The recent upsurge in mass numbers of unexplained bee deaths has stirred debate over what could be causing these incidents around the globe. Some scientists now believe that a specific class of pesticides called neonicotinoids might be to blame. Last December, the European Union enacted a two-year ban on three types of neonicotinoid pesticides in response to the European Food Safety Authority’s report that stated that neonicotinoids pose “high acute risks” to pollinators, likes bees. The U.S. currently has no such ban in place. However, the EPA has expressed similar apprehension over the insecticide’s long-term effects, and certain U.S. cities are currently considering instituting local bans.
Louisville Will Soon See an End of Plastic Bag Usage for Yard Waste Collection
While California is “executing the nation’s first statewide prohibition against grocery stores providing single-use plastic bags,” Jefferson County, Kentucky has adopted a regulation banning the use of most plastic bags for yard waste collection as a means of addressing litter and landfill concerns. On Tuesday, May 6th, 2014 the Louisville and Jefferson County Metro Government Waste Management District’s board voted unanimously (4–0) to approve a regulation banning most plastic bags for yard waste collection. The resolution approved by the waste management board adopted Yard Waste Container Regulation 51.507R, which states, “Containers for the collection of yard waste shall meet the requirements of LMCO Chapter 51.507. As an alternative yard waste may be set out in paper yard waste bags or certified compostable bags meeting ASTM D6400 standards.” In an effort to educate citizens before the regulation becomes effective on January 1, 2015, the Louisville Public Works website provides essential information including the types of acceptable containers, how yard waste will be collected, and links to other useful resources on the subject.
A Win for Workers: The EPA’s Duty to Consider Impacts on Coal Industry’s Employment
Murray Energy Corporation, along with eleven of its subsidiaries located in Kentucky, Illinois, West Virginia, Utah, and Pennsylvania, filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in March, arguing that the EPA has undergone a “war on coal” by increasing regulation of coal production. Recently, the EPA’s motion to dismiss the suit was denied, allowing Murray’s claim to proceed. The Clean Air Act (CAA) allows industry to file suit against the EPA when the challenging industry can allege the EPA failed “to perform any act or duty under [the CAA] which is not discretionary.” Murray claims the EPA failed to fulfill Section 321, which requires the agency to consider regulations’ effects on industry jobs.
Huge Spending But Minimal Return: Tom Steyer Has Little to Show After His $73 Million Investment
A Horse! A Horse! My Fourth Amendment Right for a Horse!
In the recent case of State v. Fessenden, the Supreme Court of Oregon held that a police officer did not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when the officer entered private property, without a warrant, in order to seize an emaciated horse and take it to a veterinarian for treatment. In upholding the two defendants’ convictions for animal abuse and animal neglect, the court concluded that the officer acted lawfully because he had probable cause to believe the crime of animal neglect was occurring and he reasonably believed immediate action was necessary to prevent further harm to the horse. Acting on a call from the two defendants’ neighbor, the officer had observed the horse on the defendant’s property from the driveway, noticing that “the horse's backbone protruded, her withers stood up, her neck was thin, all of her ribs were visible, she had no visible fatty tissue in her shoulders, and she was ‘swaying a little bit.’” Observance of the horse’s condition, partnered with the belief that acquisition of a warrant to enter the defendants’ property would take between four to eight hours, led the officer to exercise no hesitation in entering the property.
Take Nothing but Pictures; Leave Nothing but Your Rights: Proposed USFS Regulations May Violate First Amendment
By: Joseph Brown, Staff Member
The U.S. Forest Service manages hundreds of National Forests and Wilderness Areas, nearly 30% of America’s federal lands.[i] Each year, millions of Americans visit areas under USFS protection to camp, picnic, sightsee, and enjoy nature. However, a new proposed regulation may have a significant impact on those who want to snap pictures in designated wilderness areas.[ii]
The new rule requires a permit for any photography that “uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site’s natural or cultural resources.”[iii] Failure to obtain the proper photography permit could result in up to $1,000 per unpermitted photo.[iv] The proposed rule has provoked an outcry that it would violate the First Amendment.[v]
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski called the regulation “just one example of the kind of federal overreach that comes when we lock up our public lands in wilderness designations.”[vi] Wyoming Senator John Barasso called the rule “a direct violation of Americans’ First Amendment rights.”[vii] In reaction to the uproar, the USFS tried to clarify the rule and pacify public outcry in a news release, promising that “[t]he proposal does not apply to news coverage… [or] gathering information for a news program or documentary”.[viii] USFS Chief Tom Tidwell told the press that the agency “remains committed to the First Amendment.”[ix]
While the Supreme Court has not yet specifically defined the First Amendment protection afforded to certain types of photography, some courts have suggested that private recreational non-communicative photography is not fully protected by the First Amendment.[x] Others have said that photography only falls within the purview of First Amendment protection when it has both a message to be communicated and an audience to receive that message.[xi] Nonetheless, the proposed regulation is not very well taken among the American public.[xii]
[i] General Information About the Forest Service, Wildernes.net, http://www.wilderness.net/forestservice. (last visited Oct. 20, 2014).
[ii] Bill Fink, Don't Take That Photo! The U.S. Forest Service Might Fine You $1,000, Yahoo Travel. (Sept. 26, 2014). https://www.yahoo.com/travel/dont-take-that-picture-the-u-s-forest-service-might-98484656432.html. (last visited Oct. 20, 2014).
[iii] Proposed Directive for Commercial Filming in Wilderness; Special Uses Administration. (proposed Sept. 4, 2014) (to be codified at FSH 2709.11, ch. 40, § 45.1c),https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration#page-52626.
[iv] Fink, supra note 2.
