NCBA, PLC Urge Senate To Stop Federal Land Grab, Protect Private Property Rights

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the Public Lands Council (PLC) are urging the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee to oppose the so-called “Clean Water Restoration Act,” (CWRA) scheduled for markup tomorrow. This dangerous bill would grant the federal government sweeping new regulatory authority, posing serious concerns about government infringement on private-property rights. NCBA and PLC sent the following letter to members of the EPW Committee today: “The Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA), scheduled to be marked-up tomorrow in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, would significantly expand federal jurisdiction over private farms and ranches. This bill amounts to nothing less than a giant federal land grab and would be disastrous to U.S. agriculture. On behalf of the men and woman of America’s farming and ranching community, you must vote against this bill. Anything less is a vote against agriculture. “This bill is unnecessary and unjustifiable, and sets a dangerous precedent towards the continuing erosion of our fundamental constitutional rights as American citizens. No compromise or exemption will cover all of the farms and ranches in the U.S. To fully protect agriculture, the term “navigable” must remain in the Clean Water Act. ..

South Dakota couple files lawsuit against FS for mine destruction

A South Dakota couple today filed a lawsuit against the United States in South Dakota federal district court to recover for the purposeful destruction of the couple’s property by federal employees. Arron and Judy Marston, who own valuable mining claims in Custer County, South Dakota, in the Black Hills, filed their lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which waives federal sovereign immunity for civil wrongs committed by federal agents. In July 2008, the Marstons had filed a FTCA claim alleging that, when U.S. Forest Service employees or their agents entered upon the Marstons’ claims and bulldozed the drift, shaft, and trenches, the U.S. Forest Service engaged in unlawful trespass, negligently destroyed property, and committed a nuisance, as those terms are defined by South Dakota law. In their claim, the Marstons contend that the cost of restoring the drift, shaft, and trenches is $400,185.46. Because the United States took no action on the claim, the Marstons may sue in federal court. “The behavior of employees of the federal government in this matter shocks the conscience,” said William Perry Pendley of Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represents the Marstons. “It is astonishing that Forest Service and its employees believe they may destroy private property.”...MSLF

Judge won't reconsider order on 'roadless rule'

A federal judge in Wyoming won't reconsider his nationwide order blocking a Clinton-era ban on road construction in nearly 60 million acres of national forest. U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer on Monday denied a request from the federal government to reconsider his order last August declaring the so-called "roadless rule" invalid nationwide. Brimmer's is the latest in a series of conflicting court decisions that have put the roadless rule's legal status in doubt. Citing the conflicting court opinions, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack last month issued a directive reinstating the Clinton-era roadless rule for one year. The 2001 rule banned road-building and logging in more than 58 million acres of remote national forests, mostly in the West. Vilsack said last month that his interim directive provided clarity to help protect national forests until the Obama administration develops a long-term roadless policy. The directive gave Vilsack sole decision-making authority over all proposed forest management or road construction projects in designated roadless areas in all states except Idaho. Nevertheless, environmental groups on Tuesday promised to quickly pursue their pending appeal of Brimmer's ruling from last August. Brimmer's ruling ordered a permanent injunction against the federal government's roadless rule in response to a lawsuit filed by the state of Wyoming. Brimmer said the rule was enacted in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act. "By violating NEPA, the USDA and the Forest Service neglected to consider all of the potentially negative environmental impacts the 2001 roadless rule would impose," Brimmer said in his ruling this week...AP

Rep. Lamborn prevents Pinon expansion halt

There was a showdown in the House Armed Services Committee late Tuesday night and Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., prevailed in stopping an amendment that would have shut down the Army's effort to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. Lamborn, a member of the panel, said the committee strongly rejected by a show of hands an amendment that came from Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., that would have stopped the Army from expanding any training area in the future without specific authorization from Congress. The debate came late Tuesday night as the full committee was approving the 2010 Defense Authorization Act, which approves Pentagon programs for the coming year. Lamborn's 5th Congressional District includes Fort Carson and Colorado Springs and he supports expanding Pinon Canyon to provide more training area for Fort Carson soldiers...PuebloChieftain

