Coal’s Negative Impact on Kentuckians Calls for New Energy Solutions

By: Ena Viteskic, Senior Staff Member

According to the Kentucky Environmental Foundation, coal poses severe health risks to Kentuckians. Elizabeth Crowe, Execute Director of an environmental group based in Berea, Kentucky states that “[c]oal as we know it takes a toll on the health of Kentuckians; it’s a fact that many health professionals and researchers know well.”[1]Furthermore, a report by the Kentucky Environmental Foundation titled, “Health Impacts of Coal and Clean Energy Options in Kentucky,” has opined that Kentucky should generate electricity from alternative sources such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power in order to eliminate the negative health effects of coal.[2] Based on the report, coal extraction at surface and underground mines, washing, transportation, burning, and disposing of coal waste contributes to various health problems.[3] The report also suggest that breathing polluted air and consuming water tainted with mercury and other toxic metals leads to severe respiratory and nervous system complications.[4]

Although coal poses health risk to Kentuckians, it is not easy to find a practical solution to this problem. There has been a nationwide trend to move towards the development and implementation of alternative energy sources; however, the dynamics of Kentucky must be considered before one can conclude that alternatives are appropriate. The Kentucky Coal Association estimates that about “92 percent of Kentucky’s electric power comes from coal-fired power”, and the state prides itself on very low electric rates - probably the lowest in the nation.[5] Some KY legislators are not overly concerned about the negative health impacts of coal. For example, Rep. Keith Hall, a Democrat from Pikeville that owns coal reserves in eastern Kentucky, maintains that coal is burned cleaner now than ever before and that Kentucky’s low electric rates “give it an advantage in attracting new business.”[6]

Because coal brings many benefits to Kentucky, legislators who want to implement measures advocating alternative energy sources face an uphill battle.  Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, a Louisville Democrat, has sponsored House Bill 167, which “would require utilities to generate a portion of their power from renewable sources.”[7] Supporters of HB 167, known as the Clean Energy Opportunity Act, strongly argue that this bill will not only reduce the negative health impact of coal production but will also increase revenue and employment for the state.[8]According to supporters of this new proposal, HB 167 will achieve the following: (1) curb energy costs for families, farms, and businesses; (2) use resources and put people to work to get the economy back on track; and (3) improve the health and well-being of Kentuckians.[9]

Kentucky is definitely the “coal state” of the nation; however, does that mean that new energy ideas should not be implemented? Assessing whether coal production should decrease while the state expands renewable energy sources is a difficult question to answer. Opponents of HB 167 are concerned with the potential decrease in employment if coal production ceases. However, this concern is not that great when the benefits of alternative energy sources are taken into account.  Research shows that “clean energy is one of Kentucky’s fastest growing job markets” with thousands of people being employed across the state.[10]As a result, it seems to me that the Clean Energy Opportunity Act serves the interests of the opponents and supporters of alternate energy solutions.  HB 167 is a plausible solution in order for maximizing employment opportunities while also minimizing adverse health effects in Kentucky.

[1] Dylan Lovan, Study: Reduce KY coal dependency for better health, CBS News (Jan. 24, 2011, 3:20PM), http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57365052/study-reduce-ky-coal-dependency-for-better-health/.

[2]Id.

[3]Id.

[4]Id.

[5]Id.

[6]Id.

[7] John Cheves, Environmental groups ask Kentucky lawmakers to consider coal’s health impact, The Lexington Herald-Leader(Jan. 25, 2011), http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/25/2607048/environmental-groups-ask-kentucky.html#storylink=cpy.

[8]The Clean Energy Opportunity Act – HB 167, Kentuckians For the Commonwealth, http://www.kftc.org/our-work/general-assembly/energy.

[9]Id.

[10]Id.

New Mercury Rules—Benefit or Bust?

