Small potatoes: EPA bullies Idaho landowners

I also found this during my morning news reading:

"When Mike and Chantell Sackett bought a half-acre lot in the Priest Lake area of Idahos Panhandle, their plan was to build a home in which they could raise a family. Four years later, there’s still no house on the lot. What the Sacketts have built instead is a high-stakes legal challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency over its enforcement of the Clean Water Act. After the Sacketts began grading the dirt lot in 2007, the EPA ordered them to stop, saying that their parcel was in fact a federally designated wetland and that by filling it, they had violated the Clean Water Act [even though] the property was sandwiched between two houses in a residentially-zoned neighborhood..." (Washington Times)

In the end, the EPA refused to grant the Sacketts a hearing; the couple is now waiting to hear whether the Supreme court will hear their case. Apparently, this whole thing started when their neighbor decided he didn't want anyone developing the land adjacent to his home, so he alerted the EPA.

Certainly, it makes no sense for the EPA to be so inflexible in enforcing this policy. According to the article, there is no standing water on the property, and therefore the land can't be a wetland if it's not wet. However, rather than railing against the EPA - as ideologically satisfying as that may be in this case - I believe that the real legal case should be against the realtor who sold them this property. The fact that the neighbor knew that the lot was on a federally-protected wetland means that the information was by no means secret. Had the Sacketts known that the land was going to be subject to restrictions on development or humongous fines in the case of development, they likely would have passed on the deal or, at the very least, demanded a significantly reduced price that reflects the loss in value of the land from not being able to develop it. Either the Sackett's are naive or the realtor withheld vital information regarding the property's value.

There are many benefits to suing the realtor rather than the EPA. Precedent is an important concept in law and helps to guide legal decisions in future cases. I imagine a judge would be much more likely to side with the Sacketts against a realtor than the EPA because, in ruling against the EPA, the judge would set a precedent that may make it much more difficult for the EPA to enforce wetlands conservation policy, which is truly valuable to society. Ruling against a realtor, on the other hand, sets a precedent that has unequivocally positive implications for society. By holding the realtor responsible for representing the true value and relating all relevant information of a property, the judge would help to lower transaction costs to homebuyers by increasing transparency in the market for houses (which is critical to maintaining economic efficiency).

In summary, it doesn't make sense to sue the EPA for enforcing the law, as stupid as the law may be. The Sacketts should be suing the bejeesus out of the realtor for not disclosing information vital to the property's value at the time of sale. I would imagine that they'd have a better shot at becoming whole or, at the very least, of a judge actually taking the case.

I know I'm treading on my colleague's turf a little, but there are some good economic reasons for my viewpoint. Maybe he can chime in a little, as this is an interesting case that is not nearly as cut-and-dry as the article would make it seem.

Delicious and Dangerous: The Canada Goose

I'm working on putting together the Jon Huntsman environmental record piece and will hopefully have that up today. In the interim, I thought I'd share more interesting bird-related news.

"New York City is working on plans to capture geese while they are molting and can’t fly in order to ship them to Pennsylvania, where they will be slaughtered and served at food banks. The plan is an attempt to improve air safety that was spurred by the U.S. Airways plane that ended up in the Hudson River after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport when some geese got caught in the engine in 2009." (Care2.com)

If only all invasive species were as delicious and easily-caught as the majestic Canadian goose. Increased air safety and food for the homeless? I'm on board.

Cap-and-tirade: A look at GOP candidates' environmental policy records

It's getting to be that time again -- the time where political adds fill up the airwaves, stirring up the both the thoughtful and primal urges that dwell within all red-blooded, freedom-loving Americans. Where fresh-faced volunteers go door to door soliciting votes, spending weekends sprucing up the local rec center or town hall auditorium with star spangled banners, all in an effort to get 37% of our collective, lazy, entitled rear-ends in the door to elect the man or woman who will steer our country into the next four years.

