future cost effectively without building an expensive diversion project that will alter the Gila River forever," Siwik said. "Common-sense conservation saves the taxpayer money and protects the Gila River for our future."
McKeen, a rancher, said he didn't trust the makeup of the stakeholders group to represent the interests of ranchers and farmers in southwest New Mexico. He said "extreme environmental activists called The Center for Biological Diversity" is seeking "to remove all ranching from public land and virtually all public use of our national forests.
"They want wolves and grizzly bears to have full access to all portions of the United States," McKeen said. "Are environmental activists interested in supporting the watershed? I doubt it."
McKeen said with so many different parties involved in the stakeholders group, reaching consensus, which would be required to approve projects, would be impossible.
Terrance Vestal can be reached at tvestal@scsun-news.com (575); 538-5893, ext. 5803.
Panel mulls Arizona Water Settlement Act
By Terrance Vestal Sun-News reporter
Silver City Sun News
Posted: 02/20/2010 01:00:00 AM MST
SILVER CITY -- A panel discussion on the basics of the Arizona Water Settlement Act revealed that opinions on the topic are as fluid as the Gila River itself.
The discussion, held Thursday at Western New Mexico University's Global Resource Center Auditorium, featured panelists Peter White, staff attorney for the New Mexico State Engineer's Office for 27 years; Charles "Tink" Jackson, district manager for the State Engineer's Office in Deming; Allyson Siwik, executive director of the Gila Conservation Coalition; Hugh B. McKeen, Catron County rancher and commissioner; and Anthony Gutierrez, Grant County planner.
The Arizona Water Settlement Act is the culmination of legislative battles that have raged for more than 50 years between California, Arizona and New Mexico over water rights and entitlements. It also will impact how and how much water southwestern New Mexico could use in the future.
The Act allocates some $66 million for any water utilization project that meets a water supply demand in southwest New Mexico. The spectrum for proposed projects, according to the Act, runs the gamut from infrastructure, conservation/water demand management projects to educational campaigns. There is another $128 million available for construction of a water development project to divert and consume 14,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Gila River and its tributary, the San Francisco.
A "stakeholders" group that includes a number of representatives from local, state and federal agencies as well as private interests will make the decision on what projects might be funded.
During the discussion, White and Jackson both touched on the historical aspects of the issue, which stretches back to 1935 and the Globe Equity Decree. White said the decree determines and regulates the rights of water users on the Gila River in Arizona and 10 miles up the Gila River in New Mexico.
White and Jackson pointed out that the issue didn't really start to get hot for New Mexico until the 1950s and 1960s.
Jackson said in 1952 Arizona sued California over Colorado River supply and the controversy grew to include the settlement of rights on the Gila River between New Mexico and Arizona. California claimed that Arizona could meet some of its needs with Gila River water.
New Mexico had neither the financial resources or political clout to keep up a legal battle, so it had to resolve its water needs through negotiations, Jackson said.
Negotiations, legal wrangling, agreements and amendments to agreements evolved into the Arizona Water Settlement Act, which was approved by Congress in 2004.
At Thursday's meeting, Siwik said making decisions regarding what projects to fund and whether to divert the Gila River is difficult, time consuming and requires studies and analysis to make the best decision. She said the stakeholder planning group has been doing this for the past five years.
Siwik said based on the most recent studies and reports, "no need for an additional 14,0000 acre-feet of water per year from the Gila River has been demonstrated.
"Conservation and sustainable use of groundwater can secure our water future cost effectively without building an expensive diversion project that will alter the Gila River forever," Siwik said. "Common-sense conservation saves the taxpayer money and protects the Gila River for our future."
McKeen, a rancher, said he didn't trust the makeup of the stakeholders group to represent the interests of ranchers and farmers in southwest New Mexico. He said "extreme environmental activists called The Center for Biological Diversity" is seeking "to remove all ranching from public land and virtually all public use of our national forests.
"They want wolves and grizzly bears to have full access to all portions of the United States," McKeen said. "Are environmental activists interested in supporting the watershed? I doubt it."
McKeen said with so many different parties involved in the stakeholders group, reaching consensus, which would be required to approve projects, would be impossible.
Terrance Vestal can be reached at tvestal@scsun-news.com (575); 538-5893, ext. 5803.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Assignment 3 - NEPA and Valuing Nature
13) Public managers and environmental planners must engage the public even when they know the public's knowledge is limited about the science of an environmental issue. No one knows everything about everything. If we as public managers start to take it upon ourselves to make decisions because we perceive that the public is not knowledgeable, we are not much better than a monarchial government handing down decisions without representative discussion. The people deserve the right to be educated and understand an issue, then have an opportunity to speak out about it. To teach the public, an agency could hold public seminars, offer open meetings and distribute pamphlets and the like to educate the public. Then in later stages, hold stakeholder meetings where the public can come and listen in an open forum to the opinions of environmental groups and the regulated community. These options are critical to assisting the public to understand critical issues in environmental science which may be unknown to the average citizen.