By: Ashley Payne, Senior Staff Member

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “mercury is a naturally occurring element found in air, water and soil.”[1] Mercury is also found in many rocks, including coal.[2] Mercury is released into the environment when coal is burned.[3] In fact, “coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions in the United States.”[4] This becomes a problem once the mercury from the air settles in water, resulting in mercury build-up in fish, shellfish, and animals that eat fish.[5] While exposure to mercury at high levels may cause harm to the brain, heart, kidney, lungs and immune system, research indicates most people’s fish consumption is not a health concern.[6] However, such mercury levels may cause harm to unborn babies and young children’s nervous system, causing potential learning disabilities.[7]

In response to these potential health risks, congress enacted the Clean Air Act. Specifically, section 112 addresses emissions of hazardous air pollutants.[8] “Section 112 requires that EPA establish emissions standards that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutions.”[9]  On December 21, 2011, the EPA finally demanded that coal-fired power plants reduce their emissions by 90 percent as the 1990 Clean Air Act demanded.[10] These regulations are in response to a Consent Decree of the D.C. Court of Appeals requiring a proposal by March 16, 2011, and a final rule by December 16, 2011.[11]

These rules ultimately establish a limit for emissions for qualifying facilities that must be met within four years.[12] There are currently about 1,100 coal-fired burners being used at 600 power plants nationwide.[13] The EPA estimates that the implementation of this statute will cost approximately $9.6 billion.[14] However, the EPA also estimates that the health benefits will equal somewhere between $37 billion to $90 billion.[15] Ultimately, these regulations may not be as beneficial as the EPA foresees. According to the executive director of the Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy, “numerous studies have shown it will result in the loss of more than one million jobs in the next decade.”[16] The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity indicated that the rules could cost an average of 183,000 jobs every year from 2012-2020.[17] An associated press analysis “estimated that of the nation’s 600 coal-fired power plants, more than thirty-two would likely close because they would not be cost-effective to run under the new rules.”[18]

While it is hard to tell at this juncture how the new mercury rules will ultimately affect the coal-fired power plants, one thing is certain: the $9.6 billion dollar burden placed upon such facilities will not be easy to face. If, as is predicted, there are plant closings and a loss of jobs, the effects will be felt most harshly in those regions with the majority of coal-fired power plants—the mid-east. However, if the benefits are as the EPA describes them—avoiding premature deaths, heart attacks, respiratory problems, etc.—the temporary economic hardship may well be worth the cost.

[1] Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury: Basic Information http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.htm (last updated October 01, 2010).

[2]Id.

[3]Id.

[4]Id.

[5]Id.

[6]Id.

[7] Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury: Basic Information http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.htm (last updated October 01, 2010).

[8] Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of the Clean Air Act http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/caa.html (last updated Aug. 11, 2011).

[9]Id.

[10] Ken Silverstein, Obama Showers Coal With Mercury Rule, http://www.energybiz.com/article/12/01/obama-showers-coal-mercury-rule

[11] Environmental Protection Agency, Mercurry and Air Toxics Standards: Basic Information, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/basic.html (last updated Jan. 17, 2012).

[12]Id.

[13] Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Issues First National Standards for Mercury Pollution from Power Plants / Historic ‘mercury and air toxics standards’ meet 20-year old requirement to cut dangerous smokestack emissions, http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/bd8b3f37edf5716d8525796d005dd086!OpenDocument.

[14]Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards: Regulatory Actions, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/actions.html, (last updated Jan. 30, 2012).

[15]Id.

[16] Elizabeth Weise, EPA rules target mercury pollution, toxics from power plants, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-19/power-plants-mercury-rule/52142516/1 (Jan. 21, 2011).

[17]Id.

[18]Id.

What’s In Your Orange Juice?

By: Kelli Hagan, Senior Staff Member

Recently, a U.S. policy has ordered a holding on imported orange juice while samples are tested for a banned fungicide.  Traces of carbendazim, a fungicide that is banned in the U.S. but still used in Brazil, have been found in orange juice imported from Brazil.  Carbendazim has been linked to liver tumors in animals.  Brazilian producers use the chemical to combat a fungus that discolors the outside of oranges and causes trees to drop their fruit prematurely.

[1]

  The scare started after the maker of Minute Maid juice, Coca-Cola Co., warned that tests found low levels of carbendazim in juice shipments from Brazil, a major exporter. The amounts were well below levels that would cause a health concern, Coca-Cola said, but federal regulators started testing imports.