[v] Forest Service clarifies proposal on news photos in wilderness, after First Amendment outcry, FoxNews.com. (Sept. 27, 2014). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/27/forest-service-clarifies-proposal-on-news-photos-in-wilderness-after-first/. (last visited Oct. 20, 2014).
[vi] Id.
[vii] Id.
[viii] U.S. Forest Service News Release (Sept. 25, 2014) http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/us-forest-service-chief-i-will-ensure-first-amendment-upheld-under-agency-commercial. (last visited Oct. 20, 2014).
[ix] Id.
[x] See Larson v. Fort Wayne Police Dept. 825 F. Supp. 2d 965, 980 (N.D. Ind. 2010).
[xi] See Porat v. Lincoln Towers Community Assoc. 464 F.3d 274 (2nd Cir. 2006).
[xii] Scott Martelle, Parsing the Forest Service's (bad) proposed photo regulations, LATimes.com (Sept. 30, 2014) http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-forest-service-parks-photography-first-amendment-20140930-story.html. (last visited Oct. 20, 2014).
A Nuclear Power Plant May be Coming Near You Soon: Governor Beshear Attempts to Lift Thirty Year Ban in Kentucky
By: Ashley Stearns, Staff Member
In 1984, Kentucky banned the construction of nuclear power facilities in the Commonwealth until the Public Service Commission finds that the federal government has identified a means for the disposal of nuclear waste.[i] This ban was a reaction the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania where a partial meltdown became the worst nuclear plant disaster in United States history.[ii] As of today, the United States’ attempts to dispose of high-level nuclear waste have not succeeded. However, there has been a recent push by political leaders in Kentucky to lift the ban in the state and begin development in nuclear energy.
Governor Steve Beshear is one of the leading advocates in lifting the ban in Kentucky. Gov. Beshear is pressing Kentucky legislators to lift the ban so conversations can begin with companies about possibilities in the future for nuclear energy in the state.[iii] During a press conference, Gov. Beshear stated, “Nuclear energy is here to stay in the world, and how we employ it and how we utilize it is going to continue to develop.”[iv] The Kentucky Governor is receiving some supporters for his push to lift the ban, including Representative David Floyd of District Fifty.[v] In support of lifting the ban, Rep. Floyd emphasized the new improvements and developments in nuclear energy in recent years and the high efficiency of producing energy in this manner. [vi]
Conversely, several political leaders and Kentucky groups continue to oppose the idea of allowing nuclear power plants to enter the state. Representative Tom Riner stated that Beshear’s plan to lift the ban is “a huge accident waiting to happen.” [vii] Rep. Riner pointed to disasters such as the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, suggesting natural disasters, mechanical and human failure, and even terrorism make the risk too great. [viii] Furthermore, advocacy groups such as the Kentucky Resources Council strongly oppose Gov. Beshear’s plan for both environmental and safety reasons.[ix]
Though political leaders continue to debate the issue, the risks associated with nuclear energy outweigh the benefits for Kentucky. Since the federal government has not yet found a method to dispose of nuclear waste, Gov. Beshear and his supporters would allow nuclear plants in Kentucky as long as a waste plan is in place in compliance with federal law, such as securing the waste at the power plants.[x] The method of waste-storage presents several homeland security concerns and can pose human and ecological risks for centuries and beyond.[xi] Moreover, the United States has already seen the disasters that nuclear energy may bring. The Three Mile Island accident was attributed to equipment malfunction, design-related problems, and human error, which led to a partial meltdown and releases of radioactivity. [xii] Such issues and unsolved problems with nuclear energy make it clear that this is not something needed in Kentucky and the ban on the construction of power plants in the Commonwealth should remain.
[i] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 278.605 (West 2010).
[ii] Lawrence Smith, Gov. Beshear Supports Lifting Ban on Nuclear Power Plants in KY, WDRB (Aug. 28, 2014, 3:13 PM), http://www.wdrb.com/story/26396259/gov-beshear-supports-lifting-ban-on-nuclear-power-plants-in-ky.
[iii] Erik A. Carlson, Beshear Still Pushing for End to State Ban on Nuclear Energy, BussinessLexington (Sept. 26, 2014), http://bizlex.com/2014/09/beshear-still-pushing-for-end-to-state-ban-on-nuclear-energy/.
[iv] Id.
[v] Smith, supra note ii.
[vi] Id.
[vii] Id.
[viii] Id.
[ix] James Bruggers, Kentucky Might End Nuclear Plant Ban, West Kentucky Journal (Feb. 25, 2008), http://www.westkyjournal.com/news.php?viewStory=287.
[x] Id.
[xi] Tom FitzGerald, KY Bill to Lift Nuclear Power Plant Construction Ban Opposed, OpenNewsNet (Mar. 6, 2008) http://opennewsnet.blogspot.com/2008/03/bill-to-lift-nuclear-power-plant.html.
[xii] Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html (last updated Apr. 25, 2014).
Putting More Green in Your Pocket and in the Ground
San Francisco, California recently became the first city in California to implement a new state law offering a tax break to urban individuals who use their property to grow food. This new state law allows residents to use their urban property to produce food and, in return, the assessed value of their property is lowered, thereby lowering their property tax.
A Different Kind of Green: Economics in the Environmental Debate Over Oregon’s Coal Export Terminal
In August 2014, environmentalists on the western Pacific coast celebrated a “green” victory, as Oregon denied the Australian-based oil and coal company Ambre Energy’s permit application for a coal export terminal, the Morrow Pacific project. Through this operation, Ambre Energy proposed to transport millions of tons of coal, from states such as Wyoming and Montana, down the Columbia River, where it would then be loaded onto ocean vessels and exported to other countries, primarily Asian markets.