After reports (see Sept. 9) in National Review Online, the Los Angeles Times and elsewhere that Army Corps of Engineers levees and other flood-control measures in southern Louisiana were derailed by litigation over environmental impact statements, critics of the projects respond that the measures in question were badly planned, ineffective in addressing flood dangers, and were eventually let drop for good reasons. (G. Tracy Mehan III, “Dam It”, National Review Online, Sept. 12; press release by University of Texas lawprof Thomas A. McGarity of the left-wing Center for Progressive Reform, Sept. 9 (PDF)). Jonathan Adler comments on NRO “The Corner” here and here.
Posts Tagged ‘environment’
Army Corps sued over levee-building
Over the years the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed numerous levee and other public works projects aimed at reducing hurricane dangers to New Orleans and elsewhere in the Mississippi/Missouri river system. Environmental groups have sued, and sued, and sued, and sued, and their lawsuits have often succeeded in stopping these flood-control measures. (John Berlau, “Greens Vs. Levees”, National Review Online, Sept. 8; Michael Tremoglie, “New Orleans: A Green Genocide”, FrontPage, Sept. 8). Plus: Prof. Bainbridge (Sept. 9) has more details and spots a Los Angeles Times article raising the issue (Ralph Vartabedian and Peter Pae, “A Barrier That Could Have Been”, Sept. 9). The article’s summary line: “Congress OKd a project to protect New Orleans 40 years ago, but an environmentalist suit halted it. Some say it could have worked.” More: Sept. 14 (environmentalists and project critics respond).
Why we’re so short of refineries
Adrian Moore explains why no new refineries have been built in the U.S. since 1976, and not for lack of demand (“Katrina Reveals Gas Price Folly”, Orange County Register, Sept. 1, reprinted at Reason Foundation site) (via Instapundit). See Jun. 10, 2004.
RFK Jr. and Katrina
“Military exercises ‘good for endangered species'”
Good news for the U.S. armed services, which have battled for years for the right to go on using training areas like California’s Camp Pendleton in the face of restrictions arising from endangered species law: “Military exercises are boosting biodiversity, according to a study of land used for US training manoeuvres in Germany. Such land has more endangered species than nearby national parks.” (see Aug. 16, 2004)(via A&LDaily).
“Is Housing Too Expensive? Blame the Government”
“Maybe zoning laws are causing the real-estate bubble.” (Steven E. Landsburg, Slate, Jul. 29)(via Realty Baron).
“Fart science”
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, which governs the dirtiest air in the country, is planning expensive regulation of cow flatulence—even though the scientist on whose data they rely, Frank Mitloehner of UC Davis, says that closing every single dairy in the valley would have no effect on smog. (Miguel Bustillo, “In San Joaquin Valley, Cows Pass Cars as Polluters”, LA Times, Aug. 2; Kathleen Hennessey, AP, Jul. 26; Mark Grossi, “Some balk at blaming dairy cows for Valley air pollution”, Fresno Bee, Jul. 15).
A right to water seepage?
Construction is finally approaching on a water conservation project authorized by Congress in 1988, which will line with concrete the All-American Canal, which carries Colorado River water to the Imperial and Coachella valleys in Southern California. The idea is to reduce the currently high rate of seepage into the ground from the canal, thus preserving more water for the intended users. Now, however, Mexican and Californian groups have sued to stop the project, saying their farms and local economies have come to depend on the seepage. They’re throwing in more conventional environmental claims, too, saying endangered species would be harmed by any change in the current arrangements. (Bettina Boxall, “Suit Is Filed Over Plan to Line Canal”, Los Angeles Times, Jul. 20).
Teflon class action
Two Florida law firms are hoping to extract $5 billion from chemicals giant duPont by alleging that it did not inform consumers of dangers of its nonstick coating Teflon. Although there does not seem to be the smallest evidence that any user of kitchen utensils has ever been harmed by the chemicals used to make the coating, attorney Alan Kluger plans to rely on a misrepresentation theory: “I don’t have to prove that it causes cancer,” he said. Another problem with the suit, say the people at duPont, is that although the chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its salts are used in manufacturing Teflon, they are not found in the finished product. Kluger, by contrast, asserts that Teflon “contains” PFOA. (John Heilprin, “DuPont sued over Teflon”, AP/USA Today, Jul. 19; Elizabeth M. Whelan (American Council on Science and Health, “The New Litigation Against Teflon Won’t Stick”, ACSH Health Facts and Fears, Jul. 19). More: and here’s Michael Fumento (“Teflon accusation doesn’t stick”, TownHall.com, Jul. 21).
Landlords liable for permitting smoking?
Anti-smoking activists are crowing over a ruling upholding a Boston landlord’s eviction of tenants for smoking within a rented condominium unit. The court’s ruling itself was not necessarily unreasonable, since other residents had complained about the tenants’ habit and the landlord said he was facing condominium association fines of $75/day if he let it persist. Note, however, the following passage:
In the face of an increasing number of nonsmoking tenants who are willing to assert their rights in multiple-unit dwellings, a growing number of property owners will choose to make their apartments and condos smoke-free, said [landlord Neil] Harwood’s attorney, Peter Brooks, a partner in the Boston office of Chicago’s Seyfarth Shaw.
A new issue is the liability of landlords for allowing smoking in their building and the additional risks they face, Brooks said.
“Those who want to avoid it will turn nonsmoking, not just in an eviction case, but a case against a landlord brought by a nonsmoking tenant.”
And of course GWU lawprof and perennial antipode of this site John Banzhaf gets his say:
“Ten years ago, most people would assume that smoking in one’s own abode — their apartment or condo — would be protected and nothing could be done about it, like the ‘old man in his castle’ idea,” Banzhaf said.
But that concept has been eroded by several cases, Banzhaf noted, including orders prohibiting parents from smoking around their children or foster children, and court rulings that secondhand smoke entering one’s home is actionable if it adversely affects others.
(Stefanie Shaffer, “Mass. Court Upholds Eviction of Condo Tenants for Smoking”, National Law Journal, Jul. 8).