[2]

   Some say the U.S. holding period could last up to six months.

How will this affect the American consumer?  Many are predicting that already high prices for orange juice in the store will likely jump further in coming weeks as markets react to potential chemical contamination in the juice.  About 55 million gallons of orange juice consumed in the U.S. per year comes from Brazil, so a cut in imports from there is expected to boost wholesale prices that already are up 20 percent from last year.

[3]

  However, local orange growers say the chemical scare is changing the way people buy juice – and it's boosting their profits.

[4]

  As people are becoming more concerned with what they are consuming this could boost local orange growers’ profits.  So maybe the orange juice scare is not so bad after all?  This may continue to book the ever-growing trend of consumers preferring to buy local.  

[1]

Stephanie Armour et.al.

Testing of Orange Juice For Fungicide May Continue Through July

, Bloomberg (January 17, 2012),

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-18/testing-of-orange-juice-for-fungicide-may-continue-through-july.html

.

[2]

Id

.

[3]

Richard Mullins,

Orange Juice Prices Expected to Jump

, The Tampa Tribune. (January 18, 2012),

http://www2.tbo.com/news/business/2012/jan/18/1/mebizo1-orange-juice-prices-expected-to-jump-ar-348545/

.

[4]

Josh Salman,

Orange Juice Scare Might Promote Business for Florida Growers

, Bradenton Herald (January 13, 2012),

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/13/4185575/orange-juice-scare-might-promote.html

.

Implications of Rising Hay Costs on Horses

By: Stephen M. Frazier, Senior Staff member

One of the main problems facing horse owners is the necessity of hay.  Unlike cattle and other livestock that can be fed a variety of hay, grain, and silage, horses primarily derive nutrition from quality hay.[1] To compound the problem, owners cannot alleviate the financial burden by feeding horses a mixture of grain and hay because, with corn selling for nearly eight dollars a bushel, grain prices are at an all-time high.[2] As a result, owners are stuck paying $18 to $19 per bale of alfalfa - the same alfalfa that was selling for about $9 a bale a year ago.[3]

The next problem with buying hay is quality. When buying hay, purchasers should be certain to purchase hay of sufficient quality to meet the nutritional needs of horses.[4] Failure to adequately inspect the hay could result in purchasing hay of poor quality that will require additional supplementation, such as protein, to meet nutritional needs.[5] According to agricultural experts, the main factors affecting hay quality are “stage of maturity, leafiness, color, foreign matter, odor, and condition.”[6] These factors can be determined by a visual inspection, or by having the hay tested.[7]

Finally, with the increasing cost of hay, farmers should take necessary and adequate precautions to preserve the hay once it is in their possession. Proper storage of hay bales is vital because this can mitigate or prevent deterioration or spoilage of the hay.[8] Ultimately, storing hay inside a barn is the best option, as it greatly reduces the risk of hay loss.[9] However, if such storage is impossible, then bales stored outside should be placed on some sort of surface, ideally gravel or pallets.[10] Furthermore, the bales should be stored in a well-drained area with at least three feet between rows.[11]

The increasing hay prices have left farmers and horse lovers scrambling to acquire hay. In addition, once they are able to locate a source, the price is nearly double that from a year ago.  Therefore, to ensure that farmers get the best value for their dollar, it is important that they take the time to adequately inspect the hay and take the proper precautions to ensure its safekeeping.

[1]Id.

[2] Julie Ingwersen, Midwest turns dry as drought worsens in Plains, Reuters,  Jul 21, 2011,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-usa-drought-plains-idUSTRE76K4T52011072.

[3] Wichner, supra note 1.

[4] Daren Redfearn, Hay Purchasing Guidelines, Department of Plant & Soil Sciences Extension News, Apr. 20, 2011, http://extensionnews.okstate.edu/archived-articles-1/2011-archived-articles/Hay%20puchasing%2 0guidelines %20doc.pdf.

[5]Id.