14) Contingent Valuation ("CV") could be used when 1) a company damages the wildlife and ocean with an oil spill similar to the Exxon Valdez. or 2) When a company's toxic waste destroys wildlife, rivers and plant life. CV would be appropriate in both these cases because sometimes simply assessing the cost of clean up is not costly enough to the polluter to make an impression upon them that nature holds a higher value than simple clean up. In other words, sometimes you have to hit the deep pocket hard with punitive damages to discourage this kind of behavior from happening again. The punitive nature of the CV will make the company want to take greater safeguards and possibly improve practices to avoid such damages in the future.
15) CV could not be effectively used when 1) a person burns down part of a forest with a campfire or 2) a person damages a natural spring with dumping their discarded oil from a car there. While I think there should be fines and some sort of punishment that follows such careless acts, I don't think it warrants CV assessments. Generally individuals that find themselves in these kind of scenarios meant no harm, are not profiting from the destruction and the assessment of CV is not going to be a deterrent but could create a hardship which may create some unintended consequence, like loss of employment, loss of home because of the cost of the assessment, etc.
14) Contingent Valuation ("CV") could be used when 1) a company damages the wildlife and ocean with an oil spill similar to the Exxon Valdez. or 2) When a company's toxic waste destroys wildlife, rivers and plant life. CV would be appropriate in both these cases because sometimes simply assessing the cost of clean up is not costly enough to the polluter to make an impression upon them that nature holds a higher value than simple clean up. In other words, sometimes you have to hit the deep pocket hard with punitive damages to discourage this kind of behavior from happening again. The punitive nature of the CV will make the company want to take greater safeguards and possibly improve practices to avoid such damages in the future.
15) CV could not be effectively used when 1) a person burns down part of a forest with a campfire or 2) a person damages a natural spring with dumping their discarded oil from a car there. While I think there should be fines and some sort of punishment that follows such careless acts, I don't think it warrants CV assessments. Generally individuals that find themselves in these kind of scenarios meant no harm, are not profiting from the destruction and the assessment of CV is not going to be a deterrent but could create a hardship which may create some unintended consequence, like loss of employment, loss of home because of the cost of the assessment, etc.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Contingent Valuation and Existence Value
I enjoyed reading Portney's article about existence value and contingent valuation. I always believed that there was a value in knowing that there are fish in the ocean or that there will always be clean air to breathe. I am willing to pay to make sure these things never go away. Contingent valuation is an important component in protecting our environment because it is the only, even if artificial, way to assess punitive damages to corporations who would destroy the environment without a care. Portney uses the Exxon Valdez spill as an example of environmental destruction. I also understand Portney's point that contingent valuation is difficult to obtain because it most likely will have to come in the nature of voluntary contributions and those who voluntarily pay will likely use the parks or wildlife areas they support. This, according to Portney makes it difficult to provide and creates the tendency to "underprovide on account of free riding."
Pipeline to Las Vegas from Snake Valley Aquifer
We discussed this in class earlier and I thought it was an interesting commentary on just one of the obstacles we face in working out environmental and natural resource solutions.
Ruling may sink Snake Valley water deal
Snake Valley » Nevada Supreme Court decision puts the proposed $3.5 billion pipeline on indefinite hold.
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Updated:01/29/2010 06:59:50 AM MST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A top water official moved too slowly on a 1989 Las Vegas request for certain water rights, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday -- a finding that could delay or even kill a $3.5 billion proposal to pipe water 300 miles from Snake Valley to Sin City.
The ruling prompted Utah officials to stand down on a pending Snake Valley water-sharing agreement with neighboring Nevada. A recent Salt Lake Tribune poll of Utah voters shows across-the-board opposition to that plan.
"Based on the additional requirements imposed by the Nevada Supreme Court," Gov. Gary Herbert said, "an agreement, at this time, is premature."
The unanimous Supreme Court decision said Nevada state Engineer Tracy Taylor "violated his statutory duty" when he failed to make a decision by 1991 on 34 applications made by the Southern Nevada Water Authority for rights to water in aquifers under three Nevada valleys. Government scientists and other geology experts say those aquifers are connected with Snake Valley.
The decision focused narrowly on Taylor's timing on the water-rights applications for hundreds of wells, and points out that, in 1989, Nevada law required such requests to be decided no later than a year after the end of a formal protest period, in this case 1991.
In 2003, the Nevada Legislature amended the law to let the state engineer postpone action on water-rights applications for municipal use, but did not make that change retroactive.
Therefore, the court said, the Vegas applications weren't active past 1991.
The ruling stems from a "due process" appeal of Taylor's 2006 decision to deny petitions from at least 54 individuals and groups representing thousands of people who wanted Nevada to reopen the water-rights application protest period.
The 54 plaintiffs wanted to comment on how the Vegas pipeline drawdowns could affect landowners in both states, Utah air quality, animal and plant species and the frail hydrology of the entire Great Salt Lake Basin, matters not understood nor addressed during the original protest period.
In 2008, while that appeal was before the court, Taylor approved Southern Nevada Water Authority water-rights applications in the Cave, Delamar and Dry Lake valleys of central Nevada.
But a Nevada judge in October struck down that action, saying Taylor hadn't provided sufficient scientific proof for his estimates of the three valleys' available underground water.
The separate due-process matter now must go back to the lower court, which has two choices: Make the southern Nevada utility reapply for water rights or reopen the protest period.
Either choice would mean Utah counties, environmental groups, west desert ranchers, wildlife advocates, scientists and residents, heretofore shut out, could have a say in the proceedings.
"I'm absolutely elated," said Cecil Garland, a rancher in Callao, Utah, and staunch opponent of the pipeline and the proposed two-state water deal.
The ruling "is a dramatic change. It gives us reason to hope," Garland said. "The [Nevada] state engineer has had a kind of hegemony over the whole process. Against our will, against our protestations, we had become disenfranchised citizens. ... In my 84 years on this Earth, I have never seen politicians bow their neck and go against public opinion like this."
Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, who has made opposition to the Snake Valley accord part of his gubernatorial campaign, welcomed the ruling.
"This confirms that now isn't the right time to sign the agreement," Corroon said. "In a state where water is at an extreme premium, we need to protect it as much as possible."
Great Basin Water Network coordinator Rose Strickland called the ruling "a home run for the public."
"If we follow the law and the science," she said, "there will be no misguided pipeline threatening the environment and economies of rural Nevada and Utah."
Bob Conrad, spokesman for Taylor's office, declined to comment, saying Nevada officials still were studying the ruling.
"We now have additional opportunities to continue to look at the issue," Herbert said, "and ensure that Utah's interests are protected well into the future."
What's next? Issue will return to Nevada state court
The matter must go back to the Nevada state court, which has to decide whether to make the Southern Nevada Water Authority reapply for the water rights or reopen the original protest period. The Utah-Nevada deal is on indefinite hold.
Ruling may sink Snake Valley water deal
Snake Valley » Nevada Supreme Court decision puts the proposed $3.5 billion pipeline on indefinite hold.
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Updated:01/29/2010 06:59:50 AM MST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A top water official moved too slowly on a 1989 Las Vegas request for certain water rights, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday -- a finding that could delay or even kill a $3.5 billion proposal to pipe water 300 miles from Snake Valley to Sin City.
The ruling prompted Utah officials to stand down on a pending Snake Valley water-sharing agreement with neighboring Nevada. A recent Salt Lake Tribune poll of Utah voters shows across-the-board opposition to that plan.
"Based on the additional requirements imposed by the Nevada Supreme Court," Gov. Gary Herbert said, "an agreement, at this time, is premature."
The unanimous Supreme Court decision said Nevada state Engineer Tracy Taylor "violated his statutory duty" when he failed to make a decision by 1991 on 34 applications made by the Southern Nevada Water Authority for rights to water in aquifers under three Nevada valleys. Government scientists and other geology experts say those aquifers are connected with Snake Valley.
The decision focused narrowly on Taylor's timing on the water-rights applications for hundreds of wells, and points out that, in 1989, Nevada law required such requests to be decided no later than a year after the end of a formal protest period, in this case 1991.
In 2003, the Nevada Legislature amended the law to let the state engineer postpone action on water-rights applications for municipal use, but did not make that change retroactive.
Therefore, the court said, the Vegas applications weren't active past 1991.
The ruling stems from a "due process" appeal of Taylor's 2006 decision to deny petitions from at least 54 individuals and groups representing thousands of people who wanted Nevada to reopen the water-rights application protest period.
The 54 plaintiffs wanted to comment on how the Vegas pipeline drawdowns could affect landowners in both states, Utah air quality, animal and plant species and the frail hydrology of the entire Great Salt Lake Basin, matters not understood nor addressed during the original protest period.
In 2008, while that appeal was before the court, Taylor approved Southern Nevada Water Authority water-rights applications in the Cave, Delamar and Dry Lake valleys of central Nevada.
