Author: The American Partnership

by

PA’s Impact Fees: Corporations Try to Shift the Burden Onto Someone Else

by Paul Berger
Widener University Environmental Politics and Policy Student

In PA, it is against the law for companies to shift the burden of an impact fee onto the land owners according to act 13. “A producer may not make the fee … an obligation, indebtedness or liability of a landowner, leaseholder or other person in possession of real property, upon which the removal or extraction occurs.” This means that the companies themselves have to pay these impact fees and the landowners dont have to sacrifice any of their royalties to help pay the fee. Some companies, like Chesapeake Energy and Chevron have found ways around the law and are still requiring landowners to partially pay the fee. They put it in their lease with the landowner that “landowners agree that Pennsylvania impact fees would be deducted from their royalty payments in proportion to their interest.” This means that if a landowner is receiving 15% of the profits, they must pay 15% of the impact fee. As of right now, Chesapeake has said that they have not actually made landowners pay the partial fee. They have found other way to charge landowners, like through post-production costs. I honestly think that this was put in their lease so that sometime in the future when the law has settled down and is somewhat forgotten, the companies could bring up the partial fee and make landowners pay for the partial fee because it is in their lease.

by

Utah’s State and Local Governments Deal with National Park Shutdowns

by Emily Bonney

Widener University Political Science Major

The government shutdown is affecting more than the vacationers’ itinerary in Utah as well as several other states hosting National Parks and Monuments. The closing of the parks is affecting the economy, shown by the five counties in Utah that declared a state of emergency for their economies.  Utah Counties threatened to bring some old western posse justice to the federal barricades to dismantle them due to the huge amounts of tourist revenue local towns missed out on during the shutdown. One mayor said their town had lost 40-60% of its business during the park closures. After engaging in discussions to reopen the parks during the shutdown, Utah Governor Herbert decided to staff it with volunteers and pay for the employees out of the State budget until the government reopened to help the communities suffering directly. Utah is paying over $1.5 million to keep them open for a week, which the article says will likely be reimbursed by Congress.

While this article is written about Utah there were several other states that were affected as well. The government shutdown, while now over, had serious repercussions and irreparable losses were made in some towns. Residents that depend on the revenues and Environmentalist groups are disappointed by what happened to the Forests, Parks, and Monuments during the crisis period because while they are a huge source of revenue they are also Wild lands that needed to be taken care of and thought of as more than money makers. Many of these parks bring in valuable resources and revenue to towns for other aspects of their government, like schooling and healthcare in the states. The Federal government did not factor these costs of living when they shut down, and now states are left to pick up the pieces.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interior-allows-almost-a-dozen-iconic-national-parks-to-reopen-with-state-funding/2013/10/11/b010aa82-3296-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

by

Oregon Mileage Tax Bad for Tree-Huggers

by Aubrey Dangelo

Widener University Political Science Major

The government of Oregon is considering the implementation of a new policy that will eliminate its existing gas tax and replace it with a mileage tax. The new tax will no longer charge people based on how much gas they are consuming, but instead on how many miles they drive. The reason they are switching over to this new taxation method is because as cars are being more fuel-efficient, people are driving more miles per gallon of gas and are, effectually, using less gas. Thus, the government of Oregon’s gas tax is generating less tax revenue as cars are becoming more fuel-efficient.

Not having to pay to a tax on gas will eliminate one of the incentives that people have for using more fuel-efficient cars. People who drive gas-guzzlers should have to pay a higher tax to drive because they are having a negative impact on the environment, which is a problem that everyone in the state has to deal with, not just the people who drive the gas-guzzlers.  Under the new tax, anyone driving a car averaging fewer than 20 miles per gallon would pay less money under the mileage tax than the gas tax and could even get a refund. This new policy will therefore be more beneficial to people who drive gas-guzzlers than others who choose to be more environmentally responsible, which I think is a bad move for a state that has been recognized as being one of the most environmentally-friendly in the country.

 

by

Colorado Cities Fight Frackers

by Shana Kessler

Widener University Environmental Politics and Policy Student

Colorado cities are fighting frackers. Boulder, Broomfield, Fort Collins and Lafayette are giving voters the chance to declare a timeout – and in one case even ban new drilling and industry-waste disposal. Colorado has been a battle zone for hashing out the national problem of domestic energy production with an environmentally sustainable future. Interestingly enough, it is companies who are advocating for the banning or prevention of fracking – and they have cited health and environmental concerns as driving forces. People are upset that the state appears to care more about the industry than the citizens, and the local economy of many Colorado cities is dependent on the outdoor settings, clean air, and nature-made tourist attractions.

