Post Hurricane Sandy Relief for Farmers and Producers

By: Megan Crenshaw, Staff Member

Despite the high estimate of economic damage that has been predicted as a result of recent Hurricane Sandy, overall farm and crop damage appears to be minimal.[1] However, there has been an impact in some areas of the United States and damages are still being assessed. Some severe localized crop damage has occurred in some urban farms in New York.[2] Farmers and ranchers in New Jersey have reported damage.[3] Other crop damage has also been reported in parts of Virginia.[4]

In the event of natural disasters when relief aid is necessary, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides assistance to farmers through programs administered via the Farm Service Agency (FSA).[5] The FSA "provides assistance for natural disaster losses, resulting from drought, flood, fire, freeze, tornadoes, pest infection, and other calamities."[6]

The USDA's authority to operate FSA programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill expired on September 30, 2011.[7] Production losses due to natural disasters occurring after September 30, 2011 are no longer eligible for diaster program coverage under programs that have expired.[8] In light of this eliminated relief, there are still some sources of recovery available for farmers. Those sources include: Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance, the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), and the Emergency Loans Programs (ELP).[9]

The FSA has advised farmers and ranchers affected by Hurricane Sandy to keep thorough, detailed records of all losses.[10] These records could be very beneficial when seeking post-Hurricane Sandy relief from the FSA. Records should include livestock death, as well as expenses for feed purchases, costs due to lost supplies, increased transportation of livestock, and damaged farm land and crops.[11] These suggestions that have been given to farmers and producers after Hurricane Sandy are precautions that every farmer and producer facing similar circumstances should take after any natural distaster in order to receive all forms of reimbursement and relief in the future.

_____________________

[1] Brad Plumer,

Is Sandy the second-most destructive U.S. hurricane ever? Or not even top 10?

, 

WashingtonPost.com, 

(Nov. 5, 2012), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/05/is-sandy-the-second-most-destructive-u-s-hurricane-ever-or-not-even-top-10/; Politics/Nation,

Hurricane Sandy slows final crop harvest in eastern U.S. states

, 

EconomicTimes.com, 

(Oct. 30, 2012), http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-30/news/34817312_1_corn-harvest-soybean-harvest-crop-progress-report.

[2] Russell McLendon,

Hurricane Sandy wreaks agricultural havoc

, 

MotherNatureNetwork.com, 

(Oct. 31, 2012), http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/hurricane-sandy-wreaks-agricultural-havoc.

[3] Tracy Grondine,

Agricultural damage from Hurricane Sandy still being assessed

, 

SoutheastFarmPress.com, 

(Nov. 5, 2012), http://southeastfarmpress.com/livestock/agricultural-damage-hurricane-sandy-still-being-assessed.

[4]

Id.

[5] Farm Service Agency,

Disaster Assistance Programs

, 

USDA.gov, 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=diap&topic=landing (last visited Nov. 5, 2012).

[6]

Id.

[7] News Release,

Farmers and Ranchers Urged to Record Losses from Hurricane Sandy

, 

USDA 

(Oct. 31, 2012), http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid=2012/10/0337.xml&printable=true&contentidonly=true.

[8]

Id.

[9]

Id.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Id. 

American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act and Its Impact on the Horse Capital of the World

By: Jordan Stanton, Staff Member

The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act is Congress's latest attempt at banning horse slaughter domestically.  This proposed legislation also prohibits the exportation of horses to other countries for slaughter.[1] Although meritorious, legislation of this nature has been proposed before, to no avail.[2] Consequently, regulation of this practice will be left with the states. As the horse capital of the world, us Kentuckians need to consider if this ban is really beneficial to the welfare of the horses that Congress is so keen on protecting. 

From Fiscal Year 2006 to 2011, Congress included language in its annual appropriations bill that prohibited the USDA's use of federal funds to inspect horses being transported for slaughter and horses that were intended for human consumption.[3] During that period, the horse slaughter industry was essentially banned in the United States; however, not outright. Circumventing this prohibition, horses were sent to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.[4] Ironically, the well-being of these animals was hurt by this prohibition. The journey these horses took to our bordering countries was long and hard, and the actual slaughter was far less humane than what was done domestically.[5] Recognizing this result, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that condemned the banning of horse slaughter domestically.[6] Heeding their warning, federal funding was restored to the USDA, which allows horse slaughter to once again commence in the United States.[7] 

Kentucky is home to roughly 320,000 horses, putting it fifth in horse population in the nation.[8] As host to the most prolific horse racing event in the world, The Kentucky Derby, Kentucky has vested interest in maintaining its pro-horse persona. The question then presents itself, should the State of Kentucky enact legislation that prohibits any involvement in the horse slaughter industry? The answer is difficult. Morally, the execution of animals that are staples of American culture is hard to stomach. However, due to the dismal state of our national economy, many horse owners are unable to care for their animals.[9] In Kentucky alone there are 60,000 to 90,000 unwanted horses.[10] The problem has led to unregulated breeding, which has further inflated the crisis.[11] Numerous non-profit organizations have responded to the situation, but their level of funding leaves only a minimal remedial effect.[12]

My solution to the problem may enrage some pro-horse individuals and groups, but it is endorsed by the GAO. Since Kentucky has so many horses, and the number of unwanted horses is growing, why not construct a horse slaughter facility in the Commonwealth? The fate of these horses is much more catastrophic when they are shipped to unregulated slaughter facilities in Mexico and Canada. Why not keep these animals at home, and allow for their slaughter in regulated facilities? This industry could provide a stimulus to Kentucky's economy since horse meat is heavily sought after worldwide.[13] At the end of the day, this position is in the horse's best interest, and those who think otherwise are not acclimated with the facts.

_______________________

[1]

H.R. 2966: American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act

, 

Govtrack.us, 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2966 (last visited Oct. 25, 2012).

[2]

American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act

, 

Animal Welfare Institute, 

http://awionline.org/content/american-horse-slaughter-prevention-act (last visited Oct. 25, 2012). 

[3]

Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter

, 

United States Government Accountability Office, 

8-9 (June 22, 2011), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11228.pdf.

[4]

Id.

 at 10.

[5]

Id.

 at 2.

[6]

See generally id.

[7] Stephen Dinan,

Obama, Congress Restore Horse-Slaughter Industry

, 

The Washington Times 

(Nov. 30, 2011), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/30/obama-congress-restore-us-horse-slaughter-industry/?page=all.

[8] Dennis Johnston,

Why?

,

Horse Capital of the World 

(Jan. 21, 2010, 4:25 PM), http://horsecapitaloftheworld.blogspot.com/2010/01/why.html.

[9] Wendy Mitchell,

Bill Could Re-Open Horse Slaughterhouses

, 

The Ledger Independent 

(Feb. 3, 2010, 10:00 PM), http://www.maysville-online.com/news/local/bill-could-re-open-horse-slaughterhouses/article_2ebf741c-9c43-5814-bd5e-5fafa1d9dbbe.html.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Id.

[12]

Horse Slaughterhouses Gain Unlikely Ally. PETA?

, 

WHAS11.com, 

http://www.whas11.com/news/Horse-slaughter-re-legalized-in-United-States-134854-18.html (last updated Dec. 2, 2011). 

[13] Julie Harker,

Americans Eat Horse Meat

, 

Brownsfield Ag News for America 

(June 8, 2012), http://brownfieldagnews.com/2012/06/08/americans-eat-horse-meat-study-published/.

How Does Lasix Enhance Performance in Horses?

By: Wes Bright, Staff Member

If you are reading this blog post, it is likely you are already aware of the controversy the horse racing industry faces over the use of Furosemide (better known as Lasix). Most agree Lasix does enhance performance in horses to some degree.[1] However, much of the problem lies in

how

it enhances performance.

Those in favor of Lasix as a race day medication have an opinion much like Thomas Tobin's, a professor at the University of Kentucky Gluck Equine Research Center.[2] Tobin was quick to point out that some studies do not factor in that "EIPH (Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage) causes horses to run slower and Lasix acts to prevent and lessens EIPH."[3] Instead of enhancing a horse's performance, Lasix simply allows a horse to be healthy. Yes, it is likely a healthy horse will run faster than one with blood-filled lungs.

We allow athletes in other sports to take measures to assure that they are healthy enough to play, such as a basketball player draining the fluid from his knees.[4] Who is going to tell Dirk Nowitzki that he has to let his knee heal and if it doesn't, well, tough luck, your career is over? Yet, there have been proposals to do that very thing to horses.[5]

It is common knowledge that the lighter something is, the faster it will go. It stands to reason a horse that has lost 2% of its body weight due to Lasix will be faster than one that has not.[6] Many say this is the reason for the enhancement in performance and point to studies like the one done by the University of Pennsylvania.[7] They found bleeders as well as non-bleeders to be faster when Lasix is administered. Assuming this study is without fault, should it matter that horses are faster because they lose weight? I again turn to the treatment of other professional athletes. We allow jockeys in the same industry to cut weight, even though they sometimes go to extreme measures to do it.[8] Athletes involved in wrestling or boxing cut weight in order to fight in a lower class.[9] These measures have the same effects on humans as Lasix has on horses, yet I do not hear an uproar over it.