But a Nevada judge in October struck down that action, saying Taylor hadn't provided sufficient scientific proof for his estimates of the three valleys' available underground water.
The separate due-process matter now must go back to the lower court, which has two choices: Make the southern Nevada utility reapply for water rights or reopen the protest period.
Either choice would mean Utah counties, environmental groups, west desert ranchers, wildlife advocates, scientists and residents, heretofore shut out, could have a say in the proceedings.
"I'm absolutely elated," said Cecil Garland, a rancher in Callao, Utah, and staunch opponent of the pipeline and the proposed two-state water deal.
The ruling "is a dramatic change. It gives us reason to hope," Garland said. "The [Nevada] state engineer has had a kind of hegemony over the whole process. Against our will, against our protestations, we had become disenfranchised citizens. ... In my 84 years on this Earth, I have never seen politicians bow their neck and go against public opinion like this."
Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, who has made opposition to the Snake Valley accord part of his gubernatorial campaign, welcomed the ruling.
"This confirms that now isn't the right time to sign the agreement," Corroon said. "In a state where water is at an extreme premium, we need to protect it as much as possible."
Great Basin Water Network coordinator Rose Strickland called the ruling "a home run for the public."
"If we follow the law and the science," she said, "there will be no misguided pipeline threatening the environment and economies of rural Nevada and Utah."
Bob Conrad, spokesman for Taylor's office, declined to comment, saying Nevada officials still were studying the ruling.
"We now have additional opportunities to continue to look at the issue," Herbert said, "and ensure that Utah's interests are protected well into the future."
What's next? Issue will return to Nevada state court
The matter must go back to the Nevada state court, which has to decide whether to make the Southern Nevada Water Authority reapply for the water rights or reopen the original protest period. The Utah-Nevada deal is on indefinite hold.
Friday, February 12, 2010
NEPA and EIA's
"The underlying, if not central, purpose of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is to provide decision makers, and the public, with a systematic, comprehensive and objective assessment of the environmental consequences of an action." (Weston)
The EIA grew out of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). According to the readings, the roots of EIA come from the radical social and cultural change we experienced in the 1960s. The conservative, don't question your authorities age of the 1950's was over. The public was awakening to the increased environmental damage that was being done by both government and industry and there was an emergence of environmental groups that demanded public inclusion and participation in enviromental decision making.(Weston)
Sometimes, though we often get more or less than we bargained for with our protests and demands. The reading points out how the goverment created standards for public input and notice of decision making but this was met with some fairly strong weaknesses. Accoring to Weston, the EIA process requires public trust in the experts, and science which really does not exist. Additionally, EIAs are value based, there is no right or wrong answer. In fact, a right answer can be a wrong one for another issue. When I first started in the UST program at ADEQ, I was baffled when the "science guys" could not tell me exactly how fast or with what manner they were going to clean up gasoline contamination. One of them smiled at me and said, well Kristi, you are new, let me tell you...there are no exact answers in environmental science. There are too many variables and we just gather as much background as we can and apply the knowledge we have in the best way we can! Wow, was I surprised!
Shepard and Bowler tell us that we need to include the public, no matter how distrustful they are or appear to be. This is because "[alienated] citizens become skeptictal citizens and, once citizens begin to lose trust in a project proponent, it is difficult, if not impossible for the project proponent to regain citizens' trust." (quoting Bradbury et al, 1994) Ultimately, EIAs are a necessary evil. We must include the public in decision making processes, even if the public does not want to be part of it. This will insure that everyone has an opportunity to speak and share whatever special knowledge they may have.
The EIA grew out of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). According to the readings, the roots of EIA come from the radical social and cultural change we experienced in the 1960s. The conservative, don't question your authorities age of the 1950's was over. The public was awakening to the increased environmental damage that was being done by both government and industry and there was an emergence of environmental groups that demanded public inclusion and participation in enviromental decision making.(Weston)
Sometimes, though we often get more or less than we bargained for with our protests and demands. The reading points out how the goverment created standards for public input and notice of decision making but this was met with some fairly strong weaknesses. Accoring to Weston, the EIA process requires public trust in the experts, and science which really does not exist. Additionally, EIAs are value based, there is no right or wrong answer. In fact, a right answer can be a wrong one for another issue. When I first started in the UST program at ADEQ, I was baffled when the "science guys" could not tell me exactly how fast or with what manner they were going to clean up gasoline contamination. One of them smiled at me and said, well Kristi, you are new, let me tell you...there are no exact answers in environmental science. There are too many variables and we just gather as much background as we can and apply the knowledge we have in the best way we can! Wow, was I surprised!
