Town Outlaws Fracking, Gets Gripe From Oil and Gas Industry

Longmont, Colorado, became the state's first town to ban hydraulic fracturing, the oil-drilling technique more commonly known as fracking. The town's anti-fracking movement is motivating other cities in similar situations to push for outlaws as well, while the oil and gas industry, on the other hand, is in fierce opposition of such prohibitions and gearing up to file lawsuits against the ban.

According to the EPA, hydraulic fracturing is a well stimulation process that can be used to maximize the extraction of underground resources, such as oil and natural gas. Hydraulic fracturing allows oil or natural gas to move more freely from the rock pores to production wells that bring the oil or gas to the surface as the result of millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals being pumped underground to break apart the rock. The process of hydraulic fracturing begins with building the necessary site infrastructure including well construction. 

The oil and gas industries claim that hydraulic fracking is environmentally safe, but those in opposition, mostly environmentalists and concerned citizens, have raised concerns regarding: 1) related water contamination and air pollution, and 2) the well pads and drilling towers that would sprout up in their communities.

It all started when the Longmont townspeople were informed of plans to construct wells near the town's Union Reservoir and a playground/recreational area within the community. Supporters of the prohibition, however, were not as concerned about climate change and environmental issues, but rather on the principle of "not in my back yard" - commonly abbreviated is NIMBY. 

The oil and gas industries devoted much time and money into suppressing the citizen uprising. The energy industry spent more than $500,000 in mailers and news advertisements claiming that the ban would drive away businesses and lead to expensive court and legal battles. The aim of the opposition was to urge voters to reject the proposal on Election Day.

Despite the opposition, the ban was passed on Election Day, 60 to 40. However, the ban now faces legal scrutiny and fights at all levels of government - very similar to the situation occurring with the passed legalized Marijuana law, also in Colorado.

Colorado Governor John W. Hickenlooper (D) warned Longmont residents prior to the election that the ban will most likely result in a lawsuit from the state. The reason for this is because the state claims that only it has the authority to regulate drilling - not the municipalities. The state already sued the town once over previous city regulations that limited drilling in certain locations, such as those near schools and homes.

The primary lobbying group for the energy industry within the state, The Colorado Oil and Gas Association, had called the ban confrontational and goes against the private property rights of the companies - claiming that they have the legal rights to any and all oil and gas underlying Longmont - despite the fact that many residents may need to hire an eminent domain attorney if their property is ever taken for such a venture.

Hydraulic fracturing throughout the country has allowed drilling companies to unearth large, new reservoirs of oil and natural gas over the past few years. Although the drilling companies oppose such bans, depending on how the Longmont situation unfolds, other cities in similar situations may follow suit.

Landowners sue Nebraska governor over eminent domain use for Keystone XL

A group of landowners in Nebraska is suing their state governor in order to stop the Keystone XL pipeline project, which is being built to transport tar sands petroleum from Alberta to oil refineries in Texas.

Inside Climate News reported this group of landowners, who recently helped stop TransCanada’s plan to build through Nebraska’s environmentally-sensitive Sandhills area, have said the laws upholding pipeline construction are unconstitutional, but state officials are disregarding the suit, saying it should be thrown out because eminent domain lawyer teams representing the landowners have no right to make the challenge.

The group, led by Randy Thompson, Susan Luebbe and Susan Dunavan has challenged Nebraska's controversial "pipeline siting" law by filing a suit against Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, the state treasurer and the director of the Department of Environmental Quality.

According to the landowners, the pipeline siting law, which went into effect last April, allows the oil company and other energy corporations to avoid rigorous environmental assessments by working through the DEQ, and not through the state's Public Service Commission.

While TransCanada's new route avoids the fragile Sandhills ecosystem, but it still crosses the Ogallal aquifer, one of the most important water sources in the state. 

Legal experts say the State Department will have the final say on whether to approve the Keystone XL's northern leg because it crosses a national border, but Nebraska regulators are largely responsible for determining whether the pipeline's route through the state is safe to people and the environment.