[6] Mindy Riffle, Weather could impact hay supply, Country World, June 21, 2011, http://countryworldnews.com/news/headlines/900--weather-could-impact-hay-supply.html.

[7]Id.

[8] James Rogers and Robert Wells, Rain Effects on Hay, Noble Foundation, Sept. 2007, http://www.noble.org/ag/forage/raineffects/index.html.

[9]Id.

[10]Id.

[11]Id.

The U.S. Horse Slaughtering Ban is Lifted – For Better or For Worse?

By: Chris DeAgano, Senior Staff Member

The legality and ethical propriety of horse slaughtering has been a controversial topic in the United States for the past decade. While it has never been “illegal” in the technical sense, Congress passed a law in 2006 that prohibited federal funding for USDA horse meat inspections.[1] This change essentially ended the practice of slaughtering horses for domestic human consumption.[2]  However, the 2006 USDA funding prohibition was recently lifted as part of a Congressional bill signed by President Obama on November 18, 2011.[3] With an estimated 100,000 American horses being slaughtered for human consumption each year,[4] there are two sides to this debate that should be considered.

Proponents of domestic horse slaughtering are satisfied with the decision because they believe that the 2006 law caused more abandoned and neglected horses to be sold and processed for meat in countries that, unlike the U.S., do not require humane euthanasia.[5] Additionally, some argue that the law forced many breeders and owners to go out of business because their inability to sell horses for meat "removed the floor" for prices while also forcing owners to shoulder costs for euthanizing and disposing of unwanted horses.[6] Thus, while the objective of the law may have been to promote humane treatment of horses, it may have actually led to increasingly inhumane treatment as greater numbers of equines were diverted to Mexico or Canada and away from USDA jurisdiction.[7]

On the other hand, many people do not believe that lifting the ban is the correct decision. Opponents argue that ending the de facto ban will challenge the ethics of horse ownership and undermine the sanctity of the unique bond between humans and horses.[8] They believe horse slaughter should be banned because it is inherently cruel and abusive and cannot be made humane, even if done in accordance with USDA regulations.[9] Anti-slaughter groups and individuals often place the blame on breeders.[10] They want the government to penalize people for over-breeding, rather than allowing innocent horses to be slaughtered.[11]

While there are valid points on each side, lifting the ban may very well be the correct decision due to its ineffectiveness. This is especially true considering the current and recent status of the U.S. economy. In explaining the rationale for this unpopular position, Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), summarized it well when she observed that “the amount of suffering that it created exceeded the amount of suffering it was designed to stop.”[12]

[1] Alison Rowe, Obama Lifts Horse Slaughter Ban—PETA Says It’s a Good Idea, Equine Law Blog (Dec. 1, 2011), available athttp://equinelaw.alisonrowe.com/2011/12/articles/legislation/obama-lifts-horse-slaughter-banpeta-says-its-a-good-idea/.

[2]Id.

[3]Id.

[4] Animals’ Angels, Horse Slaughter – The Facts, http://animalsangels.org/the-issues/horse-slaughter.html, (last visited Jan. 23, 2012).

[5] Patrik Jonsson, Way Cleared for Horse Slaughter to Resume in US After 5-Year Ban, The Christian Science Monitor (Nov. 29, 2011), available athttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1129/Way-cleared-for-horse-slaughter-to-resume-in-US-after-5-year-ban.

[6]Id.

[7] Patrik Jonsson, Lifting HorseSlaughter Ban: Why PETA Says It's a Good Idea, The Christian Science Monitor (Nov. 30, 2011), available athttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1130/Lifting-horse-slaughter-ban-Why-PETA-says-it-s-a-good-idea.

[8] Jonsson, supra note 4.

[9] Rowe, supra note 1.

[10]Id.

[11]Id.

[12] Jonsson, supra note 6.