Colorado’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rules are complex enough, designed to facilitate drilling while protecting the environment. Yet spills occur at a rate of about one per day, and state authorities have yet to complete a human-health or environmental study of impacts. What will the state of Colorado then do? The economic benefits of drilling are huge, and Governor John Hickenlooper is a steady supporter – go figure. Lawsuits have been filed, state v. city, and little progress seems to be made.

Opponents of fracking have raised about $16,000 as they fight for votes in those four cities, and that’s not bad for a grassroots effort. But it pales in comparison to the fundraising done by the pro-fracking sector – which amounts to about $606,205, 99.7% of which came from the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. The campaign’s adviser, former Rep. B.J. Nikkel said she would love to see them beat every ballot initiative as they are bad for cities. Tell that to residents of a state where recent floods spread more than 60,000 gallons of petrochemical-laced fluids from fracking operations into yards, parks, and rivers.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24326054/colorado-oil-and-gas-association-spends-604-583

http://www.denverpost.com/environment/ci_24298280/voters-four-colorado-cities-may-call-timeout-fracking

http://grist.org/news/lawmakers-seek-answers-after-oil-gushes-during-colorado-floods/

by

North Dakota Government Silent on Oil Spill

by Emily Bonney

Widener University Political Science Major

On September 29th, a North Dakota Farmer discovered a large oil spill covering his lands – over 7 acres worth. The crude oil came from an underground pipeline owned by Tesoro Corporation which has the line running from a town close by to Columbus, near the Canadian border.  The issue with this is not the spill itself, but long time between being discovered and officially reported. , but the state waited almost two weeks to let the public know. Since North Dakota is becoming increasingly involved in the oil industry, the article brought to light how the state is handling problems like these that could have serious effects on both the environmental and surrounding communities.

While the spill was contained by a layer of clay underground so no water sources were affected, the article also says that no wildlife or people were harmed by this incident which I find hard to believe. The land is no longer able to be farmed for several years which will affect the farmer in various ways, and in a field of wheat where rodents are known to proliferate, having their habitat destroyed throws off the ecosystem for them and the animals depending on them as a food source. Tesoro’s company will pay for the cleanup and fix the pipe, but the question still remains as to how we are going to prevent more of these spills in the future?

It is highly concerning that the state did not think it necessary to notify the public of this event when the article also reminds us that there had been an oil spill in March one quarter of this size in which people were evacuated for their safety. Government officials are all trying to downplay the situation to make it seem as if it will be okay, but these spills are happening more frequently and there have been no significant policy changed to reflect this. We need to remember that our land is the most important resource we have, and the safety of people is more significant than the delivery of oil.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/nd-farmer-finds-large-oil-spill-while-out-harvesting-wheat-state-waits-12-days-to-disclose-it/2013/10/11/3dfd9256-3233-11e3-ad00-ec4c6b31cbed_story.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwzaxUF0k18

 

by

Obama and Zichal are Never Ever Ever Getting Back Together

by Shana Kessler

Widener University Environmental Politics and Policy Student

From Washington DC (that makes it local, right? Come on, all the cool stories were taken, and with the Federal Government in shutdown it has to count!): President Obama and his chief climate advisor Heather Zichal have called it quits, folks. Try as they might, the White House could not convince Zichal to stick around, and they are never ever ever getting back together. Zichal was the White House official to do much of the President’s heavy lifting n climate policy over the last five years, which doesn’t particularly amount to much but that has no real reflection on her. Zichal was instrumental in developing Obama’s climate plan in 2013, and the new federal standards for fuel efficiency in cars. Zichal’s job mixed outreach with environmentalists, industry and lawmakers in Washington. She helped implement policies and oversaw the administration’s response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Yet the headiness of the role did not come with authority, profile or resources such important work necessitates and deserves. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy said Zichal was extremely influential, and Al Gore even mentioned that it was left to one person to do the work without the authority it back it up.

Is this a nasty break up based on false promises of authority and/or policy? Or is this just the common trend of political figures heading into the private sector? Who’s to blame, Obama or Zichal? One thing is for sure: Obama should be judged by whether he keeps his promises reducing greenhouse gas pollution.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/07/us-usa-climate-zichal-idUSBRE9960Q220131007