Energy Transfer Partners, the Dallas-based developer of the heavily criticized Dakota Access Pipeline, has filed a massive $1 billion lawsuit against activist groups including Greenpeace, Earth First!, BankTrack, the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand. Energy Transfer claims that by protesting, and encouraging others to protest the pipeline, the actions of the groups “violated federal and state racketeering statutes, defamation, and constituted defamation and tortious interference under North Dakota law.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in North Dakota. Energy Transfer is claiming that the groups embarked on a campaign of misinformation about the pipeline, sparking the drawn-out protests, and funded and supported eco-terrorists. A press release about the lawsuit from Energy Transfer claims:

In addition to its misinformation campaign, the Enterprise directly and indirectly funded eco-terrorists on the ground in North Dakota.  These groups formed their own outlaw camp among peaceful protestors gathered near Lake Oahe, and exploited the peaceful activities of these groups to further the Enterprise’s corrupt agenda by inducing and directing violent and destructive attacks against law enforcement as well as Plaintiffs’ property and personnel.

The Dakota Access pipeline was heavily protested throughout the fall, but ultimately was able to be completed after President Donald Trump signed a presidential memo allowing the massive project. Construction was completed in April 2017. Greenpeace’s response to the recently-filed lawsuit actually pointed out a connection between Trump and Energy Transfer–the developers are being represented by Marc Kasowitz’s law firm. Kasowitz is one of Trump’s personal lawyers. Greenpeace USA General Counsel Tom Wetterer released a statement that included: “It is yet another classic ‘Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation’ (SLAPP), not designed to seek justice, but to silence free speech through expensive, time-consuming litigation. This has now become a pattern of harassment by corporate bullies, with Trump’s attorneys leading the way.”

Representatives from other groups named in the suit, including the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand, dispute the allegations and say they still oppose the pipeline.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dakota Access Pipeline Developer Sues Greenpeace, Other Activist Groups appeared first on Law Street.

From a Pennsylvania prison’s mistreatment of mentally ill prisoners to prisons in Tennessee offering inmates 30 days off their sentences in exchange for undergoing birth control procedures, the United States prison system has a demonstrated history of subjecting inmates to substandard conditions. With a criminal justice system that has touted the “tough on crime” mantra, U.S. prisons have largely failed to rehabilitate inmates and prepare them for re-entry into society.

The U.S. has one of the highest recidivism rates in the world with 76.6 percent of prisoners rearrested within five years of their release. At 20 percent, Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. In an effort to curb some of the issues within their state’s criminal justice system, prison officials in North Dakota took a page out of Norway’s book to make prisons more humane. Leann Bertsch, director of North Dakota’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and one of her deputies, Karianne Jackson, ventured to Norway’s Halden and Bastøy prisons in 2015 to study how the inmates are treated.

Halden Prison is a maximum-security facility about 60 miles south of Oslo, Norway’s capital. Yet Halden stands in stark contrast to the high-security prisons found in the U.S. Halden, which Time named “The World’s Most Humane Prison,” houses its prisoners in private rooms that look more like college dorm rooms than the stereotypical prison cell or common sleeping area. The prison is outfitted with colorful interior decor, athletic facilities, a recording studio, and outdoor trails and seating areas, according to Time.

The Halden and Bastøy prisons were both featured in Michael Moore’s 2015 documentary film “Where to Invade Next.” At Bastøy, prisoners dress in regular clothes, stay in private rooms with their own key, and even work in a kitchen which–as Moore points out–is equipped with sharp knives. Yet it’s this culture of compassion, trust, and humanity that keeps Bastøy running. And if you weren’t yet convinced that Halden is about as close to paradise as prisons get, its orientation video features the prison guards singing a rendition of “We Are The World.”

After returning from Norway, Bertsch and Jackson took the lessons they learned at Halden and Bastøy and began implementing them at North Dakota’s Missouri River Correctional Center, nicknamed “The Farm.” At The Farm, prisoners are now housed in communal rooms with eight to 16 men, according to Mother Jones. They’re not the “interior design magazine” level of stylish that Bertsch and Jackson visited in the Norway prisons, but they’re certainly an improvement on traditional prison sleeping quarters. Plus, if an inmate is close to his release date and has proven good behavior, he can obtain a private room which shares a bathroom with only one other room.

Before Bertsch and Jackson’s trip, the state penitentiary’s administrative segregation unit was rampant with rules that placed prisoners in solitary confinement instead of addressing their behavior in a constructive manner. Now, only inmates who endanger somebody will end up in solitary, and the maximum time they can be held there has been shortened. Prisoners who have been isolated for long periods of time undergo behavioral therapy before they re-join the general prison population, giving them time to acclimate, according to Mother Jones. Another change was an effort to foster stronger relationships among guards and prisoners. Guards in the segregation unit are required to have at least two conversations with each inmate under their supervision per shift. Prisoners gather in sweat lodges and play handball outside on the court to build their relationships with one another, and seek on-site and off-site jobs to further their employment prospects once they are released.

If North Dakota, as a red state, can start taking steps to reform its prison system in a way that is actually beneficial to its inmates, then surely the rest of the country can too, right? Well, it might not be so easy. Shortly after being confirmed as Attorney General, Jeff Sessions doubled down on the use of private prisons despite several officials’ statements that private prisons put profits before the lives of inmates.

Likewise, the U.S. prison system has become increasingly overcrowded which is, in part, the result of convictions for nonviolent drug offenders instead of providing those individuals with treatment. That “tough on drugs” stance is likely to continue under Sessions. Sessions praised the anti-drug campaign Drug Abuse Resistance Education, more often referred to as DARE, at a DARE training conference in Texas on July 11, despite an abundance of research that has shown the program has been ineffective and may have even had a negative impact on substance abuse.

Providing substance abuse treatment instead of prison sentences to drug offenders would be in line with similar programs in Norway and could be a step toward reducing prison overcrowding, but it’s certainly not a magic bullet. The U.S. prison system also needs to focus on ways of rehabilitating violent offenders, reducing exorbitant sentences, and address the racial biases within the criminal justice system that disproportionately and negatively impact people of color.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Dakota Looks to Norway for Inspiration to Make Prisons More Humane appeared first on Law Street.

After almost a year of protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline, demonstrators at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation went out in a literal blaze of glory Wednesday. Most of the occupants cleared the main protest camp ahead of a government-ordered 2 p.m. deadline, but not before first setting fire to their tents as part of an exit ceremony.

A handful of occupants remained on the grounds in a final act of defiance. Authorities arrested 10 people for not complying with evacuation orders, while a seven-year-old boy and 17-year-old girl at the site were hospitalized for burns.

The protest site in Cannon Ball, North Dakota resides close to where the government plans to build a 1,172-mile pipeline to transport crude oil through the Dakotas and Iowa to Illinois. The cause united environmentalists attempting to hinder the transportation of fossil fuels and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe who opposes the pipeline over concerns that it will destroy sacred sites and contaminate their drinking water.

Months of Pipeline Opposition

Over the summer, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, arguing that it did not properly consult the tribe beforehand and violated the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. 

A judge later denied the injunction request in September. This prompted the company building the pipeline to counter sue the tribe for interfering with construction. Small protests at the designated pipeline locations began to expand in August following the countersuit.

In the fall, Standing Rock began to attract national attention as confrontations between demonstrators–who call themselves water protectors–and private security guards became violent. Protesters reported being pepper sprayed and bitten by security dogs, and a few officers also said they had been injured. 

In late October, military personnel and police in riot gear attempted to force protesters out of an encampment by using pepper-spray and firing beanbag rounds at the crowds. According to authorities, the protesters were attacking officers with firebombs and debris.

Social Media Intervenes and Tensions Escalate

News about the movement spread on social media as Facebook users from across the country “checked in” at Standing Rock to prevent police from finding protesters online (although the effectiveness of this effort was unclear) and show solidarity with those present at the site.

Tensions escalated even more the following month when authorities shot rubber bullets at demonstrators who had been praying, and sprayed water cannons on crowds right before Thanksgiving weekend as temperatures dropped below freezing.

Temporary Reprieve

Protesters achieved a temporary victory in December when the Obama administration and the Army announced that they would suspend work on the project and consider “alternative routes for the pipeline crossing.”

However, President Donald Trump made the decision to move forward with building the pipeline just a few days into his presidency, which brings us to today. Protesters were told to evacuate by Wednesday because of expected floods at the site. The state of North Dakota offered shelter and bus tickets to those exiting the campground.

But the protests aren’t over yet–the movement will just take place elsewhere. In March, a group of activists are planning to march on Washington, D.C. for four days, where they will set up a prayer camp on the National Mall.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters Leave Campsite Before Evacuation Deadline appeared first on Law Street.

A coalition of environmental groups from around the world sent a letter on Monday to banks that have loaned, collectively, $2.5 billion to help finance the polarizing Dakota Access pipeline. Johan Frijns, Director of the Netherlands-based group BankTrack, wrote the letter, which was signed by 25 other organizations spanning all corners of the globe, from China to Australia, and the U.S. to Germany.

“The world is closely watching how all actors involved will deal with the situation, including the banks that provide financial support to the project,” Frijns wrote. The letter was addressed to Nigel Beck, Chair of the Equator Principles Association, a consortium of investors that includes some of the biggest financiers of the pipeline: Citigroup, Wells Fargo, TD Bank, and Mizuho.

Included in the letter are requests for the banks to chew on during their annual meeting in London on Monday and Tuesday. “All further loan disbursements to the project are put on hold,” the letter says, adding the groups expect an “immediate halt to the construction of the pipeline and all associated structures, until all outstanding issues are resolved to the full satisfaction of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.”

The letter is the latest protest against the pipeline, which has been a lightning rod for activists and members of Native American communities (and social media) since August. If completed, the pipeline would run from the northwest tip of North Dakota to Illinois, sending nearly half a million barrels of crude oil every day through its 1,172-mile route. It snakes through sacred Sioux lands, and some argue it threatens local water sources and can pollute the air. Supporters of the pipeline say it will bring thousands of local jobs, and is a cleaner way of transporting petroleum than any alternatives.

Over 100 people have been arrested–including journalists–as police and state troopers from around the country have struggled to combat vast crowds, sometimes resorting to rubber bullets and pepper spray to kick people off the land, which is owned by Energy Transfer Partners, the beneficiary of the banks addressed in the environmental group’s letter.

Environmental groups have had some successes in past battles with banks. Over the last two years, several international banks–Barclays, Deutsche Bank, and ING–have pulled out of projects involving mountaintop removal mining, a practice that is potentially damaging to the environment, after facing pressure from environmental groups. Last week, amid the growing national and international outcry, President Obama said the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal body that approved the project, is considering an alternative route.

“We are going to let it play out for several more weeks and determine whether or not this can be resolved in a way that I think is properly attentive to the traditions of the first Americans,” Obama said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Global Environmental Groups Band Together to Oppose Dakota Access Pipeline appeared first on Law Street.

Protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota turned violent over the weekend, with Native American protesters from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe facing off against security staff from the oil company building the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners. Now, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says it does not oppose a temporary break in the construction.

When the protesters approached construction workers on Saturday, security guards unleashed dogs on them. Six people were bitten, including a young child, according to Standing Rock Sioux Tribe spokesman Steve Sitting Bear. He also said at least 30 people were pepper-sprayed. The spokeswoman for the Morton County Sheriff’s Office, Donnell Presky, said they didn’t have any records of protesters being injured, but that four security guards and two dogs received injuries. She also said the Energy Transfer Partner’s helicopter filmed the protests and handed the footage over to the police.

Pictures on social media do indicate injuries for the American Indian protesters.

Guard dogs & pepper spray were used on #NoDAPL activists resisting construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline. pic.twitter.com/siJSXL8AUr

— AJ+ (@ajplus) September 5, 2016

Democracy Now! documented some of the clashes.

The pipeline is estimated to cost $3.8 billion and run through four states. The tribe filed a complaint earlier this summer since it believed the Army Corps didn’t follow proper procedure when it approved Energy Transfer Partners to start building the pipeline. The tribe said the construction would destroy sacred places and burial grounds, and may affect the drinking water in the community.

After the construction started anyways and resulted in violence on Saturday, the tribe filed an emergency motion on Sunday, in which its representative Tim Mentz Sr., wrote that the construction team seemed to have targeted the burial grounds on purpose, starting the digging right where he had asked them not to. This happened even though the actual construction work was going on 20 miles away. He also described the guards with dogs and a helicopter accompanying the digging, as if they expected protests and controversy.

The Army Corps replied to the tribe’s motion by saying it does not oppose a halt in the construction, since the tribe is unlikely to succeed with its lawsuit. However, it did acknowledge that the protests during Labor Day weekend were violent and that it would be in the public interest to preserve peace. According to NPR, it said:

The Corps acknowledges that the public interest would be served by preserving peace near Lake Oahe until the Court can render its well-considered opinion on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Corps therefore does not oppose this short and discrete temporary restraining order.

On the energy company’s website it says it would listen to the opinions of locals to minimize disruptions of the land:

We will listen to and address questions from the community, landowners and other interested stakeholders about the project, proposed routes, landowner communications and more. It is our intent to live up to our promises of openness, honesty and responsiveness before, during and after construction and throughout operations.

The opposite seems to be true when it comes to the Sioux Tribe. But hopefully peace will be maintained during the interruption to construction.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Temporary Halt to Dakota Access Pipeline After Protests Turn Violent appeared first on Law Street.

This week, let’s venture to some northern states to see what entertainment they can provide with their dumbest laws. I’ll begin with North Dakota, a state famous for Fargo–both the city and the Coen Brothers’ film–and as a favorite spot for Lewis and Clark. North Dakota must love dry peas and lentils, as it decided to make a state version of the national Dry Pea and Lentil Council. North Dakota decreed, furthermore, that all members of the council be North Dakota citizens. In Devil’s Lake, New Year’s Eve celebrations had better not include a fireworks show, as shooting them off after 11:00pm is illegal.

South Dakota has even fewer verifiable dumb laws than its counterpart. Many websites claim that a law exists requiring horses to wear pants when entering the Fountain Inn. I couldn’t find anything to back this up, which is unfortunate because that would be rather hilarious.

As someone who has witnessed the terrors of Minnesota mosquitoes first hand, I am not the slightest bit surprised that the state has officially declared the insect to be a public nuisance. Specifically, the law states that “the abatement or suppression of mosquitoes of any kind, whether disease bearing or merely pestiferous, within any or all areas of the state, is advisable and necessary for the maintenance and betterment of the health, welfare and prosperity of the people.” Good riddance!

In Minnesota, always make sure you have a specific purpose before standing around in a certain location. It is illegal there to stand around any building without a good reason to be there. That law makes me wonder what exactly constitutes a good reason. What if you are waiting for a friend? Observing the architecture of the building?

There are many city-specific stupid laws in Minnesota. In Cottage Grove, one may not land an airplane, hot air balloon, or other similar craft in a city park. Makes sense. We wouldn’t want any accidents between planes and park-goers! Residents of Cottage Grove may have a hard time figuring out when to water their lawns. Here’s some insight: “residents of even numbered addresses may not water their plants on odd-numbered days excluding the thirty-first day where it applies.”

If you and your friends are considering taking an alleyway as a shortcut in Minneapolis, think again. There, alleyways may not be used by pedestrian traffic.

Minnetonka lawmakers must like the phrase “public nuisance,” as both driving with dirty tires and placing tacks on the sidewalk are considered to be such. I can’t even imagine how hard they would throw the book at individuals throwing tacks onto a sidewalk from the window of a car with dirty tires.

Last but certainly not least for this post: Wisconsin.

Wisconsin residents like to know what they are consuming in restaurants, and the law makes it easy for that to occur, at least when it comes to butter. In fact, at one point, margarine was illegal in the Badger State. Now margarine can only be used in place of butter if it is specifically requested by the customer. Wisconsin is seriously obsessed with butter–in prisons statewide, only the real thing may be served.

Camping in a wagon on a public highway is illegal in Wisconsin, but if you really have a hankering to do so, don’t fret too much as the fine is only ten dollars. If you do see livestock while on the highway, however, be sure to yield as livestock have the right of way on all public roads across the state.

Up next are Missouri and Illinois, so stay tuned for more dumb laws!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws in the United States: Dakotas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin appeared first on Law Street.

One of the arguments in favor of hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is that it has largely enabled the recent oil boom in the United States. Vast stores of shale oil and natural gas are now accessible in large quantities and in short spans of time. Prices at the pump and dependence on the Middle East and OPEC are both down, and domestic industries are up. Yet the key concept in the term “boom” is that it is temporary; the United States must realize that, as with any nonrenewable resource, reservoirs will eventually deplete and we will be back to square one. In the meantime, a vast web of pipelines is being constructed to accommodate for the surge and the necessity to transport the product. This raises an additional set of concerns, namely for the health of the environment.

The wells from which all this liquid gold now flows are a fraction in size to most of the ones in the Middle East. Projections suggest that domestic oil production may plateau as soon as in the next few years, and begin to decline by 2020. Thus the boom is more like a flash in the pan. Being that the oil reserves of just a handful of Middle Eastern nations total more than forty times that of the United States, the latter nation would be wise to retain productive dialogues and relationships with the former, as it is likely that the previous course of trade will resume in due time. It would be unfortunate if the United States burned some bridges in the excitement of its boom, only to find quickly that it is once more dependent on imports. Policy and national behavior are tightly tied into these environmental realities.