In other sports we ban performance enhancers due to their negative long-term effect on the body. The opposite is true for Lasix. It reduces the negative effects of EIPH. Many who oppose its use hear the word "Lasix" and "performance enhancer" and immediately think it must have negative effects, while the opposite is true.

If there wasn't an advantage gained by Lasix, using it would not be a normal occurrence.[10] What causes the advantage will remain up for debate. My answer: If it helps the horse and doesn't give an advantage, then who cares?

_______________________

[1]

FAQ About the Study and Project, 

University of Pretoria Equine Research Center

, http://web.up.ac.za/ default.asp?ipkCategoryID=5218.

[2] Erica Larson,

EIPH and Furosemide Use In Racehorses Explained

,

TheHorse.com 

(Oct. 4, 2012), http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=20732.

[3]

Id.

[4] Tim MacMahon,

Dirk Nowitzki has knee drained again

, 

ESPNDallas 

(Oct. 12, 2012), http://espn.go.com/dallas /nba/story/_/id/8495123/dirk-nowitzki-dallas-mavericks-knee-drained-second-time-month.

[5] Bruce Schreiner,

Proposed race-day drug ban resurfaces in Kentucky

, 

Yahoo Sports 

(May 16, 2012), http://sports.yahoo.com/news/proposed-race-day-drug-ban-162139010--rah.html.

[6]

See FAQ, supra

note 1.

[7] Associated Press,

Lasix Found to Aid Horses' Performance

, 

LATimes.com 

(May 7, 1990), http://articles.latimes.com/ 1990-05-07/sports/sp-311_1_racing-performance.

[8] Matthew Percia,

What Sports Use a Rapid Weight Loss Method?

, 

LiveStrong.com 

(Feb. 21, 2011), http://www.livestrong.com/article/387282-what-sports-use-a-rapid-weight-loss-method/.

[9]

Id.

[10] Ed Springston,

Governor Beshear Purposely Putting Horse Racing at Risk in KY?

, 

LouisvillePolitics.com 

(Jun. 18, 2012), http://www.louisvillepolitics.com/governor-beshear-purposly-putting-horse-racing-at-risk-in-ky/.

The Worst Anti-Environmental Bill in History?

By: Max Bridges, Staff Member

Before leaving for a two-month recess this September, House Republicans passed the dirty coal package, H.R. 3409, by a vote of 233-175.[1] Also titled the "Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012," the bill would undermine landmark environmental laws and adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment.[2] The bill is not expected to be taken up in the Senate and is also facing a presidential veto,[3] but it raises enormous concerns about the interests of our Representatives. Congressmen are elected to protect the interests of the American people, but House Republicans are more concerned with protecting King Coal.

The "Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012" is comprised of five bills each designed to assault America's cornerstone environmental protections. The bill is so detrimental to public health that some have called it the "single worst anti-environmental bill to be considered in the House."[4]

Title I of H.R. 3409 blocks the Department of Interior (DOI) from issuing any new standard for coal mining or mine reclamation until 2014 and would eliminate DOI's ability to designate an area unsuitable for mining.[5]

Title II repeals EPA's scientific finding that greenhouse gasses endanger public health and the environment, thereby codifying the House's denial of climate science.[6]

Title III would overturn 40 years of clean air policy by requiring the EPA to consider industry costs when determining what level of air pollution is "safe."[7] It would also block landmark Clean Air Act public health regulations, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which the EPA estimates "will prevent as many as 11,000 avoidable premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks annually. The annual value of the health benefits from these rules alone is estimated to be as much as $90 billion."[8]

Title IV would eliminate EPA's authority to set minimum federal standards to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash by allowing the States to create their own programs without having to meet

any

 standard for protecting public health.[9] Perhaps Congress needs to be reminded of the Martin County Coal Spill. In October 2000, a coal slurry impoundment broke through an underground mine shaft and spilled more than 300 million gallons of black, toxic sludge into the waters of Kentucky.[10] The spill was 30 times the size of the

Exxon Valdez

 disaster. But we shouldn't need to remind Congress; they represent us, right?