Shepard and Bowler tell us that we need to include the public, no matter how distrustful they are or appear to be. This is because "[alienated] citizens become skeptictal citizens and, once citizens begin to lose trust in a project proponent, it is difficult, if not impossible for the project proponent to regain citizens' trust." (quoting Bradbury et al, 1994) Ultimately, EIAs are a necessary evil. We must include the public in decision making processes, even if the public does not want to be part of it. This will insure that everyone has an opportunity to speak and share whatever special knowledge they may have.
Arizona, in Switch, Pulls Out of Regional Emissions Plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/science/earth/12climate.html?scp=2&sq=arizona&st=cse
Article from the New York Times today discussing Arizona's decision to not participate in the Western Climate Initiative made up of seven western states.
Article from the New York Times today discussing Arizona's decision to not participate in the Western Climate Initiative made up of seven western states.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Kristina's Op-Ed
Environmental Policy Trends in the U.S: 1970’s to G.W. Bush Administration:
In the early years of the nation, environmental policy largely consisted of resource conservation and land management. During the 1960’s, under President Johnson, we started looking at the “growing scarcity in world resources.” (Vig, 10) Air and water pollution were long considered to be strictly local or state matters and were not high on the national agenda until the 1970’s. (Vig, 10)
Enter Earth Day:
The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970. The public was now demanding more federal attention be placed on environmental issues, the politicians eagerly supported the public’s wishes, and as a result, laws were enacted and implemented in the 1970’s. Congress set the stage for this new wave by passing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. Shortly thereafter, President Nixon declared the 1970’s the “environmental decade.” (Vig, 11) According to Vig, the Democratic Party controlled the leadership on the issue of environmental policy during the Nixon and Ford administrations. (Vig, 11) It was during this time that we saw the first pesticide regulation, endangered species protections, control of hazardous and toxic wastes and ocean and coastline protection, among others. Furthermore, the 1970’s brought us the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Population and energy policy were largely caught in a “stage of gridlock” according to Vig. President Carter tried but was unable to secure a national energy policy because he could not reach consensus with the public or Congress on the issue.
The 1980’s and the Reagan administration brought new attitudes to environmental policy. President Reagan wanted smaller government and sought to have greater state control and privatization of environmental regulations. Initially Congress went along with the budget cuts but eventually criticized Reagan and his appointees for lack of action. (Vig, 14) Congress went on to strengthen the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts. Reagan ended up strengthening the environmental resolve of these national environmental groups; they began to appeal to the American public, successfully, and as a result, the membership in these organizations soared. Two broad functions that these interest groups provide is: 1) they aggregate and mobilize like-minded citizens, and 2) they represent aggregated interests in government. (Vig, 61) President George H. W. Bush was more environmentally motivated and pushed for Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. (Vig, 14)
Moving into the 1990’s President Clinton was impressive to environmentalists by choosing environment-friendly running mate, Al Gore. Unfortunately, coalitions of environmental groups and business clashed regularly on all of the initiatives and congressional leaders and the White House were unsuccessful in resolving the disputes. (Vig 108-109) George W. Bush elected in 2000, shifted things back to federal control, nay-administrative control of environmental issues and policy. Bush appointed Christine Todd Whitman to administer the EPA. (The first of five appointees Bush would make to that post.) Whitman’s series of policies expanded the federal role over states. Some of these shifts could be blamed on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but appear to reflect a shift of power to the executive branch. Bush was dubbed “the most anti-environmental president in our nation’s history” by the League of Conservation Voters. (Vig, 43) His appointments to environmental and natural resource agencies were largely drawn from business corporations or from conservative think tanks and law firms. The Bush administration was repeatedly shown to have ignored the advice of scientific experts or distorted scientific information to justify policy decisions. (Vig, 87)
President Obama Elected and Reflected:
President Obama made it clear that he would depart radically from the environmental policies of Bush. (Vig, 90) He vowed in his campaign to make global warming a top priority, instead of the Bush reaction to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. He further vowed to reinvigorate the EPA, respecting its professionalism and scientific integrity. (Vig, 91) Obama virtually promised to change all of the policies from the Bush era and adopt a more transparent approach, with collaboration in decision-making. A sampling of his policy proposals were: 1) to invest $150 billion over ten years in advanced energy technologies and to help to create millions of new jobs in clean energy; 2) to set national building efficiency goals toward making all new buildings carbon neutral (zero emissions) by 2030 and 3) to uphold the Roadless Area Rule and to increase funding for national parks and forest management and for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (Vig, 91) Obama started early in making efforts to change the federal government's way of viewing greenhouse gas issues. He took the lead by having federal agencies mandated to reduce their emissions by 28 percent. President Bush, by comparison, (Vig, p. 132) refused to use his authority to meet the challenge of global warming.