In the meantime, it has become necessary to bolster the infrastructure for delivering domestic oil throughout the country. Among the environmentally motivated criticisms of fracking are heavy truck traffic and volatile oil trains. North Dakota, the site of the Bakken Oil Fields fueling the boom, has endured a spike in spills, explosions, and other dangerous missteps over the last few years as production and transportation of the product has increased. It has done so in a haphazard and unregulated fashion, focused more on economic expansion than safety. A primary source of these accidents is a complicated and growing network of pipelines that have sidestepped federal inspection.

In addition to the ongoing controversy regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, many smaller ones are being approved and constructed throughout the country. New Jersey has recently been faced with proposals to construct a slew of pipelines throughout the state. As with many states in the path of Keystone XL, New Jersey would not directly benefit from the lines, as it serves simply as a crossroads that bears all the burdens and risks. These pipes will not create new jobs or bolster the local economy.

A resolution to oppose the proposed Pilgrim Pipeline in the Northern Valley was recently voted down. If constructed, it would likely run through ecologically sensitive areas and near local water supplies. In the event of a leak or spill, which despite claims that these pipes meet safety standards is more likely than one might expect due to the explosive nature of the particular oil that they will transport, water would be contaminated and difficult to purify.

Courtesy of Mark Klotz via Flickr.

A North Jersey politician who is a proponent of the Pilgrim Pipeline indicated that arguments of the nature that the line will not directly benefit New Jersey are not sufficient because lines that run through other states help bring oil here. While this may be true, it is not persuasive for several reasons. The first is that it throws others under the bus; we enjoy that there are pipes bringing oil here and benefitting us and our economy, while those states bear heavy social and ecological risks to do so and this is presumably all acceptable. Next, complex routes of ecological motion are endangered and still threaten us. For example, another pipe will soon be constructed to bring fracked natural gas from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. Many are concerned with the possible threats this line will pose for the Delaware River, whose water is vital for the variegated regional biodiversity as well as residents over a wide geography. Thus whether a pipe runs through New Jersey to elsewhere, or in from somewhere else, threatens more complications than a localized leak. Finally, the enthusiasm for oil pipelines simply encourages too much economic investment in and social reliance on oil. The domestic boom will die out sooner than later; all these new pipelines will become useless, while in the meantime they present a surge of dangers.

A pipeline running through ecologically sensitive Alaska. Courtesy of US Geological Survey via Flickr.

Once more, investment in renewable energies is a more desirable option, as their production, delivery, and use is far less hazardous and much cleaner, and more realistically intertwined with the United States’ energy and economic future.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fracking is Shortsighted in Light of Temporary U.S. Oil Boom appeared first on Law Street.

My house rumbles and shakes as the cargo trains thunder down the rail that is less that 500 yards away. Although the necessity of turning up the volume on my TV is not much more than a nuisance, the fact that I sleep within the blast zone of a highly combustible material being transported in an inept and accident-prone manner is highly unnerving. Despite the speed of aircraft or the capacity of cargo ships, railroads remain the most efficient medium for transporting goods. That does not mean, though, that they are a flawless medium. In fact, when dealing with the transportation of crude oil, they and the system on which they operate are horrifically flawed.

Fracking in North Dakota yields a crude oil that is shipped in trains across the country and down the Hudson River. In the New York portion, the rail runs literally right along the river’s edge. The particular form of crude coming from these fields can turn into an explosive fire should the trains derail, giving this transportation system the name “bomb trains”. The American Petroleum Institute disputes this claim, though. The issue is compounded by the fact that it is being transported in outdated cars, called DOT-111s, which have thin hulls and are prone to puncture. In the last several years, oil train derailments have spilled millions of gallons and resulted in deaths, notably in Quebec last year.

Apparently the Transportation Department has been looking into the DOT-111 situation for several years now, but a surge in oil production in the North Dakota Bakken shale region has resulted in an immediate demand for large scale transport. There are not enough pipelines to accommodate this volume, so it is being sent along in trains, dubbed a “virtual pipeline.” Furthermore, the existing oil trains were not originally intended to move this type of oil at this level of intensity, thus the dangers. While safer designs are in the proposal stage, many of the existing cars are too old to be retrofitted with the new features and would have to be replaced all together. This is problematic, Jad Mouawad of The New York Times points out, because the transition period would mean that there are fewer cars on the rails and the oil demands would be difficult to meet.