Finally, Title V would roll back key provisions underpinning the Clean Water Act including EPA's authority to veto a "valley fill" permit based on environmental concerns. House Republicans believe this bill would prevent EPA over-regulation, but others disagree. As Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said, "Let's not fool ourselves, the bill before us today isn't just about the role of federal government, the bill isn't just a push for state sovereignty; rather, this bill would satisfy two very niche special interests at the cost of the American public. This bill is designed to benefit mountaintop coal mining companies and large factory farms."[11]

By passing H.R. 3409, House Republicans showed their willingness to undercut key environmental protections that protect our safety and public welfare. These Congressmen clearly do not represent the interests of the American people. Instead, they represent Big Coal. This absurdity is further evidenced by recent political contributions. In 2012 alone, Republicans received 89 percent of the coal industry's campaign contributions (amounting to $5,765,078).[12] The chair of the Energy and Commerce committee has received $60,000 from major utilities and the coal industry. Bill co-sponsor Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) is the top recipient of coal cash for 2012, receiving more than $200,000.[13]

We elect Congress to protect the will of the people, but they are more concerned with protecting the coal industry. Let's hope our representatives begin to follow the words of John Adams, "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men."[14]

_________________________

[1] The Library of Congress,

Bill Summary & Status, 112th Congress

(2011-2012), H.R. 3409

, 

Thomas, 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03409: (last visited Oct. 21, 2012).

[2]

Statement of Administration Policy

, E

xecutive Office of the President, 

(Sept. 19, 2012) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr3409r_20120919.pdf.

[3]

Id.

[4]

An Assault On America's Cornerstone Environmental Protections

, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democratic Staff 

(Sept. 2012), http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Short%20HR%203409%20Fact%20Sheet_1.pdf.

[5]

Id.

[6]

Id.

[7]

Id.

[8] 

Executive Office of the President, 

supra

 note 2.

[9] 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democratic Staff, 

supra

 note 4.

[10] 

Erik Reece, Lost Mountain

 124 (2006).

[11] Robin Bravender,

House Votes to Block EPA on Water Pollution

, 

Politico 

(Aug. 13, 2011), http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58939.html#ixzz29rptxZvv.

[12]

Coal Mining: Long-Term Contribution Trends

, 

OpenSecrets.org, 

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=E1210 (last visited Oct. 21, 2012).

[13] Rebecca Leber,

The GOP's 'War on Coal' Myth, Brought to You by Millions in Coal Cash

,

ThinkProgress 

(Sep. 20, 2012), http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/20/873851/the-gops-war-on-coal-myth-brought-to-you-by-millions-in-coal-cash/?mobile=nc.

[14] 

John Adams, The Works of John Adams, 

225 (1851)

available at

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2012/Adams_1431-04_Bk.pdf.

Churchill Downs Filing an "Inquiry" into the Constitutionality of the Texas Racing Act

By: Amanda Stubblefield, Staff Member

On Sunday, October 28th, racing commences at Churchill Downs, and in approximately two weeks, one of the most lucrative events in horse racing, the Breeders' Cup, will take place. Unfortunately for Texans, it may be the last time they can use the Internet to bet on these out-of-state races.

In the horse racing industry, advance deposit wagering (ADW) is the "fastest growing segment" of parimutuel betting.[1] ADW is a mechanism for placing bets where people can place funds into an account and "place wagers via telephone, mobile device, or through the Internet."[2] With ADW comprising an increasingly large part of the industry, companies are aware of the importance of being able to offer their ADW services to as many potential customers as possible.  Therefore, after Texas decided to start enforcing its law which prohibits a person from accepting "in person, by telephone, or over the Internet, a wager for a horse race... conducted inside or outside" the state,[3] Churchill Downs was quick to file suit to protect its interests.

On September 21, 2012, Churchill Downs Incorporated (doing business as Twinspires.com) filed suit in the Western District of Texas against the Executive Director, Chuck Trout, and other members of the Texas Racing Commission.[4] Churchill Downs is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and has framed their complaint around an interesting constitutional doctrine, the dormant Commerce Clause.

