Ecology Law Currents

Geographic Indications as a Tool to Promote Sustainability? Café de Colombia and Tequila Compared

Jennifer Barnette*

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

Geographical indications (GIs) are a type of intellectual property right associated with place-based names. GIs are used to identify products that come from certain regions and have particular characteristics that indicate the product’s quality or reputation (e.g. “Champagne,” “Roquefort”).[1] While GIs are protected by various legal principles and statutes—including sui generis GI laws, trademarks, certification marks, and collective marks—all GIs function to certify that a product possesses certain qualities, is made according to traditional methods, or enjoys a certain reputation due to its geographical origin.[2] While the oldest and most developed systems of GI protection are found in Europe, other developing countries have recently begun implementing GI legislation domestically and seeking protection in international trade agreements, with the goals of promoting rural development and protecting local heritage and the natural environment.[3]

Geographic indications, when managed to support the interests of local farmers, can bring sustainable economic development to developing countries. However, benefits to farmers are eroded when the focus shifts from regional uniqueness to corporate profits. Photo credit to krembo1.

As technological advances in communication and transportation continue to foster international economic transactions, the global distribution of agricultural products has increased competition among developing countries. In our globalized world of industrial agriculture, where large-scale producers from developed countries often benefit from government subsidies, agricultural producers in emerging economies are forced to achieve greater product differentiation to stand out from competitors and position themselves on more profitable market segments.[4] As part of a comprehensive strategy to increase product differentiation and charge higher prices in the international market, GIs offer a promising avenue for enhancing the value of local products.[5] Indeed, GI products tend to have a reputation for higher quality and therefore command a higher price than similar products that lack unique place-based characteristics.[6]

Will the Wilderness Act Be Diluted in Drakes Estero?

Nell Green Nylen, Elisabeth Long, Mary Loum, Heather Welles,
Dan Carlin, Brynn Cook, and Sage Adams*

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

<<< See Update 1, November 29, 2012, Below >>>
<<< See Update 2, December 10, 2012, Below >>>

Introduction and Background

Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC)[1] runs a commercial shellfish farming operation in Drakes Estero, a 2,500-acre network of five finger-like bays that extend into the Point Reyes Peninsula, north of San Francisco, California.[2] In 1976, Congress designated more than 25,000 acres of wilderness and 8,003 acres (including the Estero) of potential wilderness within the Point Reyes National Seashore.[3] This marked the first time Congress used the “potential wilderness” designation, creating a new category for areas that would become full wilderness without further legislative action once temporary uses inconsistent with wilderness values ceased.[4] Since that time, Congress has designated more than 250,000 acres of potential wilderness—referred to in this Article as “congressionally designated potential wilderness areas” (CDPWAs)—associated with twenty-nine different wildernesses in thirteen states.[5] DBOC’s aquaculture business remains the sole nonconforming use preventing Drakes Estero from converting to full wilderness.[6] Its authorization to operate is set to expire before the end of 2012.[7]

Part of the onshore operations of Drakes Bay Oyster Company, which farms nonnative shellfish in Drakes Estero, an area Congress has designated as potential wilderness. Photo credit to Nell Green Nylen.

Acceptability of the Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Program

Eva Lieberherr*

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

“We can’t create water or increase the supply. We can only hold back and redistribute what there is.”[1]

In the last decade, the Deschutes River Basin in Central Oregon has faced growing urbanization, shifting water uses, and increasing ecosystem health concerns. This has led the Oregon Water Resources Department to experiment with a voluntary market-based approach to water management. To meet groundwater demands while maintaining instream flows and upholding prior water allocations, the Oregon Water Resources Department developed the Groundwater Mitigation Program in 2002. A program will be more effective and viable if it is deemed acceptable by its participants. As such, this research focuses on how acceptable the Groundwater Mitigation Program is to its participants.[2] Comparing two hypothetical alternative scenarios to the Groundwater Mitigation Program, I determine acceptability by the following criteria: usability, accountability, enforcement, equity, information dissemination, cost-effectiveness, and utility. The research incorporates a mixed-method approach, conducting interviews and surveys of program participants. Results indicate that although the Groundwater Mitigation Program is more acceptable than the proposed alternatives, a lengthy groundwater permitting process, passive enforcement, and a lack of information nonetheless make the program unfavorable to its participants. Increased awareness could promote acceptance of the Groundwater Mitigation Program, and at the same time, contribute to the effectiveness of the program.