Salazar eases Piñon stand

U.S. Rep. John Salazar called a truce in the fight over the expansion of the Army's Piñon Canyon training facility Wednesday, saying that he no longer plans to push Congress to enact a permanent ban of the Army's effort. The ban had been Salazar's line in the sand in his fight with the Army over the training facility's expansion, and he said several times that he would get it passed this year. But it was becoming increasingly clear that a permanent ban would be politically tricky, earning withering attacks from Republicans — including the two from Colorado. The Manassa Democrat lost a key vote in a House committee Tuesday night on a related issue, with several fellow Democrats jumping ship. Given that the Army already can't expand without lots of money approved by Congress, Salazar decided there were enough restrictions in place that for now he will no longer push the legislative ban. "At the end of day, we have concluded that Piñon Canyon is off the table for the foreseeable future," said Eric Wortman, Salazar's spokesman, noting that Salazar can continue to deny funding for the expansion through his spot on the House Appropriations Committee...DenverPost

Senator Looks to Lure Army to Texas

It might be a long shot, but U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is working to bring more soldiers to Texas posts -- including Fort Bliss --from as far away as Colorado. Hutchison has her sights on soldiers at Fort Carson, Colo., which has run into problems expanding a training range about 150 miles southeast of the post. The Texas Republican said those soldiers would have the best training available in the Army and could be rapidly deployed overseas from either Fort Bliss or Fort Hood, which is in central Texas. "Fort Carson does not have the training ranges that are easily accessible to keep these troops in good shape," Hutchi son said. She is speaking with top Army officials to try to relocate those soldiers to Texas. But, she said, there is another possibility for sending additional soldiers to Fort Bliss that "has more potential." The Army announced last week it would relocate a 3,800-soldier armored brigade combat team that initially was headed to White Sands Missile Range. White Sands lost the brigade, but Hutchison said it would be appropriate to send it to Fort Bliss...Military.com

If there is plenty of space elsewhere, why are they expanding Fort Carson? As I've posted before, having enough space or land is not their problem:


"The Base Structure Report(pdf) for FY 2008 contains the land profile for the Department of Defense. The introduction to the report states, "The Depart of Defense remains one of the world's largest 'landlords' with a physical plant consisting of more than 545,700 facilities (buildings, structures and linear structures) located on more than 5400 sites, on approximately 30 million acres."

The land profile further refines that to 29.8 million acres owned or controlled by DOD. More than 98% of the land is in the US, with the Army managing 52% and the Air Force 33%.

29.8 million acres equals 46,562.5 square miles. How do you put that in perspective? Let's try this: Of the Thirteen Original Colonies, six of them (Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire & Massachusetts) would fit into the land mass controlled by DOD, with 8359 square miles or 5.3 million acres left over. In other words, you could add another New Jersey.

29.8 million acres and they don't have enough land to practice? They may have a turf problem or a setting of priorities problem, but they don't have a lack of land problem."

End Piñon Canyon expansion plans

The United States Army is not known for accepting defeat, but there is a time and place for everything. And it is past time for the Army to give up its plan to grab thousands of acres of Colorado. The idea was to expand the Army's Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site southeast of Pueblo to accommodate large-unit maneuvers with exercises involving hundreds of tracked vehicles. Conceived at the height of the Cold War, the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site already covers more than 200,000 acres, much of it acquired through eminent domain. The Army's plan was to increase that by more than 400,000 additional acres. (Although opponents claim to have leaked documents saying the real goal is in the millions of acres.)It now seems increasingly certain that is not going to happen. On June 2, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law House Bill 1317. It changed a section of the Colorado Revised Statutes to specifically deny permission for the federal government to acquire any land for Piñon Canyon. Among the bill's sponsors was state Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus. Then Tuesday, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Manassa - whose district includes Durango and Pueblo - announced that an appropriations funding ban that forbids any money being spent on the Piñon Canyon expansion will continue for another year. Some have expressed concern that without the new territory the Army might close Colorado Springs' Fort Carson and leave the state. But the Piñon Canyon site is already one of the military's largest training areas. Where would the Army go? A better question might be to ask if such a facility is really needed given the nature of the enemies facing the United States. Avoiding battle with superior forces is precisely what asymmetrical warfare is all about. And with the United States' advantage in air power and technology, it is likely that U.S. troops will continue to face the kind of tactics they see in Iraq and Afghanistan - not tank battles. There are also numerous environmental objections, as well as complaints from historians and archeologist about ancient artifacts that would be put at risk. But the best reason to drop the Piñon Canyon plan is simple fairness. Absent an obvious and overarching national security need - something not in evidence - the farmers, ranchers and residents of Southeast Colorado simply do not deserve to have their land taken from them. The Army should acknowledge that and move on. DurangoHeraldNews