Congress has enormous power under the Constitution to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."[5] The United States Supreme Court has construed the commerce power broadly to prohibit state laws and regulations that burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of congressional action.  In order to be successful on their merits, Churchill Downs will have to prove either: (1) the Texas Racing Act's prohibition is discriminatory and thus invalid, unless it advances a legitimate local purpose that could not be adequately served by a reasonable nondiscriminatory alternative, or (2) that even though the discrimination is only incidental, the burden imposed on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.[6]

Although Churchill Downs appears to have a strong argument, Texas appears to be the "odds on favorite" in this litigation.  Churchill Downs' argument will likely encounter three major problems: the federal government appears to have given the states wide latitude in regulating horse racing, the broad application of the Texas Racing Act which bands internet gambling on horse races instate as well as out-of-state, and the states' traditionally strong power in regulating moral and social issues.  If Texas prevails, Churchill Downs and other companies operating ADW systems will likely be significantly burdened by this prohibition.

Nevertheless, one thing you

can

bet across the board, all in the industry will be watching this litigation, and Churchill Downs, as well as their competitors, have a lot to lose in the Texas market.

__________________________

[1] Churchill Downs, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K), 6, (Mar. 13, 2008),

available at

 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/20212/000119312508055581/d10k.htm.

[2]

Id.

[3] Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 179c, 

§ 11.01(a) (West 2011).

[4] Churchill Downs (dba Twinspires.com) v. Trout, et. al., 1:12-cv-00880-LY (W.D. Tex. filed Sep. 21, 2012).

[5] U.S. Const. Art. 1, 

§ 8, cl. 3.

[6] Dep't of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553 US 328, 339-40 (2008). 

EPA Approved E15 Gasoline Does More Harm Than Good

By: Tyler Brewer, Staff Member 

This past August, the D.C. Circuit for the United States Court of Appeals refused to adjudicate a suit implicating the E.P.A. in yet another exercise of power beyond what is legally granted.[1]  Specifically, a suit arguing the illegality of the E.P.A’s waiver to introduce a 15% ethanol blend (E15) in gasoline was dismissed for lack of standing.[2]

Generally, ethanol is an alcohol-based fuel derived from starch-and-sugar-based feedstocks (primarily corn grain and sugar cane).[3]  Today, more than 95% of U.S. gasoline contains ethanol, and more significantly, blending ethanol in gasoline is required by the federally enacted Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).[4]  Currently, a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% unleaded gasoline (E10) is sold nationwide, and has been approved by all auto manufacturers for use in their gasoline engines.[5] However, introducing E15 into commerce has significant ramifications in various industries, particularly auto-manufacturing and petroleum.[6]

Studies have shown E15 fuel use in post-2001 engines causes “substantial damage” due to the increased ethanol blend corroding many of the engine and fuel system components.[7] The EPA’s “fix” to this problem is a small black and orange sticker (less than four-squared inches) designed to warn consumers.[8] Yet, in order for the EPA to issue the E15 waiver, the EPA “had to find that E15 would not cause any car models made after 1974 to fail to meet emissions standards.”[9]

In the petroleu

m industry, underground storage tanks at service stations are not certified to hold an ethanol blend higher than 10%.[10] In order to provide E15 to consumers, the new E15 waiver requires station owners to spend tens of thousands of dollars to replace each station with E15 suitable tanks.[11]

The D.C. Circuit failed consumers and businesses by not adjudicating this matter; especially after reading the very compelling dissent discussing how all plaintiffs possessed standing to raise their complaint.[12] Without adjudication over the EPA’s exercise in granting this “partial” waiver, everyone is at the EPA’s mercy.

[1] 

See generally,

Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. E.P.A

., No. 10-1380, 2012 WL 3538217 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 17, 2012).

[2] 

Id.

at *9.

[3] 

Ethanol Fuel Basics

,

Alternative Fuels Data Center

, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html (last updated Oct. 9, 2012).

[4] 

Id.

[5] 

Ethanol

,

Fueleconomy.gov

, http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml (last updated Oct. 5, 2012).

[6] 

See generally Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n

, 2012 WL 3538217, at *4-9.

[7] 

John O’Dell,

Controversial E15 Fuel Blend Is on the Way

,

Edmonds.com

(May 29, 2012), http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/controversial-e15-fuel-blend-is-on-the-way.html.

[8] 

Id.

[9] 

See Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n

, 2012 WL 3538217, at *9 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).

[10] 

Ryan Tracy,

Standoff at Pump over New Fuel: Ethanol Lobby vs. Station Owners

,

Wall St. J.

(Oct. 3, 2012),  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444549204578020403867106388.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.