The pipeline sitting law also gives Gov. Heineman, who is in complete support of the project, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Nebraska route. The law even lets TransCanada confiscate private land for Keystone XL construction through eminent domain before the project is federally approved. 

In response, the landowners want the law declared unconstitutional for giving the governor "unlawful" authority over pipelines and their private property. But it's still unclear if the case will be allowed to proceed.

Eminent domain attorney teams working on the case from the Nebraska Attorney General's office argued that the suit should be thrown out during a hearing last September. They said landowners have no right to challenge the $2 million pipeline review process because it isn't being funded by taxpayers. 

To this day, the route of the Keystone XL and it’s ultimate fate remain unclear, but judging from the state of the legal battles in Nebraska, it seems clear that governments support the project.

California Lt. Gov. urges fed to probe eminent domain threats

California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom is asking the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate what he calls "threats" against cities in the state that are considering the use of eminent domain laws to revive their struggling housing markets.

Several Golden State communities have been considering the government takeover of underwater mortgages as a solution to the lingering housing crises, a move many eminent domain attorney experts say could work, but a recent report by Reuters said Wall Street investment firms and federal agencies have been bullying California communities that were considering the plan.

The whole idea was proposed by Mortgage Resolution Partners, a San Francisco-based organization run by Steve Gluckstern. Under the plan, local governments would evoke eminent domain laws to seize performing underwater mortgages, restructure the loans and resell them to investors tied to Mortgage Resolution Partners, which would receive a fee for the transaction. 

Apparently, this alternative method of dealing with the housing crisis has upset some big players in the financial world. Newsom sent a letter on Monday to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asking federal prosecutors to investigate any attempts by Wall Street investors and government agencies to "boycott" California communities that are considering such moves.

"I am most disturbed by threats leveled by the mortgage industry and some in the federal government who have coercively urged local governments to reject consideration" of eminent domain," he wrote in a letter.

The epicenter of the debate, San Bernardino County, is located east of Los Angeles, has set up a joint authority that is looking into the idea of using eminent domain to forcibly purchase distressed mortgages. Rather than evict homeowners through foreclosure, the public-private entity would offer residents new mortgages with reduced debts.

Newsom said in the letter on Monday that while he is not endorsing the use of eminent domain at this time, he wants communities in California to be able to "explore every option" for solving their mortgage burdens "without fear of illegal reprisal by the mortgage industry or federal government agencies."

According to eminent domain lawyer professionals, Governments typically use eminent domain to seize properties to build highways and other public projects. The proposal to use it to help distressed homeowners has already rankled some on Wall Street who invest in mortgage-backed securities and the real estate market.

Handling the Effects of Globalization

Globalization, the process of international integration through the world’s markets and businesses, allows many countries to enjoy cheaper goods and services, and a greater variety of products. At the same time it promotes economic growth in both developed and developing countries.. However, at the effects of globalization the gap between the wealth and the poor has become more extreme on a national and international level.

Not only are the workers in poor countries who are being paid low wages at a disadvantage, there are also many people in developed countries who believe that they are being left behind the rich who are capitalizing on low-wage and good markets and selling to developed countries. Now the question becomes how do we handle these issues in our own country and when dealing with others countries?

According to Richard Allen Epstein, an advocate of the roles of an eminent domain and partial taking attorney in the United States, and author of Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain the redistribution of wealth is a proper function of government.

In the United States, for example, the Occupy Wall Street (OSW) is an ongoing protest movement against social and economic inequality, greed, corruption, and the power and control of corporations over the government. The protestor group’s slogan 99% represents the income inequality and the unequal distribution of wealth between the 1% wealthy and the rest of the population--- a pattern that is felt around the globe. While they have an importance cause and take a strong stance, it will take more than protestors to change how the world is currently operating.

To learn more about eminent domain visit this condemnation lawyer website.