The Deschutes River near Bend, Oregon. Photo credit to MonkeyBoy22.

BP’s Well Evaded Environmental Review: Categorical Exclusion Policy Remains Unchanged

Jaclyn Lopez*

[ Clck Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

Introduction

Sea snot, tar balls, and designated oiled carcass holding locations are just a few of the many appalling and lingering consequences of the failure of BP’s Macondo well in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The catastrophe began on April 20, 2010 when the well’s blowout preventer failed and caused a fiery explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon, the oil rig owned by Transocean and leased and operated by BP. The accident killed eleven rig workers and led to the largest oil spill in American history. Plugging the well took three months plus an additional two months to kill the well. Called an unprecedented environmental disaster by some and the Crime of the Century by others, BP’s oil spill resulted in an estimated total discharge of 4.9 million barrels (205.8 million gallons) of oil, largely unmitigated, into the Gulf of Mexico. While the precise cause of the well’s failure is still unknown, what has become evident is that the drilling plans for BP’s broken well never underwent full environmental review – a review that could have helped prepare the company and local and federal governments for such an eventual catastrophe.

Smoke plumes from spill-response crews gathering and burning oil in the Gulf of Mexico near the site of the leaking Macondo well. Photo taken June 22, 2010. Photo credit to Dr. Oscar Garcia / Florida State University.

A National Injustice: The Federal Government’s Systematic Removal and Eradication of an American Icon

Bruce Wagman[*] & Lisa McCurdy[**]

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

Brutal captures and deaths of American wild horses are occurring on the range. This is not a fictional western gone bad but federal policy. The government tries to justify this cruelty with junk science and is sheltered in its actions by procedural barriers and judicial deference. For nearly four decades, federal contractors have been capturing wild horses and burros across the western United States under the guise of “management” pursuant to the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.[1] The horses are often chased down by helicopters, sometimes for miles through rough terrain in the heat of summer, lassoed, and forced to the ground and then into trailers.

Wild horses are driven down a steep slope by a helicopter during the Twin Peaks Roundup, August 15, 2010. Video credit to Humane Observer.

Promoting the Urban Homestead: Reform of Local Land Use Laws to Allow Microlivestock on Residential Lots

 

Mary Wood, Jeremy Pyle, Naomi Rowden, & Katy Irwin*

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

Introduction

Over the past several decades, Americans have divorced themselves from the ages-old endeavor of growing and harvesting their own food. During this era, the food system has undergone a radical change from its traditional makeup that predominated even just a few generations ago. Today, global distribution systems transport food thousands of miles before it reaches its final destination. While this model provides convenience and selection for consumers, the consolidation and centralization of food production has come at a high price. The U.S. food system is highly polluting, vulnerable to adversity, unsustainable, and, in some cases, unsafe for consumers.[1] For these and other reasons, citizens are increasingly urging their local officials to initiate regulatory and policy changes to encourage local food production on both public and private property. This Article explores some of the law and policy considerations for reforming city codes to allow for “urban homesteading” on residential city lots, focusing in particular on regulations pertaining to husbandry of microlivestock.

Backyard goat.  Photo credit to pinkhippodesign.

Implementing SB 375: Promises and Pitfalls

Heather Haney*

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

Introduction

On September 30, 2008, California passed the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, or SB 375. The legislation was the first in the country to link land use, transportation, and housing planning with global warming. The nation’s attention was once again focused on California’s efforts to address global climate change through innovative regulation.[1] Three years before, the legislature had passed The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or AB 32, which requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels no later than 2020.[2] Since passenger vehicles account for approximately thirty percent of the state’s total emissions and their numbers have increased drastically from 1990 levels,[3] it was generally accepted that without improved land use and transportation policies, California would not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.[4] The general concept is that movement away from low-density suburban “sprawl” and toward higher-density, transit-oriented development that is less dependent on the private automobile would lead to lower GHG emissions.

SB 375 has three goals: (1) to use the regional transportation planning process to help achieve the goals of AB 32; (2) to provide possible streamlining of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures for residential projects, helping achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals; and (3) to coordinate the regional housing needs allocation process with the regional planning process. It builds upon existing regulatory structures and seeks to incentivize more compact development through project funding and process streamlining.

This Article will discuss the legislative history behind SB 375, the current language of the statute, what compromises were made in developing its final language, what potential obstacles may arise in implementing the law, and suggestions on additional legislative and administrative steps that should be taken to practically achieve its goals.

