Natural Resources


After a student in my Natural Resources Law class read Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976), he alerted me to this article entitled Horse Advocates Pull for Underdogs in Roundups.  If you’re interested in the Property Clause of the U.S. Consitution, animals rights, or the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act, check out the links.

Whenever I hike Kent’s Ledge, I chuckle at the idea of the passage under the highway as a potential wildlife corridor (though no one proclaims it to be one).  But it makes me consider how necessary continuous land segments are to preserving wildlife habitat and biological diversity.  America’s highways not only promote our driving culture and contribute to climate change, but also fragment habitat.  This Times article discuss how roadkill is being used by some to measure the actual deaths of animals on the road and better understand the environmental impacts of roads.

The Chicago River used to flow into Lake Michigan.  But since raw sewage from the City of Chicago flowed into the river and then Lake Michigan, the city’s drinking water was often contaminated.  Thus, in 1892 a major civil engineering project began–reversing the flow of the Chicago River into the Mississippi River by constructing a 28-mile canal to the Des Plaines River which flows into the Mississippi.  Needless to say this did not make the residents of St. Louis happy, who became the recipient of the raw sewage.   Law students and public nuisance buffs know of the Supreme Court case Missouri v. Illinois (200 U.S. 496 (1906)).

While many have suggested that the the flow of the Chicago River be returned to Lake Michigan, now a century later, lame duck Mayor Daley has offered his “heavyweight” support for the idea.  See here.

Betsy Baker has posted an analysis of the Executive Order recently issued by President Obama on Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts and the Great Lakes.  As the blogsite host notes: Betsy’s scholarship includes examinations of proposals for Canadian-US cooperation in maritime issues and the law-science interface in environmental treaties and legislation.  In her guest post, she considers the newly announced U.S. ocean policy in light both of international law and the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico.

Although BP is standing by its claims to fund projects and make payments to victims of the Gulf Oil spill, BP also claims that federal efforts to curb ocean drilling may curb their cash flow making it more difficult to keep its financial promises.  And apparently Gulf drilling is the most lucrative part of BP’s portfolio.  See article here.  So now we have a neverending cycle: drilling caused environmental and economic damage –> need to pay for damage –> need more drilling to pay for damage, which may result in more damage.  Is this always the way for fossil fuel driven projects in America?  We sink money into existing fossil fuel technologies and fossil fuel supporting infrastructure like oil drilling, highways, and cars, and there is less incentive to move to new projects (renewable energy, trains) due to the large amounts already spent on existing infrastructure and technology.  This was certainly the case with the Stimulus Package, which divided money in such as way that the infrastructure of sprawl will persist, and individual energy consumption and the risk of climate change are being hedged against the creation of carbon-free automobile technology that will drive on existing highways, roads and bridges.

Today was the first day of classes at Vermont Law School, and I’m teaching Natural Resoucres Law.  I enjoy teaching this course immensely.  Today we identified three key questions: (1) What is a natural resource?; (2) Who should protect natural resources?; and (3) Why should we protect natural resources?  These are three questions that must be answered to create natural resources law and policy.

One of my favorite parts of the first day of class is asking students, what is a natural resource?  Bison? Cattle? Hamburger? Trees? Lumber?  We have strong viewpoints as to what we should protect as natural resources, but we often give less thought to the cultural, social, artistic, religious, and philsophical reasons for labeling some things as ‘natural resources’ and others not, and, therefore, choosing what deserves protection.

(Of note: It’s also my daughter’s first day of Kindergarten.  I think I’m more nervous about Kindergarten than she is!)

An excerpt from Greenwire:

The Gulf of Mexico’s undersea oil plume is no more.

For nearly a month, scientists sampling the site of a deepwater plume stretching southwest from BP PLC’s failed well in the Gulf have been foiled. Their sensors have gone silent. Where once a vibrant — if diffuse — cloud of oil stretched for miles, 3,600 feet below the surface, there is now only ocean, and what seems to be the debris of a bacterial feeding frenzy.

“For the last three weeks, we haven’t been able to detect the deepwater plume at all,” said Terry Hazen, a microbiologist and oil spill expert at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who has had a clutch of researchers monitoring the Gulf since late May. The disappearance is backed up by government sampling data. The plume is simply gone. And Hazen knows why.

“This all fits with the fact that the bugs have degraded the oil,” he said.

Many are aware of the threat of climate change to polar bears due to melting Arctic sea ice, but Greenwire reports that polar bears are also at risk from chemicals previously frozen within the ice.  The report:

Polar bears are not just facing the threat of climate change. They must also contend with pollutant chemicals that are not breaking down in cold Arctic water, according to a new study.

The study, published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, reports that sea ice is receding and could expose species such as polar bears to organic pollutants, including flame-retardants and materials used in plastics. The chemicals can be locked into ice for decades and released as it melts due to rising temperatures.

“These contaminants are bio-accumulated and bio-magnified up the food chain. So the higher you are, the higher the contaminants,” said Bjørn Munro Jenssen, one of the study’s co-authors.

Munro Jenssen, an eco-toxicologist at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, said polar bears are especially at risk because they eat seals, which can store the chemicals in their fat. According to the study, the chemicals can affect the bears’ immune systems and mimic hormones. Some bears have even changed genders because of the chemicals.

Reports the NY Times here.

We live in Montpelier, Vermont, and my partner is from Peaks Island, Maine.  When traveling between the two, it is clear that we are spoiled by the nature of New England.  From my backyard, I can see Camel’s Hump and the Green Mountains.  Driving east via Route 2, we drive past Groton State Forest, and into New Hampshire’s White Mountain National Forest where we recently saw a large black bear just west of Gorham, NH.  After following the lakes and rivers of Western Maine, we arrive at Portland’s Casco Bay for the ferry to Peaks Island.

Sunset from Peaks Island

Sunset from Peaks Island

« Previous PageNext Page »