The TRAIN (Wreck) Act: A Legal Perspective

The TRAIN Act, which is a well-intentioned try to get some regulations out of the way of American business, will do more harm than good. Creeling already outlined his objections to the bill, pointing out its flawed decision-making mechanism. In addition to those flaws, it has legal ramifications as well. As I wrote a few days ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA alone is able to make federal rules about greenhouse gas emissions; so if people who want to sue somebody over greenhouse gasses in federal court they will have to sue the EPA. The TRAIN Act takes away the power of the EPA to do that, leaving the door open for environmental groups to sue utilities directly. This would mean more lawsuits between more parties in more courts across the country. This could result in a mess of differing outcomes in different districts, making it harder for businesses to know exactly what the law is in their area. Leaving these regulations to the EPA means that one agency is responsible for making these decisions, and means that one agency is accountable[1]. If people want to see change in these regulations, they need to work to get like-minded people into the EPA and lobby it to make what they consider the right decision.

---

[1] If there is ever accountability in these agencies, but that’s a different post for a different day.

Mother nature roundly rejects Obama Administration's energy policy

The recent spat of attacks by birds of prey on the country's physical and intellectual energy infrastructure has been recognized by members of the GOP as nature's repudiation of the Obama Administration's energy policy.

"These birds are finally making clear that which we have been saying all along: the expansion of renewable energy, whether in the form of wind power or biofuels, not only kills jobs and raises energy prices, but also threatens natural ecosystems with clear and present danger," said a representative of the Republican National Committee, who is not authorized to speak to the press.

The incidents, which have taken place over the span of several months, have called attention to the environmental effects of U.S. energy policy.

For the past several months, red-tailed hawks have been attacking students and pedestrians near the agronomy and engineering buildings at Purdue University, one of the leading institutions in biofuels research. Director of Grounds Gary Evans warned students, staff, and faculty who frequent the area to "be alert and carry an umbrella, which when opened will provide a shield and deterrent should the hawks swoop down."

More recently, in Missoula, Montana, power to a portion of town was knocked out after a bald eagle dropped a baby fawn on some powerlines. "The symbolism of this event cannot go unheeded," said Andrew Jaeger, spokesperson for Greater Montana Water and Power. "This attack on our small town by the emblem of these United States is a clear rejection of our illogical efforts toward expanding wind power."

Biofuels are responsible for the expansion of agricultural production to lands that were previously retired from farming. This has led to increasing levels of farm chemicals and nutrients in waterways, damaging vital aquatic habitat that raptors rely on for food. Montana currently has nearly 50 wind power projects under development. While a theoretically infinite source of renewable energy, these projects have long been considered dangerous for avian wildlife as well as an expensive eyesore.

The Obama Administration has trumpeted the virtues of renewable energy, including wind power and renewable fuels, since coming into office in 2009. However, Republicans and their backers have provided plenty of resistance to further expansion of renewable energy efforts; a recent defeat of subsidies for ethanol producers shows that Congress - weighted heavily with Republicans following the electoral roundhouse-kick-to-the-face delivered to Obama in the midterm elections of 2010 - is firmly on the side of Mother Nature. However, these efforts may have arrived too late.

"These birds have shown us that we are clearly on the wrong path when it comes to responsible energy policy," stated Edhas Patel, an energy economist with the University of California, Davis. "We need to embrace the fact that we are extremely well-endowed with coal resources which provide cheap energy that does not threaten these birds to nearly the same extent as wind power and biofuels. We need to respect the warning that these creatures are giving us, lest we be left to the wicked devices of our avian overlords."

The Terror Continues

Creeling just pointed out to me that birds of prey have been attacking people at Purdue as well. These attacks cannot go unanswered. If any of you know what a viking shield-wall looks like, I think it's the only defense against these maniacal creatures.

Eagles Attack Montana

I was going to write about the shenanigans the FDA is pulling with the cigarette labels today, and I will get to that. But I think that a bald eagle knocking out a small town's power with a dead fawn is distressing enough to take precedence. This was just a small town in Montana, but what if this was just a practice run? What if armies of eagles start bombarding our power grid with dead baby deer? What if they clog up our hydroelectric dams with cottony-wooly sheep carcasses? What if they start dropping cows into transfer stations to knock them out?

This may just have been an accident, but I fear it is the start of something much darker... We need to start evaluating the ability of a species to wipe out humanity before we protect them.