As we sit here in 2012, looking back on his four years in office, President Obama held true to his promise to positive environmental agendas. Where he could initiate and make change he did. Unfortunately, even though Obama wanted to emulate the largely environmental presidents past, Carter and Clinton he was thwarted by the serious economic state in which he stepped into office. The economic recovery took center stage, followed closely by the Obama Health Initiative of 2011. Even though President Obama made promises toward an administration bent on environmental change, only baby steps were achieved.
In the early years of the nation, environmental policy largely consisted of resource conservation and land management. During the 1960’s, under President Johnson, we started looking at the “growing scarcity in world resources.” (Vig, 10) Air and water pollution were long considered to be strictly local or state matters and were not high on the national agenda until the 1970’s. (Vig, 10)
Enter Earth Day:
The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970. The public was now demanding more federal attention be placed on environmental issues, the politicians eagerly supported the public’s wishes, and as a result, laws were enacted and implemented in the 1970’s. Congress set the stage for this new wave by passing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. Shortly thereafter, President Nixon declared the 1970’s the “environmental decade.” (Vig, 11) According to Vig, the Democratic Party controlled the leadership on the issue of environmental policy during the Nixon and Ford administrations. (Vig, 11) It was during this time that we saw the first pesticide regulation, endangered species protections, control of hazardous and toxic wastes and ocean and coastline protection, among others. Furthermore, the 1970’s brought us the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Population and energy policy were largely caught in a “stage of gridlock” according to Vig. President Carter tried but was unable to secure a national energy policy because he could not reach consensus with the public or Congress on the issue.
The 1980’s and the Reagan administration brought new attitudes to environmental policy. President Reagan wanted smaller government and sought to have greater state control and privatization of environmental regulations. Initially Congress went along with the budget cuts but eventually criticized Reagan and his appointees for lack of action. (Vig, 14) Congress went on to strengthen the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts. Reagan ended up strengthening the environmental resolve of these national environmental groups; they began to appeal to the American public, successfully, and as a result, the membership in these organizations soared. Two broad functions that these interest groups provide is: 1) they aggregate and mobilize like-minded citizens, and 2) they represent aggregated interests in government. (Vig, 61) President George H. W. Bush was more environmentally motivated and pushed for Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990. (Vig, 14)
Moving into the 1990’s President Clinton was impressive to environmentalists by choosing environment-friendly running mate, Al Gore. Unfortunately, coalitions of environmental groups and business clashed regularly on all of the initiatives and congressional leaders and the White House were unsuccessful in resolving the disputes. (Vig 108-109) George W. Bush elected in 2000, shifted things back to federal control, nay-administrative control of environmental issues and policy. Bush appointed Christine Todd Whitman to administer the EPA. (The first of five appointees Bush would make to that post.) Whitman’s series of policies expanded the federal role over states. Some of these shifts could be blamed on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but appear to reflect a shift of power to the executive branch. Bush was dubbed “the most anti-environmental president in our nation’s history” by the League of Conservation Voters. (Vig, 43) His appointments to environmental and natural resource agencies were largely drawn from business corporations or from conservative think tanks and law firms. The Bush administration was repeatedly shown to have ignored the advice of scientific experts or distorted scientific information to justify policy decisions. (Vig, 87)
President Obama Elected and Reflected:
President Obama made it clear that he would depart radically from the environmental policies of Bush. (Vig, 90) He vowed in his campaign to make global warming a top priority, instead of the Bush reaction to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. He further vowed to reinvigorate the EPA, respecting its professionalism and scientific integrity. (Vig, 91) Obama virtually promised to change all of the policies from the Bush era and adopt a more transparent approach, with collaboration in decision-making. A sampling of his policy proposals were: 1) to invest $150 billion over ten years in advanced energy technologies and to help to create millions of new jobs in clean energy; 2) to set national building efficiency goals toward making all new buildings carbon neutral (zero emissions) by 2030 and 3) to uphold the Roadless Area Rule and to increase funding for national parks and forest management and for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. (Vig, 91) Obama started early in making efforts to change the federal government's way of viewing greenhouse gas issues. He took the lead by having federal agencies mandated to reduce their emissions by 28 percent. President Bush, by comparison, (Vig, p. 132) refused to use his authority to meet the challenge of global warming.
As we sit here in 2012, looking back on his four years in office, President Obama held true to his promise to positive environmental agendas. Where he could initiate and make change he did. Unfortunately, even though Obama wanted to emulate the largely environmental presidents past, Carter and Clinton he was thwarted by the serious economic state in which he stepped into office. The economic recovery took center stage, followed closely by the Obama Health Initiative of 2011. Even though President Obama made promises toward an administration bent on environmental change, only baby steps were achieved.