[11] 

Id.

[12] 

See Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n

, 2012 WL 3538217, at *9-20 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).

Hydrofracking: Environmental Boom or Environmental Nightmare?

By: Ted Walter, Staff Member 

The recent emergence of hydrofracking has made natural gas a prime player in the energy field.  And various groups support hydrofracking for different reasons.  Environmentalists claim natural gas is better for the environment because it burns more efficiently than coal or oil.

[1]

  Politicians love it because hydrofracking is a source of new jobs.

[2]

  But, just like anything else, hydrofracking raises some cause for concern. 

One concern is with the water used for extracting the natural gas from the rock below.  This water can be classified in three different categories: fracking fluid, flowback water, and produced water.

[3]

  Fracking fluid is the water that goes down to start the well, flowback water is the water that comes back in the very beginning, and produced water is the water that comes back over the life of the well.

[4]

  Additionally, “[w]ith hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur thousands of feet underground.”

[5]

  Furthermore, “[o]ther carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.”

[6]

  Essentially, the water that goes down to start the well in the beginning is contaminated, and the water that comes back up is more contaminated than in the beginning.

The issue becomes what to do with the water that comes back to the surface.  A

simple solution, and an option sometimes chosen, is to take the water to a wastewater treatment plant.  But this may not be the best solution because “design of wastewater treatment plants is usually based on the need to reduce organic and suspended solid loads to limit pollution of the environment.”

[7]

  Furthermore, “[t]reatment to remove wastewater constituents that may be toxic or harmful to crops, aquatic plants (macrophytes) and fish is technically possible but is not normally economically feasible.”

[8]

  As a result, “most of the facilities cannot remove enough of the radioactive material to meet federal drinking-water standards before discharging the waste water into rivers, sometimes just miles upstream from drinking-water intake plants.”

[9]

  As far as flowback water from hydrofracking in Kentucky, you shouldn’t worry. Apparently, “[t]he shales in Kentucky have much more clay, and that discourages hydrofracking in the state because water makes clay formations swell, inhibiting the release of natural gas.  Instead, Kentucky drillers frack with liquid nitrogen.”

[10]

So, what does this mean for Kentuckians?  One, just because water isn’t used for hydrofracking in Kentucky, doesn’t mean that contaminated water from hydrofracking that occurred elsewhere can’t end up here.  Two, liquid nitrogen may not present water quality issues, but that doesn’t mean liquid nitrogen won’t present other types of environmental issues later on.

[1]

Ian Urbina,

Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers

, THE NEW YORK TIMES, (Feb. 26, 2011) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?pagewanted=all.

[2]

Id

.

[3]

Bill Chameides, Natural Gas, Hydrofracking and Safety: The Three Faces of Fracking Water, THEGREENGROK, (Sept. 20, 2011) http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/frackingwater/.

[4]

Id

.

[5]

Urbina,

supra

note 1.

[6]

Id

.

[7]

M.B. Pescod,

Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture – FAO irrigation and drainage paper 47

, (1992) http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0551E/t0551e05.htm.

[8]

Id

.

[9]

Urbina,

supra

note 1.

[10]

Kristin Tracz,

Hydraulic fracturing rare in Ky., but Appalachian Forum poses questions about regulations and pollution of gas drilling

, APPALACHIAN TRANSITION, (Feb. 24, 2012) http://www.appalachiantransition.net/content/hydraulic-fracturing-rare-ky-appalachian-forum-poses-questions-about-regulation-and-pollutio.

New High Tech Thermostat Promises Energy Cost Savings

By: Toney Robinette, Staff Member

Heating and cooling are very expensive energy expenditures for families.  The thermostat in your home controls around 50% of your energy cost.

[1]

  For colder climates, your heating and cooling costs can be as much as two-thirds of your energy bill.

[2]

  The United States is currently the second largest energy using country in the world,

[3]

and a large part of our energy expenditure comes from heating and cooling.  In addition to a high cost, energy expenditure also has a large environmental impact, and our houses are large contributors.  Home cooling with natural gas causes around 6,400 pounds of CO² emissions, while heating causes 4,200 pounds of CO² emissions,

[4]

and CO² is a major cause of global warming.

