Solar Projects on Public Lands: Pros & Cons

Posted by Margaret Collins in GetSolar.Com, Tuesday, March 30th 2010

Recently, a Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) poll asked 500 Americans if they support solar energy development on public lands. 75 percent of respondents said yes, yes they do. The poll excluded from consideration lands that are already earmarked as national parks or nature preserves. What these results indicate is that Americans see the necessity for developing domestic clean energy resources, and believe that solar farms on large tracts of uninhabited, sunny land makes good business sense.



Looking at the numbers can be sobering: in 2008, we imported 57 percent of our petroleum, although we were the third largest crude oil producer in the world (EIA), and while our consumption and petroleum imports continue to rise, our production has been steadily decreasing over time. Turning to domestic renewable energy production is one piece of the energy puzzle moving forward. Solar farms, with their scalable technology and predictable output, are an increasingly attractive investment for energy producers.



But not everyone agrees that using public lands for solar is a good idea, as we’ve discussed before on this blog. If SEIA had taken a wider population sample, they may have discovered that many people object to solar development on public lands because much of the land in question is desert area in the west and southwest: perhaps counter-intuitively, deserts present one of the most delicate natural ecosystems in the country. Conservationists argue that protecting native wildlife and water resources should come first. One project in the spotlight has been BrightSource Energy’s Ivanpah solar plant in the Mojave–conservationists got the developer to scale back the project significantly.



Yet this country has energy needs to meet, and quickly. We’re already making great use of wind and hydroelectric power, and those sectors will also continue to grow. But truly large-scale solar is in some ways in its infancy, and finding large enough tracts of privately held land that are suitable for solar development isn’t easy. So, what do you think? Here are the essential pros and cons of developing solar energy projects on public land.



CONS



Nearby residents don’t like the aesthetics
May endanger delicate ecosystems
Relatively inefficient per acre vs. some other technologies
Puts water use pressure on previously undeveloped land
Red tape hassle: difficult to obtain permitting




PROS

Uses difficult-to-develop land in low population areas
Uses land not earmarked as a natural preserve or national park
Supplies large amounts of clean energy
Consumes less water than traditional power plants
Contributes to energy independence/domestic energy production
Provides federal revenues



Click on title above for original article w/ working links and chart;
http://www.getsolar.com/blog/solar-projects-on-public-lands-pros-cons/5175/

The 87 percent deception: Nevada’s federally managed lands are a political football

By Dennis Myers
dennism@newsreview.com


This article was published on 04.01.10. in NewsReview @; http://www.newsreview.com/reno/content?oid=1397212


-------------------------

Public land in Nevada includes some of the state’s most spectacular and beautiful scenes. This is Mount Fitzgerald in Elko County, named in 1966 for President Kennedy, whose middle name was Fitzgerald. A Mount Kennedy had already been named for him in Canada.

It was St. Patrick’s Day and in Reno, New Yorker John Chachas, running for Nevada’s U.S. senate seat, was being interviewed by Sam Shad on KRNV’s Nevada Newsmakers program. Chachas was finding fault with incumbent Harry Reid’s priorities. He said Reid was focusing on health care instead of the economy.

“Senator Reid has a lot of power as senate majority leader,” Chachas said. “We have a state that’s 87 percent owned by the federal government. … One of the few things Nevada has at its disposal to actually focus on improving its economy is to take back 10 million acres of land, sell the land, split the proceeds with the federal treasury and the Nevada treasury—lord knows we need the money for the Nevada budget as well.”

There it was again—that 87 percent figure, a figure that is used widely and accepted as gospel. A Google search for the phrase “87 percent of Nevada” gets 157,000 hits.

There’s just one problem. According to available records, the last time public lands constituted 87 percent of Nevada was 1948. At that time, there were 62,049,744 acres in the public domain, which was 88.416 percent of the state’s full acreage of 70,178,557.

By 1960 it had dropped below 87 percent to 86.4 percent. Even those figures were inflated because they included tribal lands, which are not public domain. The 1948 figure minus the Native American lands would have been 86.70 percent.

The figure never reached 87 percent again, though it was close. It stayed pretty stable just under 87 until the 1980s when it began steadily declining

The new factor may have been Public Law 96-586, also known as the Santini-Burton Act, enacted in December 1980 under the sponsorship of U.S. Rep. James Santini of Nevada. That law provided for public lands to be sold off and the proceeds to be used in acquiring environmentally sensitive lands. It helped allow Las Vegas to grow and Lake Tahoe to be protected.

The law has since been expanded and there are several other laws providing for the sell-off of public lands—the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998; the Small Tracts Act of 1983; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; and the Townsite Act of 1958.

There are also laws such as the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act that can result in the federal government gaining land, which has resulted in fluctuations in the Nevada figure—sometimes up, sometimes down. But since 1980, the trend has always been downward.

As more ways to transfer or acquire public land came into being, the decline of public lands in Nevada accelerated. By 1990, the public domain in the state was down to 57,803,208.4 acres, or 82.265 percent of Nevada’s total land mass. What the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and ’80s could not accomplish was slowly coming to pass.

But then a stumbling block to keeping track of the trend appeared. The figures here came from a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) report released periodically during much of the second half of the 20th century, which used figures from the General Services Administration (GSA), the federal agency that administers all the buildings, land, public works and so on held by the federal government.

Sometime during the second Bush administration, BLM re-formatted its report and the GSA apparently stopped keeping an inventory of federally managed lands in the states. State reference librarian Mitch Ison, who has tried to nail down an accurate current figure, said, “[U]nfortunately in 2001 the BLM revised its longstanding federal/state lands table … Explanations are provided; however, I still can’t make any sense of the table.”

The GSA did not respond to a request for a current figure. The upshot is that no one, as best we can tell, knows how much public land there is in Nevada now. Many years of land sales and acquisitions have occurred since the last reliable figures were released.

Meanwhile, ol’ 87 keeps rolling along:

State of Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioner/Commission Policy Number 33: “Even though approximately 87 percent of Nevada is public land, access to many, if not most, of the fishable waters of the State is controlled by private land.”

“Nevada Facts” posted on Nevada Legislature website: “87 percent of Nevada’s land area is federally controlled.”

U.S. Justice Department website/District of Nevada page: “Approximately 87 percent of Nevada’s lands are owned and managed by the federal government and its agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Department of Energy, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid news release/June 11, 2009: “As the federal government owns more than 87 percent of Nevada’s land—making it non-taxable—counties rely on PILT [payments in lieu of taxes] money for essential services and improvements.”

University of Nevada, Reno, proposal for shutdown of Department of Animal Biotechnology: “Key elements of the program can be preserved … to fulfill the rangeland management program which is important to ranchers, mines, and agencies responsible for the 87 percent of Nevada land held by the federal government.”

Perhaps Chachas, who spent much of his life in New York, could be forgiven for using the old figure, but should others have known? Former Nevada State Library and Archives assistant administrator Guy Rocha said there have been instances of people who called the state library to check for new figures.

“Some people have actually wanted an updated figure,” he said.

But plenty do not. There are those who have a political stake in keeping the number high, which may be why it has remained one of the state’s most persistent myths.

“It’s a way of characterizing the federal government onerously,” Rocha said. “They don’t want to find a lower figure. Going with low figures doesn’t serve their purpose.”

In September 2001, at the request of U.S. Rep. George Miller of California, the U.S. General Accounting Office—an investigative arm of Congress—reported, “BLM and the Forest Service are both authorized by law to sell land and are directed by law to receive at least fair market value when they do so; BLM has broader authority and has sold much more land. In total, BLM sold about 56,000 acres during fiscal years 1991 through 2000 under three key statutes and received about $74 million.”

A Wikipedia figure demonstrates how easily false information can spread in this computer age. In its main Nevada entry, Wikipedia reports, “Approximately 86 percent of the state’s land is owned by the U.S federal government under various jurisdictions both civilian and military.” It attributes this information to a “Nevada Bureau of Land Management.”

There is no such agency. A writer for the online encyclopedia may have gotten the idea that such an agency existed from a now-defunct link listed as the source for the information. That federal web address link begins “Nv.BLM. …” The author may have extrapolated from that. But as a result of that entry, there are now dozens of websites such as Answers.com and WetlandResearch.com that have lifted the erroneous information from Wikipedia and also attribute it to the same non-existent agency.



http://www.newsreview.com/reno/content?oid=1397212

Turner "Helping Agency," Ranch Manager Says...

CNSNews.com

Don’t ‘Privatize’ the Nation’s Bison, Wildlife Groups Argue
Lawsuit Challenges Bison Transfer to Ted Turner
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
By Matthew Brown, Associated Press


Billings, Mont. (AP) - A coalition of wildlife advocates on Tuesday asked a Montana judge to overturn an agreement that allowed dozens of Yellowstone National Park bison to be transferred onto billionaire Ted Turner's private ranch.

Four wildlife groups that opposed last month's transfer filed a lawsuit in Gallatin County claiming the animals are a public resource that should be shielded from privatization.

Turner has agreed to take care of the animals for five years. In exchange, he gets 75 percent of their offspring, or an estimated 150 animals.

The suit's plaintiffs said the state should either move the animals onto public land or pay Turner to take care of them rather than give up their young as compensation.

"They need to remain in public hands," said plaintiff Glenn Hockett with the Gallatin Wildlife Association. "Paying him by bartering the public's wildlife is a violation of the public trust."

The case will be heard by District Judge Holly Brown.

The state of Montana and the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks were named as defendants. Fish, Wildlife and Parks spokesman Ron Aasheim said Tuesday the transfer of the bison was within the agency's authority.

In 2005 and 2006, the bison now held by Turner were spared from a government slaughter program meant to guard Montana's cattle industry against park bison infected with the disease brucellosis.

The original plan was to use the animals to repopulate public lands in the West with new bison herds. They spent most of the intervening years in a federal-state quarantine facility just outside the park.

Tens of millions of bison once roamed North America, but they were driven to near-extinction in the late 19th century. Yellowstone's 3,000 bison comprise one of the largest remaining populations in the world.

After Montana officials failed to find the quarantined animals a home, the state's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, asked Turner to help.

In February, 87 bison were moved from the quarantine near the park to Turner's Flying D Ranch south of Bozeman. One of the animals, described by Turner representative Russ Miller as a sick, orphaned calf, died after the transfer.

The animals still could be moved onto public lands at some point in the future, although no proposals have been offered. They have repeatedly tested negative for brucellosis, which can cause cattle to abort.

Miller, general manager of Turner Enterprises Inc., was still reviewing the lawsuit and declined to say if Turner would intervene.

"We were in this from the beginning to help out," he said. "We'll rely on the agencies we're trying to help out to sort it out."

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the Western Watersheds Project, Buffalo Field Campaign and Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation.




Original Article; http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/63279

Nevada BLM Seeks RAC Members

Wednesday, March 31, 2010
BLM seeking membership in resource advisory councils

The Bureau of Land Management is seeking to fill five positions on the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council.

Open positions include a representative from organizations associated with energy and mineral development; a representative from a nationally or regionally recognized environmental organization; one representative from a wild horse interest group; one representative of Indian tribes within or adjacent to the area and a representative of state, county, or local elected office.

Nominees must live in Washoe, Humboldt, Pershing, Churchill, Storey, Douglas, Lyon, Mineral and Carson City counties.

Nominations are open until May 10.

The councils help the Bureau carry out its stewardship of 253 million acres of public lands

Completed nominations for the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC positions should be forwarded to Mark Struble, BLM Carson City District Office, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, NV 89701. The phone number is 885-6107. The committee holds meetings in the Carson City and Winnemucca areas.

Individuals may nominate themselves or others to serve on an advisory council. Nominations should be made on the appropriate nomination form, which is available at any BLM office, or on the internet at www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/res/resource_advisory.html. Nominees must be a resident of Nevada. Nominees will be selected on the basis of their training, education, and knowledge of the council's geographical area. Nominees should also demonstrate a commitment to consensus building and collaborative resource decision-making. All nominations must include letters of reference from the represented interests or organizations; a completed nomination form; and any other information that speaks to the nominee's qualifications.

The councils meet several times a year, usually quarterly, and provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM district managers and the state director, on management of the public lands within the council's geographic area. It has been the practice in Nevada to hold one joint meeting of all three Nevada RACs every year.

For questions about the RACs or the application process, or to request a nomination form, contact the district offices listed above, or the Nevada State Office at (775) 861-6588.

Click on title above to the Currier article;
http://www.recordcourier.com/article/20100331/NEWS/100339958/1062

Supreme Court Victory Protects Class Actions

The Supreme Court today decided that state laws barring class actions cannot trump federal court rules allowing them. The case, Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Company, was argued by Public Citizen's Scott Nelson. Today's decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Thomas and Sotomayor, accepted our argument that the federal rules, by their terms, authorize class actions in any case that meets the criteria set by the rules, and conflicting state laws cannot override the federal rules. As the majority opinion put it, federal procedural standards "create a categorical rule entitling a plaintiff whose suit meets the specified criteria to pursue his claim as a class action," and that rule "automatically applies" in all cases in federal court, even if a class action would not be allowed in a similar case brought in a state court.

The case ensures that class actions will be available as a means for redress for plaintiffs advancing claims based on both state and federal substantive law if there is a basis for federal court jurisdiction over the case. Because Congress expanded federal-court jurisdiction over class actions in the so-called "Class Action Fairness Act" (CAFA), state efforts to curtail class actions will not be effective for large numbers of cases over which CAFA provides federal jurisdiction.

This particular case, for example, involves a New York law that says that in New York courts, a class action cannot be maintained to seek "statutory penalties," The plaintiff class in this case sought to recover interest on late-paid insurance claims, as required by a New York statute. If such lawsuits had to be brought on an individual basis, the claims of any one individual would probably not be worth litigating, so New York's rule barring class actions, if it applied, would effectively be the death-knell for the case. But because the case was filed in federal court, where, under today's ruling, the New York class-action ban does not apply, the class may now have an effective remedy for the insurance company's practice of paying claims late without paying the required interest.

Delaware lawyer John Spadaro originally filed the case in federal district court and co-counsel in the Supreme Court.



Click on title above for article w/ working links
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/

From the desk of T. Boone Pickens

Army:

We’ve got their attention and things are starting to move.

President Obama made the announcement this morning that he is in favor of drilling for oil off the shores of parts of the Atlantic Coast from Virginia on south, the Gulf coast of Florida, and Alaska. Why? Because the Administration agrees with us that we have to do what we’ve been saying all along: Anything American to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

I want you to be among the first to see the official statement we put out today so you can be up-to-speed:

“President Obama’s plan to promote more offshore drilling for oil and natural gas is an important step in achieving true energy reform. We should be taking full advantage of every available American resource to help decrease our crippling dependency on foreign oil -- a dependency that is slowing our economic recovery and jeopardizing our homeland security.

“Even if the estimates of the reserves are correct, we are 10 years away from being able to use them. It’s imperative that we promote other immediately available domestic alternatives to solve the national security crisis created by foreign oil dependency.

“Transportation has to lead the way -- it accounts for two-thirds of our oil imports. No energy strategy can be effective unless it promotes the use of domestic natural gas as a transportation fuel alternative to foreign oil/diesel, and the focus has to be on America’s eight million heavy duty vehicles. The NAT GAS Act , a bipartisan bill proposed on both sides of Congress, would advance the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel.”

If you agree with me, please forward this to your friends and family. Let’s keep pushing forward.

-- Boone

_______________
I think Mr. T Bone is confused or mis-informed. The idea is not to break our dependance on foreign oil, ...but to break our dependence on oil PERIOD. Wish he would stick to his wind-farms, solar power, etc. or just about anything "green,," but NOT OIL

Click on title above to see article with clickable links;
http://media.pickensplan.com/email_archive/2010_0331_01_flat.html

Ask CHANS 4 a Study!

Gov Gives Up Grant $$$ for New Studies in Human Effect on Natural Systems!

Why not contact them to ask (politely) for a study on the effects of humans grazing cattle on our public lands!

Coupled Human & Natural Systems;

http://www.chans-net.org/



Click on title above to go to their site;

NSF to Award Study Grants re; Interactions of Human Activity on the Environment

Apparently, they are looking to study how human activity effects the environment and they have several specific focus points including; Pandas and People; Mississippi River Nutrients; Suburbanization Effects; Mediterranean Landscapes; Sea-level Rise and Storms. How about we contact them to ask them PLEASE to study the effects of humans grazing their cattle on our public lands....hummm. Do you think they wll go for that idea? If not, why not? Hummm again. Do I feel a new petition coming on? lol
-----------------

March 31, 2010

How do humans and their environment interact, and how can we use knowledge of these links to adapt to a planet undergoing radical climate and other environmental changes?

To answer these and related questions, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded more than 30 grants to scientists, engineers and educators across the country to study coupled natural and human systems (CNH).

To showcase recent CNH accomplishments and to discuss opportunities for this research in the future, a symposium will take place at NSF on the afternoon of Thursday, April 15, 2010.

Highlighted will be human effects on the Mississippi River; causes and consequences of suburbanization in Boston and other cities; sea-level rise and the changing frequency and severity of storms; landscape dynamics in the Mediterranean; and what pandas, people and policies have to tell us about the complexity of our planet.

The CNH program is supported by NSF's directorates for Geosciences; Biological Sciences; and Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences.

Research conducted with CNH funding is providing a better understanding of natural processes and cycles, and human behavior and decisions and how and where they intersect.

Understanding coupled natural and human systems lies at the heart of the quest for global sustainability, and generates crucial knowledge for solutions to environmental and socioeconomic challenges.

To promote collaborations among CNH projects and to mentor a new generation of interdisciplinary scientists, NSF also supports the International Network of Research on Coupled Human and Natural Systems (CHANS-Net), based at Michigan State University.

What:

Symposium on Frontiers in Research on Coupled Natural and Human Systems


Who:

Scientists conducting research on CNH topics


When:

Thursday, April 15, 2010, 2 p.m. - 5 p.m.


Where:

National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 110, Arlington, VA 22230


Detailed Agenda:


2 p.m. - 2:10 p.m.
Welcome and Introductions


2:10 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Hypoxia and the Mississippi River Basin as a Model System: What are the Key Linkages Governing the Social-Ecological Interface?
Laurie Drinkwater, Cornell University


2:30 p.m. - 2:50 p.m.
Mapping and Modeling the Causes and Consequences of Suburbanization in Boston
Colin Polsky, Clark University


2:50 p.m. - 3:10 p.m.
With Sea-Level Rise and Changing Storms, Humans React To Shoreline Erosion-but Shorelines React Back
Brad Murray, Duke University


3:10 p.m. - 3:25 p.m.
Break


3:25 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.
Coupling the Past, Present and Future of Socio-Ecological Systems: The Mediterranean Landscape Dynamics Project
Michael Barton, Arizona State University


3:45 p.m. - 4:05 p.m.
From Local to Global Coupled Human and Natural Systems: Pandas, People, Policies and Planet
Jianguo (Jack) Liu, Michigan State University


4:05 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Prospects and Opportunities
Open Discussion - All Participants



-NSF-



Media Contacts
Cheryl Dybas, NSF (703) 292-7734 cdybas@nsf.gov


Related Websites
2009 CNH News Release: NSF Awards Grants for Studies of Coupled Natural and Human Systems: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115757
2008 CNH News Release: NSF Awards 10 Grants for Studies of Coupled Natural and Human Systems: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112346
2007 CNH News Release: NSF Awards 12 Grants for Research on Coupled Natural and Human Systems: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110437




The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, its budget is about $6.9 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives over 45,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes over 11,500 new funding awards. NSF also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.

Get News Updates by Email

Useful NSF Web Sites:
NSF Home Page: http://www.nsf.gov
NSF News: http://www.nsf.gov/news/
For the News Media: http://www.nsf.gov/news/newsroom.jsp
Science and Engineering Statistics: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
Awards Searches: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/



Change in land-cover patterns is the subject of CNH-funded research.
Credit and Larger Version


The aftereffects of Hurricane Isabel in 2003 on beachfront property in Rodanthe, N.C.
Credit and Larger Version


CNH researchers are studying landscapes in Spain and elsewhere in the Mediterranean.
Credit and Larger Version


An Illinois river at flood stage, carrying high amounts of nitrate to the Gulf of Mexico.

Click on title above to go to original article w/ working links

Utah Gov Seeks 2 Sue Feds 4 Public Land Under Eminent Domain

Lotsa luck.

Guv supports effort to take on feds over public lands
By Amy Joi O'Donoghue

Deseret News

Published: Monday, March 29, 2010 5:10 p.m. MDT

SALT LAKE CITY — Gov. Gary Herbert has thrown his support behind an effort to take on the federal government over access to public lands.

On Saturday, Herbert signed two bills that passed the Utah Legislature this session. Earlier in the week, he gave his nod during a televised press conference to a possible court battle that critics have said has little chance of success.

The so-called eminent domain measures, promoted by two conservative Utah County lawmakers, direct the state to use the legal strategy to wrest control of lands from the federal government so they can be developed.

Although subject to review and approval each year, the measures provide up to $3 million over a three-year period to pursue the battle supporters hope will be mimicked by other Western states.

Herbert agreed with the legislative sponsors and other supporters that access to school trust lands has proven problematic in some instances because federal agencies won't relinquish control over roads that lead to those lands.

"We need to get a right of way, and so eminent domain, adverse possession would provide access into those trust lands, which could generate millions and millions of dollars for us," Herbert said.

Story continues below

While open to negotiation with federal agencies, Herbert conceded that strategy does not always work.

"When the donkey doesn't move sometimes you need to hit him across the head with a two by four just to get their attention. And sometimes the federal government needs to be brought to attention so we can negotiate and have some discussion."

Despite legal analysis by state attorneys that says the measure would not withstand court scrutiny, private attorney Mike Lee assured legislative committee members during the session that he believes it is a fight worth fighting. Lee is a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate and has argued land-use issues in the courts.

"I cannot rule out the possibility of victory in this case nor can I assure it," Lee told members of a natural resources committee. "I believe we have a good-faith basis for an argument here, an argument the likes of which has yet to be addressed as far as I am able to discern. It is an argument that strikes at the heart of the sovereignty of the state."



http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700020482/Guv-supports-effort-to-take-on-feds-over-public-lands.html

Commentary on Wyomings Plans for Massive Round-Up

From the blog of Kathy Weigand, a photographer who knows these horses up close and personal, comments on the BLMs proposed round-up for 1000 or more wild horses, "to save them from starvation."

Click on title above to go there; http://kathyweigand.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/blm-wants-1000-more-wyoming-mustangs-rounded-up/