Obama Environmental Policy Piece
Obama sets targets on agencies' greenhouse-gas emissions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904145_pf.html
President Obama "set specific greenhouse-gas emissions targets for the federal government Friday, saying it would aim to reduce its emissions by 28 percent by 2020." His executive order covers 35 agencies and is supposed to "take aim" at the largest energy consumer in the U.S., the federal government. The federal government spent in excess of $24 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 according to the article. "According to Nancy Sutley,who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the government operates about 500,000 buildings and
600,000 vehicles."
Vig (p.34-35) states that the United States has commonly been perceived as disengaged regarding climate policy. In 2001 we withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol and watched as both the Clinton and Bush administrations failed to enact any policies to reduce emissions. President Obama is attempting to create change and move forward in the U.S. effort to reduce emissions.
According to our readings, the EPA, back in 1999 refused to set or regulate greenhouse gases stating that the Clean Air Act "does not authorize regulation to address global climate change." (Vig, p. 131) Additionally, at that time the EPA thought that voluntary actions to curb emissions would be better to encourage technological development with incentives. Obama appears to be making efforts to change the federal government's way of viewing greenhouse gas issues. He is trying to have the federal government lead by example. President Bush, (Vig, p. 132) refused to use his authority to meet the challenge of global warming.
We have to start somewhere. President Obama's administration "has been pressing for legislation that would reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 17 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, which would affect everything from power plants to private vehicles." (see article) As the author of the attached article states, and I agree, this is a good start but hardly the sweeping change that is required. President Obama is trying to show Americans and world citizens that the U.S. government is beginning to take this issue seriously. I applaud that. Where I disagree is that this just is not enough of a huge leap I think is necessary now... The target does not go far enough. Why does it not go far enough? Simply because the target is on federal agencies only. It does not include private contractors working for these agencies, nor does it track the carbon footprint of federal employees. President Obama is taking baby steps when he needs to be stretching his stance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904145_pf.html
President Obama "set specific greenhouse-gas emissions targets for the federal government Friday, saying it would aim to reduce its emissions by 28 percent by 2020." His executive order covers 35 agencies and is supposed to "take aim" at the largest energy consumer in the U.S., the federal government. The federal government spent in excess of $24 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 according to the article. "According to Nancy Sutley,who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the government operates about 500,000 buildings and
600,000 vehicles."
Vig (p.34-35) states that the United States has commonly been perceived as disengaged regarding climate policy. In 2001 we withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol and watched as both the Clinton and Bush administrations failed to enact any policies to reduce emissions. President Obama is attempting to create change and move forward in the U.S. effort to reduce emissions.
According to our readings, the EPA, back in 1999 refused to set or regulate greenhouse gases stating that the Clean Air Act "does not authorize regulation to address global climate change." (Vig, p. 131) Additionally, at that time the EPA thought that voluntary actions to curb emissions would be better to encourage technological development with incentives. Obama appears to be making efforts to change the federal government's way of viewing greenhouse gas issues. He is trying to have the federal government lead by example. President Bush, (Vig, p. 132) refused to use his authority to meet the challenge of global warming.
We have to start somewhere. President Obama's administration "has been pressing for legislation that would reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 17 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, which would affect everything from power plants to private vehicles." (see article) As the author of the attached article states, and I agree, this is a good start but hardly the sweeping change that is required. President Obama is trying to show Americans and world citizens that the U.S. government is beginning to take this issue seriously. I applaud that. Where I disagree is that this just is not enough of a huge leap I think is necessary now... The target does not go far enough. Why does it not go far enough? Simply because the target is on federal agencies only. It does not include private contractors working for these agencies, nor does it track the carbon footprint of federal employees. President Obama is taking baby steps when he needs to be stretching his stance.
Environmental Policy in the Courts
The week's readings were especially interesting to me with regard to the role that the courts play in environmental policy. The courts determine who has the standing (right) to sue. Vig points out that this power affects environmental policy agendas. Courts also shape this policy stream by determining which cases are ready (ripe) for review. The alleged wrong, according to Vig must "be more than merely anticipated." Courts also interpret the law. The role of the courts is to make clear what the legislators' intent was and in some cases to cure an ill that the legislation did not anticipate. Courts determine if the actions of agencies are fair and equitable. They also punish by means of punitive damages, jail time for offenders or both.
This point of view, the courts shaping environmental policy, may not be obvious to most. It is interesting to think that beyond presidential policy, legislation and agency politics there is yet another hurdle keeping environmental policy in check.