A Framework for Energy Independence via Solar Hosting Farms

Raymond Marshall*

[ jump to end/comments ]
[ download PDF ]

Introduction

Imagine for a moment that you live in an apartment building, rent commercial space in a shopping center, lease office space in a building, own a house in a densely wooded area, or manage a government agency in a building that does not receive much sunlight due to surrounding structures. Now imagine that you want to purchase solar panels and install them on your premises in order to have some degree of energy independence.

The scenarios mentioned above are real-life examples of barriers that make it more difficult for consumers to use solar panels at their home or business. The first three scenarios represent a barrier that is caused by a lack of ownership. Tenants must have a landlord’s permission to install solar panels on the landlord’s property. Even if the landlord were amenable to this arrangement, tenants will likely choose not to install solar panels if they plan to relocate in a few years. The last two scenarios represent another type of barrier: insufficient sunlight for energy generation.

An Argument For Placing Logging Roads Under the NPDES Program

Kevin Boston & Matt Thompson *

[ jump to end/comments ]
[ download PDF ]

Introduction

Recent judicial decisions addressing the impact of forest management on water quality suggest that EPA’s clarification of regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA) may become increasingly important. Courts currently must decide whether water pollution from forest roads and their drainage systems meets the criteria for point source pollution, rendering such sources subject to National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) permit requirements under the CWA. Two federal district courts recently reached conflicting decisions regarding this very issue. In Environmental Protection Information Center v. Pacific Lumber Co. (“EPIC”), the court found that ditches and culverts associated with a forest road drainage system fall within the CWA’s point source category.[1] However, in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown (“NEDC”), a case now on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, another district court reached the opposite conclusion.[2] Differences in the rulings center largely on whether the disputed pollutant—fine sediment generated from forest roads—is discharged into streams naturally or as a result of human activity.[3]

Restoring Public Trust in the Public Lands: An Agenda for the New Administration

Eric Biber, Holly Doremus, Dan Farber, Rick Frank, and Joseph Sax *

[ jump to end/comments ]
[ download PDF ]

Federally-owned and managed public lands occupy approximately thirty percent of the land area of the United States, and anywhere from forty-five percent to over eighty percent of the land area of many of the states of the West, including California.[1] Those federal lands are significant sources of economically important natural resources for the United States, including timber, rangeland, and minerals. In particular, they are an important source of energy resources for the United States, both fossil fuel (oil, natural gas, and coal) and renewable (wind, solar, geothermal).[2] Many communities in the West continue to rely on the extraction of these resources as important components of their economies.

But these lands are not only important for the exploitation of natural resources. They provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for a wide range of Americans, including fishing, backpacking, skiing, and off-road vehicle use. Indeed, those recreational opportunities have become central to the quality of life of many of the residents of rapidly growing Intermountain West cities such as Denver, Salt Lake City, Reno, Boise, and Missoula, and they are a significant reason why so many people have moved to those cities, as well as many rural areas in the West.[3]

A third quality of our public lands system, is the role that federal public lands play as a reserve system: perhaps to an extent unmatched in the rest of the world the federal public lands system protects open space, amazing scenery, functioning ecosystems, wilderness, and endangered species.[4]

Land Use and Climate Change: Is it Time for a National Land Use Policy?

Catherine J. LaCroix *

[ jump to end/comments ]
[ download PDF ]

The immediate and short answer to the question in the title is no. It will never be time for an articulated federal land use policy; the tradition of local control of land use is simply too strong. But consider, for a moment, what this local control policy has produced: a legacy of massive, auto-dependent suburban sprawl nationwide. When we consider that more than one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from transportation[1] and that land use patterns perpetuate auto-dependency,[2] we may find that it is time to raise the question: might there be value in a federal land use policy, set by Congress, to attempt to turn the tide of sprawl? The idea deserves consideration.

Integrating Land Use and Transportation Policy in California: The Legislature's Response

Dave Jones *

[ jump to end/comments ]
[ download PDF ]

The Challenge

Accelerated climate change is the preeminent environmental and economic issue of our time. Unless we change course now, it will be the preeminent issue for the next generations also. Recognizing the situation, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.[1] This law put California at the forefront of taking action to combat global warming by establishing aggressive goals for reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The goal of AB 32 is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. We cannot just slow down the rate at which GHGs are being emitted—we must go further and in effect turn back the clock.