[5]

While methods of regulating home heat have been around for a while, they are often too expensive, like new insulation, or are simply unappealing.  However, new technology may be offering us a chance to comfortably and cheaply decrease our home energy spending by up to 25%.  The Nest Thermostat just entered its second iteration, and with it comes the promise of an affordable way to regulate your home energy usage without making a large cash outlay or suffering through the elements.  Nest essentially learns your habits through an algorithm that requires initial manual adjustments. Eventually, the thermostat begins to regulate itself automatically to adjust for when you leave, come home, go to sleep, and wake up.  Through a simple learning algorithm the thermostat can decrease your heating and cooling usage by 26%.

[6]

  While this may sound like the technophilia of Silicon Valley, the Nest may soon become a national phenomenon.  Apple agreed to allow the thermostat to be sold at their stores this month.  They should be starting to sell them immediately.

[7]

[1] 

Heat & Cool Efficiently,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

http://www.energystar.gov/ index.cfm?c=heat_cool.pr_hvac.

[2] 

The Energy Costs of Cooling and Heating a Home,

NPR (Aug. 27, 2007),

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13941744.

[3] 

Personal Energy Meter

,

National Geographic,

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/global-personal-energy-meter/.

[4] 

The Energy Costs of Cooling and Heating a Home

, 

supra

note 2.

[5] 

The Energy Costs of Cooling and Heating a Home

,

supra

note 2.

[6] 

Saving Energy,

Nest

, http://www.nest.com/saving-energy/.

[7] 

Sarah Kessler,

The Nest Thermostat Is Now for Sale at Apple Stores,

Mashable

(May 30, 2012), http://mashable.com/2012/05/30/nest-apple/.

Maximizing the Great Lakes: An International Effort & An Interstate Struggle

By: Jessica Durden, Staff Member

The Great Lakes represent one-fifth of the world’s fresh surface water supply and cover more than 94,000 square miles of water and 10,900 miles of coastline.

[1]

  A resource of that magnitude demands tremendous maintenance, and nations are once again working together to keep the Great Lakes fresh, clean, and useful.  At the same time, however, extreme drought conditions and population growth are putting strains on the supply.

Canada and the United States recently renewed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a joint effort designed to “reduce pollution, cleanse contaminated sites and prevent exotic species invasions.”

[2]

  The Obama administration has requested an additional $300 million for fiscal year 2013.

[3]

  Canada slashed many of its government science divisions, although Canadian officials pledged their commitment to carry the Agreement out to the full at the resigning.

[4]

Just as steps were taken to protect the Lakes, drought and local pollution are forcing communities to request tapping the Lakes.  According to NOAA, 39% of the contiguous U.S. suffered “severe to extreme” drought and 55% felt the effects of “moderate to extreme” drought as of the end of August 2012.

[5]

  In response, Waukesha, Wisconsin, a city just outside the Great Lakes Basin that is plagued by high radium levels, approved a letter of intent to buy water from Oak Creek, a Lake Michigan feeder.

[6]

  If Wisconsin state approves the letter, Waukesha’s plan will have to be submitted to the seven states and two Canadian provinces that signed the Great Lakes Compact in 2008.

[7]

The Great Lakes Compact was designed to protect the Lakes against poaching by the dry western U.S. states, as they are prone to drought but have experienced marked population growth in recent years.

[8]

Although it was signed in 2008, Waukesha’s petition would be the first to challenge the Compact.

[9]

  In light of the obvious pollution concerns the Lakes face, and in light of the extreme demand for clean water in growing communities, Waukesha is poised to set a powerful precedent with their petition.

[10]

  The members of the Compact, in conjunction with their related duties to maintain and treat the Lakes’ pollution problem with state and federal dollars under the Water Quality Agreement, will have to tread carefully in considering the petition.  Granting or denying the petition demands a team-oriented effort spanning state and international borders; given that the Lakes account for 95% of the U.S. water supply,

[11]

the Compact’s decision cannot be regarded lightly.

[1]

Great Lakes Facts and Figures

,

Great Lakes Information Network

, http://www.great-lakes.net/lakes/ref/lakefact.html (last visited Oct. 5, 2012).

[2]

Id.

[3]

Id.

[4]

Id.

[5]

State of the Climate: Drought, August 2012

,

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (

Sept. 17, 2012), http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought/.

[6]

Joe Barrett

,

Great Lakes Compact Faces First Test

,

Wall Street. Journal. (

Oct. 3, 2012), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443493304578034851099308848.html?KEYWORDS=great+lakes+compact+faces+first+struggl.

[7]

Id.

[8]

Id.

[9]

Id.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Great Lakes Inform

ation Network

,

supra

note 1.