Here comes the judge.
This point of view, the courts shaping environmental policy, may not be obvious to most. It is interesting to think that beyond presidential policy, legislation and agency politics there is yet another hurdle keeping environmental policy in check.
Here comes the judge.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Air and Water Pollution Policy
It is interesting to me to look at the history of the regulation on air and water pollution in the United States. It appears as if there is a constant tug of war over who should be setting the standards and regulating the sources until money and/or politics enters the fray. I say this because it appears that Chicago and Cincinnati were trying to work on the issue early on, 1881. Others either ignored or waited until the issues became so unbearable that the federal governmnet stepped in to regulate. In particular the vehicle emissions standards and the the air quality acts of 1965 and 1970 respectively. Subsequently, most, if not all states now have a state equivalent to the federal EPA.
Arizona's local EPA is the Department of Environmental Quality. That agency has departments within it that regulate air, water and waste. I spent five years in the Waste Programs Division, Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Section. In Arizona, for UST regulation and clean up efforts we see the federal reg's as the maximum. ADEQ's state regs are no more stringent than that of the EPA. Although the regulations may not be more stringent, the Arizona program has some administrative differences. For instance, Arizona requires a written report before ADEQ will close a leaking underground storage tank file. The feds do not have such a requirement. Some argue that makes our program more stringent. I think it is different, not more stringent.
As noted in the readings and lecture, California is usually on the cutting edge of regulations. That can serve as a double-edged sword. They impose standards that are greater than the federal standard in many areas. One such area is in the regulation of refrigerated trucks hauling perishable items into CA. As well as creating an overall benefit by reducing the amount of refrigerant in the air; this causes problems because the truck manufacturers cannot produce the CA standard trucks fast enough and the balance of trucks on the road face penalties for traveling into CA. Not to mention the budgetary burden on the trucking companies trying to meet a high standard that is only for one state. Like so many things in public policy we take the good with the bad and have to sometimes expect some unintended consequences. While I agree that the local government has a better idea of what its issues are, we may be better staying with a federal standard for most programs. The federal government still provides the bulk of the research data and the funding.
Arizona's local EPA is the Department of Environmental Quality. That agency has departments within it that regulate air, water and waste. I spent five years in the Waste Programs Division, Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Section. In Arizona, for UST regulation and clean up efforts we see the federal reg's as the maximum. ADEQ's state regs are no more stringent than that of the EPA. Although the regulations may not be more stringent, the Arizona program has some administrative differences. For instance, Arizona requires a written report before ADEQ will close a leaking underground storage tank file. The feds do not have such a requirement. Some argue that makes our program more stringent. I think it is different, not more stringent.
As noted in the readings and lecture, California is usually on the cutting edge of regulations. That can serve as a double-edged sword. They impose standards that are greater than the federal standard in many areas. One such area is in the regulation of refrigerated trucks hauling perishable items into CA. As well as creating an overall benefit by reducing the amount of refrigerant in the air; this causes problems because the truck manufacturers cannot produce the CA standard trucks fast enough and the balance of trucks on the road face penalties for traveling into CA. Not to mention the budgetary burden on the trucking companies trying to meet a high standard that is only for one state. Like so many things in public policy we take the good with the bad and have to sometimes expect some unintended consequences. While I agree that the local government has a better idea of what its issues are, we may be better staying with a federal standard for most programs. The federal government still provides the bulk of the research data and the funding.
Friday, January 22, 2010
A Little Bit About Me...
I graduated from ASU with a degree in Justice Studies. Subsequently, I earned my paralegal certification and started working for the State of AZ. I spent five years with the Department of Environmental Quality in the Underground Storage Tanks Program. I can regale you with all kinds of interesting tidbits about USTs and the contamination they cause, also what ADEQ does to thwart such environmental damage! After my time at ADEQ I moved to the Attorney General's Office, first in the section that represents ADEQ and now in the Natural Resources Section (do you see a pattern?) In NRS I am the only paralegal to nine attorneys, I manage the water cases and assist the nine attorneys by conducting research (historical and legal), writing pleadings and attending meetings and settlement conferences among other things. We represent natural resource agencies of the state, but primarily Land and Parks. I am graduating in May 2010 with my MPA (God willing!) I am really looking forward to this class.
Helpful Water News Link
In my capacity as water paralegal for the State, I subscribe to this "Arizona Water News" newsletter from the environmental consulting firm, Brown and Caldwell. It is pretty nice, as they compile some interesting articles.
For your enjoyment: http://www.bcwaternews.com/AZWaterNews/azwn-012210.html
For your enjoyment: http://www.bcwaternews.com/AZWaterNews/azwn-012210.html
Monday, January 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)