The Thesis

After months of reading, writing, and 'rithmetic, I have successfully deposited my thesis and have fulfilled my official academic responsibilities to Purdue University. Here's the abstract for those that are interested: 

The nitrogen cascade concept indicates that agriculture serves as a significant link between emissions of the potent greenhouse gas (GHG) nitrous oxide and losses of nitrate to surface waters. Conservation practices have the potential to exploit this link, as their implementation is found to reduce fluxes of GHGs and nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution. Several studies have recognized this link and have documented the potential to improve environmental quality through the use of programs which retire land, the funding for which can be offset by the sale of carbon credits. However, the ability to use land for both agricultural production and environmental conservation is important. As such, this study examines the intensely-farmed Wildcat Creek Watershed in West-Central Indiana to evaluate the potential for implementing agricultural conservation practices to reduce NPS water pollutants and fluxes of GHGs in a working-lands setting. The extent to which carbon pricing can affect practice implementation costs and the optimal distribution of these practices throughout the watershed is also explored.

Results from this study indicate that carbon offsets can sharply reduce conservation practice implementation costs and therefore have the potential to reduce greater amounts of NPS pollution for a given cost of implementation. However, the extent to which various practices can be used to abate NPS pollutants and GHGs is heavily dependent on the implementation period considered. Further, this study found that fertilizer management, which is relatively difficult to enforce in practice, significantly influenced the optimal allocation of practices.

This study provides a novel framework for analyzing the impacts of conservation practices that may prove useful in formulating innovative policy tools aimed at improving environmental quality in multiple environmental media. The findings of this study indicate that the potential exists to use carbon offsets to improve water quality and reduce GHG fluxes in a working-lands setting.

The full text is available on my website for those who are interested in long-winded academic tomes. For the busy scholar on the go, a condensed version that will be presented at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting this July in Pittsburgh is available through U. of Minnesota's AgEcon Search.

Hippies Have to Sue the EPA if They Want to Talk About Greenhouse Gasses

While you, our loyal readers, have read through this blog you may have thought to yourself: “Creeling puts up a lot of interesting stuff regarding economics, but raftercm doesn’t really talk about the law that much. He seems to just put up random articles about stuff he feels like talking about. What a shitty blogger.” Today is the day I redeem myself in your eyes. Instead of just bitching about some environmental group filing a lawsuit, I can tell you about the outcome of a case where an environmental group sued someone.

You are not ready for this, but if you think you are, read on.

Today, in an 8-0 decision[1], the Supreme Court sided with the Obama Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority when it said that the environmental groups could not sue utilities like the TVA claiming they were a nuisance under the federal law. The environmental groups had sued the TVA and other utility companies, claiming that the greenhouse gas emissions from the utilities were a nuisance. The Supreme Court said that Congress had meant to give the ability to regulate greenhouse gasses solely to the EPA, and that if the groups wanted to sue the EPA they could, but they had no claim against the utilities themselves.

I support this decision partly because it helps hold the EPA accountable for the rules it makes regarding greenhouse emissions. If more decisions came out like this and these administrations were held accountable for the decisions they make, it would keep private businesses from being burdened by groups who just seem to enjoy filing lawsuits.

---

[1] “But the Supreme Court has 9 members!” I know that. Justice Sotomayor recused herself from the case. Stop being nit-picky and keep reading.

Agriculture and the Abatement of "Record" CO2 Emissions Levels - Pt. 3

This is the third installment in the series "Agriculture and the Abatement of 'Record' CO2 Emissions Levels." So far, we've looked at the problem -- record emissions levels -- and one (pseudo-)solution: no-till. To recap, no-till may have some promise in allowing agriculture to contribute to the abatement of climate change because carbon offsets may be earned through carbon sequestration. However, the practice is highly problematic for three general reasons: permanence; saturation; and effectiveness. In short, there are a lot of problems with using no-till that may end up limiting its use (or even ability) in reducing fluxes of greenhouse gases.

The practice discussed today is the use of cover crops. Not a lot is "known" about the efficacy of this conservation practice in the sense that not a lot of research has gone into the greenhouse gas effects of planting a cover crop. The little evidence that does exist, however, shows a tremendous amount of promise.