October, 08 2009, 04:06pm EDT
Conservationists Call For Continued Protection of Fragile Utah Lands
WASHINGTON
As
the Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management evaluate the impacts
that oil and gas development would have on red rock wilderness lands in Utah,
conservation groups are calling for ongoing protection of these treasured
areas. Following the Bush Administration's attempted last-minute auction
of 77 parcels of lands last year, the courts ruled that BLM did not follow
proper procedures. Today, the DOI received recommendations on the
propriety of the lease sale, including recommendations to improve the decision-making
process. As these recommendations are evaluated, several groups involved in the
lawsuit are working to make sure that these valuable natural resources are
protected.
Today's
announced report follows a decision by federal
district court judge Ricardo Urbina
on January 17, 2009 issuing a temporary restraining order prohibiting BLM from
issuing these leases.
"This
sale was a last minute scheme by political appointees to sell controversial
leases in stunningly beautiful areas right before the clock ran out on the Bush
administration," said Stephen Bloch, Conservation Director for the
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, a group involved in the pending litigation.
"Secretary of the Interior Salazar, together with new BLM leadership, now
has the guidance and details needed to reverse a very bad decision and protect
some of America's most iconic lands, including the White River, Nine Mile
Canyon, and lands close to Arches and Canyonlands National Parks and Dinosaur
National Monument."
Key acknowledgments and recommendations from today's
statements from the Department of the Interior and the report include:
- Mistakes Were Made:
Secretary Salazar acknowledged that there was a "headlong rush" to
sell these 77 leases and that Utah BLM was operating under a misconception that
oil and gas leasing and development should be prioritized. To the
contrary, the Report submitted by Deputy Secretary Hayes and the
Secretary's comments confirm that this is a "new day" for the
management of our public lands and that protecting wildlife, wilderness, and
cultural resources are equally important. The report notes several key
flaws in the Utah resource management plans that made this sale possible. - Air Quality Impacts Must Be Considered:
The report recognized that BLM has simply not done its homework when it comes
to evaluating the impacts of energy development to air quality. The
report correctly notes that BLM needs to work collaboratively with other
federal and state agencies to obtain real data about air quality conditions and
then perform a quantitative review of that data. These are critically important
steps for protecting human health and the health of our natural
environment. - There Are Many Values and Uses Beyond
Oil And Gas; New Guidance Is Needed: The report confirmed that
there is a crucial lack of consistency and coordination in BLM's oil and
gas leasing program and that BLM must take a more proactive role in managing
it. Assistant Secretary Lewis acknowledged that there are a host of important
values and uses of our public lands, of which oil and gas is one. She will be
leading the effort to provide the BLM state and field offices with clear
guidance for how to review nominated leases and how to balance competing
resources like recreation and wildlife with energy development.
The need
for new guidance was underscored by findings in the report that field office
employees believed they were obligated to give greater deference to leasing
than to protection of other uses and that BLM could play a greater role in
controlling the lands and conditions in leasing decisions.
"The
current misunderstandings are a direct result of the Bush
Administration's policies making oil and gas the dominant use on our
public lands and turning over control of leasing to the oil and gas
industry," said Nada Culver, Senior Counsel in The Wilderness
Society's BLM Action Center. "We are heartened so see the
Department of Interior reclaiming its authority and responsibility to manage
these lands for all Americans. We hope that the Secretary will take this
opportunity to protect the irreplaceable wilderness and cultural values of
these places, which overshadow their potential contribution to our nation's
need for fossil fuels."
An
analysis conducted by The Wilderness Society
found that the 77 leases under review would contribute less than 2 days worth
of natural gas and less than 2 hours of oil at current national consumption
levels. Conservationists believe the production results are far outweighed by
the damage these proposed leases could have on public lands and the values from
safeguarding them.
A June 2009 report prepared by Deputy Interior
Secretary David Hayes confirmed that BLM did not follow 'standard
operating procedure' when it rushed ahead with the sale-specifically
it did not consult with the National Park Service before releasing the final
sale list and did not ultimately listen to many concerns raised by NPS or the
Environmental Protection Agency about things like air quality. Today's
report clarifies those previous findings. "We are glad to see that the
interests of the National Park Service, and really of all Americans, in
protecting the experiences and values of our national parks are recognized in
this report," said David Nimkin, Southwest Regional Director of the
National Parks Conservation Association. "We hope to see the Department
of Interior confirm its commitment to honoring the national parks and the Park
Service's expertise in managing them, including by safeguarding them from
damaging oil and gas drilling."
BLM
cannot issue any of the 77 leases without running afoul of Judge Urbina's
decision. Pending litigation continues to focus on the underlying
resource management plans that made the sale possible in the first place.
Judge Urbina said in his January order that the conservation groups had
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the case that BLM's
resource management plans violated the law.
Following
are comments from other conservation groups involved in the pending lawsuit:
"The
77 leases are the tip of the iceberg. We hope that BLM will take the time to
reconsider the legal flaws in the underlying resource management plans as
well," said Robin Cooley, staff attorney with Earthjustice.
"We're pleased to see the BLM reconsider its decision to open
these lands to drilling. Drilling is not appropriate on the pristine public
lands surrounding places like Arches National Park," said Sierra Club
representative Myke Bybee. "We don't need to destroy our natural treasures
with drilling. Instead of increasing our reliance on fossil fuels with more
drilling, we can power America with clean energy that will create jobs and
infuse new life into our economy."
"Stopping
the leasing of these treasured lands to protect them from devastation by oil
and gas companies was the right thing to do," said Amy Mall, Senior
Policy Analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The Department
of Interior should move forward with clean energy solutions that will protect
our pristine wild lands and vital wildlife areas, and cut carbon pollution --
drilling for oil and gas in America's western lands doesn't fit
with that objective."
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular