Environment Groups Set for New Fight Over Drilling on U.S.-Managed Utah Land

So last month, when the federal Bureau of Land Management announced its intention to open portions of the 2,000-square-mile stretch of central Utah for drilling by private oil and gas companies, conservation groups reacted with alarm.

The debate over the proposed sale of drilling leases has rekindled tensions between those seeking to shield wilderness areas, and the Obama administration, which has come under pressure from oil and gas companies to develop more public lands as it pursues a policy of energy independence.

For nearly 100 years, the bureau has leased tracts of federally managed land to energy companies, which have sought to tap reserves in oil- and gas-rich states like Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. Disputes over the location of the drilling are not uncommon.

But the announcement that dozens of parcels would be auctioned off in the Swell, a largely untouched geologic formation, came as a surprise to environmental groups, who are worried that the administration’s energy strategy is shifting away from its promise to be environmentally sensitive.

“We were very surprised and disappointed to see this turn of events,” said Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “It’s a step backwards. To see a place like the San Rafael Swell be put up on the chopping block makes no sense.”

On Monday, the Utah group, along with several other conservation organizations, filed a formal protest with the bureau, asking that it withdraw 55 of the proposed leases. The groups claimed the bureau had not sufficiently weighed the environmental consequences of opening parts of the Swell for drilling.

Bureau officials say that recent policy changes intended to slow the leasing process now ensure that tracts of land, like those within the Swell, are carefully examined before drilling is allowed. And they have disputed assertions that they are appeasing energy companies, which have been critical of the administration for being too restrictive.

“The B.L.M. is continuing to move towards full implementation of more environmentally responsible approaches to oil and gas development as outlined in our May 2010 leasing reforms,” wrote Celia Boddington, a bureau spokeswoman, in an e-mail. “Nationally, implementation is a work in progress but we are already seeing positive results.”

According to bureau data, formal protests lodged over controversial leases were down, to 317 last year from 1,475 in 2009. Leases are also down. In the 2012 fiscal year, some 1,729 were issued, the fewest in any year for a decade, according to bureau data.

The leasing program has faced less opposition recently than it did during the Bush administration, when conservation organizations were mired in legal battles with the federal government over how tracts of land were sold.

Those disputes boiled over during the end of Mr. Bush’s presidency, when 77 oil and gas leases were sold near Utah’s national parks and recreation areas.

An environmental activist, Tim DeChristopher, went to prison for buying nearly $1.8 million worth of the leases without ever intending to pay.

In 2009, Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, withdrew the leases, saying they had been rushed. A year later, the leasing program was revamped, seeking to better clarify which lands were appropriate for drilling.

Now, after energy companies nominate leases, state bureau offices must undertake a more stringent environmental review and leave more time for public comment before the auctions.

But environmental groups say those changes have been slow to take hold, and that parcels are being put up for lease in areas where they had fended off oil and gas drilling in the past.

In 2012 in Colorado, the bureau offered parcels near Mesa Verde National Park for lease, only to defer them before a February auction this year. A variety of organizations, including the state’s parks and wildlife agency and the National Park Service, raised concerns about the leases. Environmental groups said they expected the land to be proposed for leasing again.

In Utah, which has long been ground zero for the fight over public lands, environmentalists noted that the bureau itself considered some parts of the Swell to have wilderness characteristics.

The area does not, however, have federal protections that would bar drilling altogether. In 2002, Gov. Mike Leavitt suggested that the Bush administration designate a portion of the Swell as a national monument, but changed his mind after local residents opposed the idea.

And there are some who want to see development move forward.

“The environmental groups that are complaining don’t really know where the leases are or don’t care,” said Commissioner Jeff Horrocks of Emery County, who said many in the mineral-rich area felt the Swell could be developed while also preserving the environment.

Cody Stewart, energy adviser to Gov. Gary R. Herbert of Utah, said that Mr. Herbert had no issue with the leases, and that there were other parts of the Swell that better warranted protection.

“We don’t see these leases as in high-priority conservation areas,” he said.

Whether the land ultimately goes to auction, slated for November, is unclear.

Juan Palma, Utah director for the Bureau of Land Management, said the bureau was reviewing concerns about drilling in the Swell.

The bureau recently removed about 1,000 acres from the parcels set aside for auction — though the Utah wilderness group noted that that was only a small portion of the contested leases.

View the original article here

California Takes Steps to Ease Landmark Law Protecting Environment

With the Legislature moving toward adjournment this week, prospects of weakening the law, known as the California Environmental Quality Act, seem stronger than in recent memory, lawmakers said. Mr. Brown called rewriting the law “the Lord’s work,” and the effort has won widespread support from newspaper editorial boards.

Senator Darrell Steinberg, the Democratic leader, said Tuesday that he was confident that his proposed changes to the law would win legislative approval this week and be sent to Mr. Brown.

That said, the changes Mr. Steinberg is championing — which include exempting urban projects from parking and aesthetic reviews, and speeding up the pace of litigation — are considerably short of the broader rollback of environmental reviews sought by business leaders.

And the battle is coming to a head during a time in a legislative session inevitably marked by shifting allegiances and last-minute deal making. Business leaders who once described themselves as hopeful that California would pass major changes to the law are now declaring defeat, abandoning Mr. Steinberg and urging lawmakers to vote against his bill.

“This is not threading the needle,” said Carl Guardino, president and chief executive of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business group. “These are steps backwards.”

The bill is being supported by labor and environmental organizations, two key Democratic constituencies that have historically been fervent supporters of the existing law.

The California Environmental Quality Act requires rigorous reviews of environmental fallout from public and private construction projects, along with detailed plans on how to minimize it. It is repeatedly invoked in lawsuits to block or delay projects.

Mr. Steinberg defended his legislation, which he described as “that sweet spot between those who think the statute is irrevocably broken and those who believe there’s nothing wrong with the statute.”

“A statute that is 40 years old and subject to some legitimate complaints about the ways it’s used in some instance is due for a tuneup,” he said.

That California is considering easing environmental regulations is striking. This state has been identified with some of the most aggressive environmental policies in the country, advanced by Democrats and Republicans.

The law in question was signed by Ronald Reagan, a Republican, when he was governor in 1970.

This year, the state Democratic Party adopted a resolution saying it stood “with the labor and environmental community” in opposing changes to the law. But environmental leaders said they were open to some changes.

“I think the Legislature and the governor are hungry to make some changes,” said Ann Notthoff, the California advocacy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “And I think that’s appropriate. But what we keep seeing from the development community is like they want to gut it or nothing. If they could just resist overreaching, we could actually get some meaningful reform done this year.”

The dispute is the latest chapter in a struggle between business and conservationists that has been fought since the environmental movement came of age in the late 1960s. It is taking place in a state with a rich history of conservationists who have battled to protect its vast tracts of mountains, forests and stunning seashore. Nine of the 59 national parks are in California.

Even Democrats who support environmental regulation say the law has invited abuse. It has allowed rival businesses to threaten environmental lawsuits to block projects by competitors. Business leaders say labor unions typically resort to greenmail, threatening to press for repeated environmental review on pending projects as a way of winning favorable contract provisions.

“Frankly, it’s become a blunt instrument to stop projects by so many different people,” said Bob Huff, the Senate Republican leader. “Labor uses it as a way to get project-labor agreements. Lawyers use it a way to send their kids to college and build vacation homes.”

“The original purpose, which was protecting the environment or at least looking at the impacts and mitigating them, has been treated pretty roughshod,” Mr. Huff said.

Whatever the law’s shortcomings, many Californians credit it with substantial improvements to the environment, and environmental groups have long resisted efforts to rewrite it.

“I don’t think there is any need to substantially change it,” said Kathryn Phillips, director of the Sierra Club of California. Mr. Steinberg’s bill would eliminate the requirement that major urban projects be subject to environmental impact studies focusing on parking and view-blocking, two areas that have typically spurred long bouts of litigation.

At the same time, in a move that many proponents of change viewed as a window into the problems of the existing law, Mr. Steinberg introduced a separate measure that would exempt from environmental review a sports arena for Sacramento that he has championed as part of a campaign to stop the city’s basketball team, the Kings, from moving to Seattle.

Mr. Brown raised concerns about the environmental act as he set the agenda in his State of the State message in January. “Our approach needs to be based more on consistent standards that provide greater certainty and cut needless delays,” he said at the time. In pressing for change, Mr. Brown invoked the frustration he felt as mayor of Oakland in trying to push through construction projects, only to be stymied by the law.

“I think he genuinely wants to see some reform,” Mr. Huff said. “I know he understands the issue, and he is to some degree pushing it along.”

But the governor, whose tenure has been marked by focusing on one or two big battles at a time, has stayed on the sidelines for much of this one. Aides said he might take a more forceful position in the coming days.

Mr. Steinberg said that business groups opposing his bill were being unrealistic.

“This is far from a step backwards,” he said. “They could and should in my view declare victory here. But they developed an expectation that was never realistic and not consistent with what I believe the public policy of the state should be.”

View the original article here