Global Warming Bill Is A Job-Killer

The party that cares so much about jobs for "working families" sure has a funny way of saving them. Amid pre-summer frosts and hailstorms, the White House this week released a sky-is-falling report on global warming that outdoes even Al Gore in predicting doomsday scenarios. "Heat waves will become more frequent and intense," the report warns, unleashing an apocalypse of "major insect outbreaks" and herbicide-resistant, garden-choking . . . "weeds" (horrors!). "Heat waves" in the Midwest and "extreme heat" in the Northeast will lead to "increases in heat-related deaths." Really? Tell that to berry farmers in Michigan, whose crops have been delayed by a cold snap for the second spring in a row. Or New Englanders, who have seen temperatures drop four degrees below normal. It's all a set-up for a painful government fix. The public duly alarmed, the White House embraces a House bill to control industrial carbon emissions through a punishing cap-and-trade scheme. The Democrats' energy bill would have the effect of de-industrializing America and cost millions of jobs — something its authors, Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, indirectly acknowledge. Buried in the fine print of their jobs-killing bill is a provision to provide relief against massive dislocations. "The Democrats' bill has an unemployment provision that provides 70% of your job benefit for at least three years — in addition to any other unemployment benefits — if you lose your job because of that bill," Rep. Joe Barton, D-Texas, said. "They, at least tacitly, recognize that their bill is going to cost millions and millions of jobs." In other words, the cap on emissions requires a cap on job losses...IBD

DEQ continues issuing permits to coal-bed methane producers using 'flawed' formula

Wyoming environmental regulators are still reviewing an independent report that found flaws in how the state determines pollution limits in certain coal-bed methane discharge water. "We are taking a very serious look at that consultants' report," John Corra, director of the state Department of Environmental Quality, said Tuesday. "It's new information for us, and we want to dig into it. And we're just not ready yet to say much about it." Meantime, the state continues to review and issue water discharge permits that some contend will result in damage to agriculture land. "We haven't seen anything from DEQ other than business as usual, using the same scientifically invalid methodology," said Jill Morrison, an organizer with the Sheridan-based Powder River Basin Resource Council. Corra said his agency eventually will submit comment to the state Environmental Quality Council about the report. The council is accepting public comment until Sept. 30. Some farmers, ranchers and conservation groups contend the state allows coal-bed methane developers to discharge water with too much sodium and salt, which can damage land and vegetation. The issue is important because stricter controls on salt and sodium could force industry to undertake more costly measures in handling the water...AP

Groups revise lawsuit over shale development

A revised lawsuit against the federal government says it failed to adequately consider the potential climate-change implications of designating 2 million acres of public land for possible oil shale development in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. Thirteen conservation groups made the claim this week in an amendment to their previous lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s allocation of lands for potential oil shale and tar sands development in the three states. The groups say studies suggest 10 new coal-fired power plants would be needed to support a level of initial oil shale development that the BLM predicts could reach 1 million barrels a day in Colorado. The amended lawsuit also includes new allegations that the BLM failed to properly consider air-quality impacts and failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as required by the Endangered Species Act. The groups raise the wildlife concern in an amendment to a tandem lawsuit challenging new BLM commercial regulations for oil shale leasing...GrandJunctionDailySentinel

EPA Plan to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Ruin Rural Economy