Keystone Oil Pipeline Plans Plugged

By: Roger Battiston, Senior Staff Member

On January 18, 2012, the Obama administration rejected the application for the proposed 1,661-mile extension of the Keystone Oil Pipeline.[1] The proposed pipeline would span from Hardesty, Canada and cross through six states, ending on the Gulf Coast in Port Arthur, Texas.[2] Proponents of the pipeline have argued that it would supply the U.S. with a steady stream of crude oil from Canada, amounting to hundreds of thousands of barrels per day, and would create jobs that would stimulate the weak U.S. economy.[3] Those opposed to the pipeline project have cited environmental concerns and argue that the pipeline would do very little to curb the U.S.’s dependence on foreign oil. [4]

Because of the profound size of the Keystone Oil Pipeline expansion, it is no surprise that it has become heavily politicized. President Obama had not made a decision on the pipeline for much of 2011, but was forced to approve or deny the application when Congress passed legislation mandating a decision by February 21, 2012.[5] In a statement released from the President, the application was denied, not because of environmental concerns, but because the deadline did not provide enough time for the administration to make an informed decision.[6] The statement noted that the decision “… is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.”[7]

While groups opposing and supporting the project have valid arguments, the Obama administration’s decision is quite laudable. When a project of this magnitude is proposed, careful consideration of its advantages and disadvantages should be made. Rushing the decision could lead to serious unforeseen consequences.

[1] Sanchez, Barack Obama rejects controversial Keystone oil pipeline, The Telegraph, Jan.18, 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9023975/Barack-Obama-rejects-controversial-Keystone-oil-pipeline.html.

[2]Keystone Pipeline System, 3 (2011)http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Key_Projects/keystone.pdf.

[3] Broder and Frosch, Rejecting Pipeline Proposal, Obama Blames Congress, The New York Times, Jan. 18, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/state-dept-to-put-oil-pipeline-on-hold.html?_r=1.

[4]Id.

[5] Daly, Obama, GOP back in tussle over oil pipeline, Associated Press, Jan. 19, 2012,http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-gop-back-tussle-oil-pipeline-15391420.

[6] Office of Press Secretary, Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline (2012)http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/18/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline.

[7]Id.

Economic Development Spending: Should the Horse Racing Industry be on the Chopping Block?

By: Chris Henderson, Senior Staff Member

The mayor’s proposed budget estimates that the city will receive about 271 million dollars in 2012. This will make 2012 the fourth year in a row that general fund receipts have either declined or remained flat.[1] “Prior to fiscal year 2009 there is only one other year in Lexington’s history in which general fund revenue failed to grow, year-over-year.”[2] The inability to collect enough revenue has forced the Mayor to make deep cuts and crucial layoffs with government personnel. In his annual Budget Address, Gray stated that 28 government employees would be laid off and announced that a hiring freeze would be enacted on both the police and fire departments.[3] With Lexington facing a constrained budget, city leaders must understand that restructuring the local economy begins with making smarter decision about how Lexington spends.

But the essential question is, “why has revenue consistently declined,” specifically when Lexington hosted the World Equestrian Games in 2010? The answer is simple- Lexington did not invest in blue ocean industries. In Kim Chan’s ground breaking book “Blue Ocean Strategy,” she described how businesses can thrive if they “imagine a market universe composed of two sorts of oceans: red oceans and blue oceans.”[4] Red oceans represent all the industries in existence today.[5] In the red oceans, industry boundaries are defined and accepted, and the competitive rules of the game are known.[6] As the market space gets crowded, prospects for profits and growth are reduced.[7] Blue oceans, in contrast, are defined by untapped market space, demand creation, and the opportunity for highly profitable growth.[8]

For example, in preparation for the World equestrian games, “Lexington invested $107 million of local, state, and federal public money for improvements at the horse park and around the city and an additional $151 million in tax money for public works projects.”[9] In addition to the government support, “Businesses put at least $70 million into the games, including $32 million from title sponsor Alltech.”[10] But what did they get in return? Lexington only received an economic impact of 201.5 million to the local economy.[11] To add insult to injury, Lexington lost out on a bid to have the games return to the bluegrass state.[12] Although Kentucky has a long tradition of horse racing, city leaders must strike a balance between preserving the current horse racing culture and creating a new one. In order for Lexington to thrive economically, they must invest in blue ocean industries.

[1] Mayor’s 2012 Budget address,Lexingtonky.gov, http://www.lexingtonky.gov/index.aspx?page=2806 (Last Visited Nov. 29, 2011).

[2]Id.

[3]Id.

[4] W. Chan Kim & Renee Mauborgne R, Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant (Harvard Business School Press, 2005)

[5]Id.

[6]Id.

[7]Id.

[8]Id.

[9] Janet Patton, World Equestrian Games: One Year Later, Oct 9, 2011. Kentucky.com/business.http://www.kentucky.com/2011/10/09/1913723/one-year-later-impact-of-world.html (Last Visited Nov. 29, 2011).

[10]Id.

[11] Beshear: world equestrian games brought $201.5 million to local economy, June 27, 2011.http://www.kyforward.com/2011/06/beshear-world-equestrian-games-brought-201-5-million-to-local-economy/

[12] Patton, Supra note 9.

Waiting on the Rain: Drought Ravages the Texas Cattle Industry

By: John Michael Carter, Senior Staff Member

Few remnants of the “Old West” endure in modern America. However, when one thinks of cattle farming in Texas, images of cowpokes and endless ranchland come to mind. It is not difficult to believe that some bastion of the idealized west that so many authors love to write about still remains. However, the Texas cattle industry is currently under attack, and the attacker is not a rouge cow-thief or marauding Indian tribe. Rather, the worst drought in Texas history is to blame.

Texas ranchers waiting for rain in 2011 were sadly disappointed when the state received less than half of its annual rainfall.[1] On December 27, 2011, 97.83% of Texas was in a drought, and 84.81% of the land was experiencing severe drought conditions.[2] These extreme circumstances have had a massive impact on the number cattle in the state. It is estimated that this time last year an extra 600,000 cows roamed pastures in the Lone Star State, but now this portion, representing 12% of the total population, has disappeared.[3]

Many of the missing bovines have been moved north to greener pastures out of state. Farmers were forced to make the move when the lack of rain dried up the grass and pushed the hay and feed prices ever upwards.[4] Other ranchers slaughtered a great deal of the livestock after weighing their options.[5] As supply dropped and the calls for breeding cattle from overseas increased, many cows were shipped out of the U.S. to places such as China and Russia.[6] The most unfortunate victims were the cows that simply perished amidst the sweltering heat and bone-dry landscape. Cattle can ingest over eight gallons of water per day, but this year it appears that the Texan cattle are drinking less than one.[7] When the cattle do encounter water, their extreme thirst causes them to drink too much causing death by “water intoxication.”[8]Furthermore, high temperatures can cause deadly algae growth in watering tanks.[9]

The reduction in cattle population may substantially affect not only the Texas cattle industry, but also the Americans that consume over 20 billion pounds of beef each year.[10] It is estimated that the price of beef will increase by 5.5% in 2012, adding to the 9% increase that was experienced in 2011.[11]

Are there greener pastures ahead for Texan cattle farmer and the beef consuming American? The outlook is grim. According to the Houston Chronicle, “There's growing concern among some scientists that Texas' drought could linger through another dry winter and return next summer to more deeply ravage an already water-stressed state.”[12]

[1] Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Texas Drought Shrinks State Cow Herd, Los Angeles Times Blogs(Dec. 17, 2011, 9:28 PM), http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/12/texas-drought-shrinks-state-cow-herd.html.

[2] U.S. Drought Monitor: Texas, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_state.htm?TX,S (last visited Jan. 22, 2012).

[3] Hennessy-Fiske, supra.

[4] Hennessy-Fiske, supra.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] John Marsh, Texas Drought Causing Cattle Deaths . . . From Too Much Water?,AccuWeather.com (Jul. 16, 2011, 9:33 AM), http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/texas-drought-causing-cattle-d/52441.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] U.S. Beef and Cattle Industry: Background Statistics and Information, U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture: Economic Research Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm (last visited Jan. 22, 2012).

[11] Hennessy-Fiske, supra.

[12] Eric Burger, This Summer’s Drought May Worsen Next Year, Houston Chronicle (Aug. 22, 2011, 8:34 PM), http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/This-summer-s-drought-may-worsen-next-year-2136436.php.