Last year’s rumors that the Environmental Protection Agency was pursuing a tax on methane “emissions” from U.S. livestock generated a strong outcry among many members of our nation’s agricultural community. While concerns over this direct “cow tax” turned out to be premature, the EPA is now pursuing real regulations that could levy damaging consequences on domestic farmers and ranchers. The EPA’s proposed ruling that greenhouse gas emissions should be regulated under the Clean Air Act as a threat to public health would have a severe impact on all sectors of the American economy, including our heartland: the U.S. agricultural industry. Since methane, a natural byproduct of cattle and other farm animals, is considered a greenhouse gas, this proposed finding would expose America’s ranchers to unprecedented legal liability. Though no longer faced with a direct tax on bovine, local farms and small businesses would likely still suffer a hit to their livelihood, incurring steep costs for assessment and preparation for the threat of livestock litigation. Moreover, farmers would also be liable for crop production emissions such as nitrous oxide from fertilizer, methane from rice production and auto emissions from tractor plowing. This kind of ruinous litigation won’t be aimed at just large commercial operations. In fact, federal researchers from the Department of Agriculture estimate that: Even very small agricultural operations would meet a 100-tons-per-year emissions threshold. For example, dairy facilities with more than 25 cows, beef cattle operations of more than 50 cattle, swine operations with more than 200 hogs, and farms with more than 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit. Should the EPA rule that greenhouse gas emissions are a health hazard, more than just America’s aggies would be affected. Other segments of society such as family-run dry cleaners, diners, cobblers and small businesses would be forced to close their doors when faced with the staggering costs to remediate “damages” caused by years of emissions. Just the threat of defending against such lawsuits would send destructive economic ripples through rural America...RollCall

Song Of The Day #064

Today's Ranch Radio will feature the man with the cleanest name in country music, Ernest Tubb. This song is available on his 5 CD box set Yellow Rose Of Texas.

Here's Ernest singing his 1954 recording of Journey's End.

Billy Byrd does a fine job on this cut too. Nothing Fancy, just...beautiful.

CBO Projects Waxman-Markey Would Cut Cumulative Emissions by Just 0.5% Through 2020

The Waxman-Markey climate bill (HR 2454 or the American Clean Energy and Security Act) would reduce cumulative emissions by just 0.5% between 2012 and 2020 in the sectors of the U.S. economy regulated under the bill's cap and trade program, according to the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the legislation. The CBO analysis is significant in that it is the first published predictions from a government agency about the likely actual impact on U.S. emissions resulting from the version of Waxman-Markey legislation passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee and now heading towards debate on the House floor...BreakthroughInstitute

Breaking Down the Costs of Waxman-Markey Global Warming Legislation

The idea behind cap and trade is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by putting a price on the right to emit carbon and other greenhouse gases on businesses. Because fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide, cap and trade becomes a costly tax on fossil fuels and the energy they generate. Since 85 percent of America’s energy needs come from fossil fuels, cap and trade would be massive tax on energy consumption if enacted. How high a tax? The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent, natural gas prices would increase 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent, and worst of all, electricity prices would jump 90 percent. But the direct tax on household energy use is just the beginning. The energy tax also hits producers. As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, the household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493. But just about everything we produce uses energy. As energy prices increase, those costs will be passed onto the consumer and reflected in the higher prices we pay for products. Higher energy prices also result in a slower economy, which means less production, higher unemployment and reduced income...Heritage

Climate Bill - Rural folks to face higher increase in utility bills than urban dwellers

Now Peterson, who because of his demands has gotten himself face-time with Waxman, Markey and Pelosi, is being approached by Democrats beyond his committee who are eager to take advantage of his access to the top Democrats. “Now an even bigger impediment to the bill than agriculture is the electricity allowances,” Peterson explained on Tuesday, citing another of the measure’s provisions. Peterson said the Waxman-Markey formula for distributing allowances to electricity producers heavily favors populous states over rural ones, meaning rural-state consumers may face a disproportionately high increase on their utility bills compared with consumers in urban areas. “You have certain states that get significantly more allowances than they actually need, and then you get other states that are, like, at 45 percent of what they need,” he said. “This has created a big revolt with the members. I just had probably six or seven of them come up to me — including three committee chairmen — talking about this.” Peterson alluded to the bill’s sponsors, who hail from California and Massachusetts, favoring their regional areas. “It looks to us that they made a deal on the two coasts with the big guys and didn’t think about [farmers and the Midwest],” Peterson said. “So this, I would say right now, is a bigger stumbling block for Waxman than the ag stuff.”...TheHill

Agriculture Showdown to Shape Next-Gen Offsets, Biofuels

Debates over two looming shifts for the role of agriculture in fighting climate change reached a fever pitch this week. The hot topics included key pieces of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, and the U.S. EPA’s proposed changes to the renewable fuel standard, which will set minimum volume requirements for different types of biofuels used in U.S. transportation fuels each year, starting in 2010. The outcome of these debates will go a long way to determine how big a player the agriculture industry will be in upcoming carbon and alternative fuel markets — and offer a glimpse of how the government evaluates politically-charged climate solutions with big lobbying budgets behind them. This week’s battles — in a U.S. EPA hearing, fuel standard workshops, negotiations among legislators and in the flurry of press releases that surrounded it all — represent some of the final showdowns in a high-stakes fight over how first-generation biofuels that use agricultural crops for feedstock and agriculture-based carbon offsets will figure into, and compete, in a rapidly changing market...earth2tech

Making the Case for Climate as a Migration Driver

A new report on human migration and climate change, released as delegates from 182 countries gathered in Bonn over the past two weeks to continue hammering out some preliminary language for a new global climate treaty, made its case plainly: “The impacts of climate change are already causing migration and displacement,” the document began, adding that by midcentury, “the prospects for the scope and scale could vastly exceed anything that has occurred before.” The study, titled “In Search of Shelter” and written by a large cast from several nongovernmental organizations, including the United Nations, CARE International and Columbia University, combined climatological and demographic data with field interviews of migrants already on the move. The aim was to provide an overview, with rich maps and an oft-lacking dose of empiricism, of where the changing environment is driving decision-making on the ground and which areas are likely to be hit hardest if things get worse...NYTimes

Sandor Got Obama’s Nod for Chicago-Style Climate Law

A Brooklyn-born economist who gave up teaching at the University of California at Berkeley in 1973 to trade the first Treasury-bond futures is getting his way with the biggest change in U.S. environmental policy in 20 years. And he has an unwitting ally from Chicago. Legislation to let polluters buy and sell carbon-dioxide emissions like pork bellies is the outgrowth of Richard L. Sandor, founder of the Chicago-based network of people trading pollution permits from Beijing to Brussels known as Climate Exchange. It doesn’t hurt that the six-year-old market got $1.1 million of seed money from the city’s Joyce Foundation, whose board included a little-known state senator named Barack Obama. Now the 44th president is determined to enact America’s first limits on greenhouse gases. That the 67-year-old Sandor finds himself working with Henry Waxman, the California Democrat sponsoring the bill to cap emissions from refiners, utilities and manufacturers, is a belated recognition that Chicago-style pragmatism may prevail in the battle between business and environmentalists...Bloomberg

Government Report Details Climate Impacts

The U.S. government’s newest survey of the impacts of climate change is meant to “educate” the public and policy makers about an issue that keeps slipping down the priority list of most Americans. The new report lays out a detailed picture of the impacts of rising temperatures in the U.S., from rising sea levels that threaten the Southeast, to water shortages that will dessicate the Southwest, to the decline of the maple syrup industry in the Northeast. The upshot? Rising temperatures are indisputable and “primarily” human-induced. Climate change poses all kinds of risks to every aspect of American life, but prompt action to curb the emission of greenhouse-gases could help stave off the worst of the impacts. The report is broken down by impacts to different regions and to different economic sectors, here...WSJ

If You Hug the Trees, Can You Have More Renewable Energy and Protect the Forest?

The role of forests in meeting proposed clean energy mandates has become a sticking point as lawmakers consider broader climate and energy legislation. At issue is a definition of what sources of biomass are "renewable" -- a word that is easy to say but harder to put into practice. Varying interpretations have so far appeared in everything from the tax code to the farm bill. The tension comes from the balancing of interests typical of land-use policy decisions. Without looser restrictions, some fear that renewable fuel and electricity mandates may be harder to meet. That argument is especially strong in the Southeast, which has wide swaths of forests but is poor in other renewable resources like wind and solar. But environmentalists oppose easing restrictions on forests, arguing that natural forest habitats could wind up being harvested or thinned with too much enthusiasm or even undergo wholesale conversion to tree farms. Add into the mix the interests of forest landowners suffering from the economic slump, who need income to justify keeping their lands out of developers' hands, along with those of pulp and paper companies that fear rising raw material prices, and the issue becomes even more muddied...NYTimes