Also sorely lacking is an emergency response plan. Should a disaster occur, sufficient measures are not currently in place either to mitigate the consequences of a spill or to effectively address the human welfare. Not only would lives be endangered, but a spill would gravely threaten the drinkability of the water for both locals and the eight million residents of New York City, as well as the wellbeing of the river’s biodiversity. In a flash, a spill could undo everything that the Hudson conservation organization Riverkeeper has spent the last half century trying to accomplish.

A bird struggles amidst an oil spill near Crimea, courtesy of Marine Photobank/Igor Golubenkov via Flickr

The lack of safety precautions is not the fault of emergency workers, but the Transportation Authority and oil industries themselves. The latter needs to be more open as to when trains are running through what areas, and what is the nature of their cargo. Last month, Orange County, New York joined neighbors Rockland and Ulster in calling for a full environmental review of the potential impacts of the increased oil shipments, a ban on DOT-111s, and an exploration of alternative means of transporting the oil. Embodying the philosophies of Riverkeeper, these actions criticize the secretive nature of the oil industry and demand the release of data to the public. By empowering the people with information, appropriate measures can be taken.

One town in North Jersey took things a step further, staging a protest and calling for a moratorium on the oil trains until safety standards are met. As previously mentioned, the trains run through my own hometown and neighboring ones in Bergen County, New Jersey pass through a very built up and densely populated region; a disaster in this area would be catastrophic and unquestionably deadly.

One must be cautious when performing a review of potential environmental impacts, as the method can be manipulated so as to be favorable to one party over another. The mayor of Albany recently accused the Department of Environmental Conservation of segmentation, an illegal action under the Environmental Quality Review Act. This process enables the review of a project in individual groups, not as an overall whole. In so doing, environmental impacts can be overlooked or miscast. This has allowed oil companies to enlarge or change their transportation permits time and again without raising any red flags. Ecosystems are large and complex; an issue in one arena will affect, often in an unforeseen manner, aspects of another. Further, humans are tightly intertwined with their surrounding environments. The issue must be looked at in its entirety in order to properly assess the dynamics of the dangers and their potential consequences.

The interrelatedness of people, policy, and environment with regard to this issue extends widely. The overemphasis on oil shipments is creating a backlog in other industries. Millions of dollars are lost and countless jobs are endangered as North Dakota farmers, the longtime mainstay of the economy there, are unable to ship their grain products across the country. A cascade effect follows; food companies are pressured to put out their products in light of delayed shipments, occasionally resulting in lower supply and higher prices. Exportation economics suffer as well, as these rails send grains to the Pacific Northwest to be shipped to Asia, and down the very same routes in New York State to be sent to Europe. In the long run, grain will be a more reliable product than oil. Companies are too short sighted and capitalize on the spike, with wide ranging and ever worsening consequences.

While the increased production, transportation, and use of oil is frustrating enough for those who would rather see progress in the field of renewable energy, the fact that it is compounded by a massive threat to local ecosystems and human welfare is outrageous and unacceptable. This issue is more than a concern over energy policy; it is making the use of fossil fuels an environmental and human threat in manners that go beyond emissions and pollution. The dangers must be effectively addressed, and soon.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Black Death: Oil Trains and Insufficient Safety Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

The possibility of government regulation of noncompete clauses in the business world has been a hot topic in recent months – especially throughout the tech industry. Now it seems that the debate has expanded to an array of other smaller industries, including the ever-so-competitive camp counseling field.

According to the New York Times, 19-year-old college student Colette Buser was passed over for a summer counselor job in Wellesley, Mass. in fear that nearby LINX camp would sue. Apparently Buser had a noncompete clause tucked into her contract from the previous summer, which prevented her from working within ten miles of a LINX location. According to the Times, everyone from “chefs to investment fund managers to yoga instructors, employees are increasingly required to sign agreements that prohibit them from working for a company’s rivals.”

LINX tried defending its actions to the Boston Herald, claiming that its training methods are just as crucial as the confidential intel that tech companies using noncompetes have. LINX President Joe Kahn said that the company uses these clauses because they train employees using unique methods and have seen counselors get hired mid-summer as babysitters. “Much like a tech company would be protective of their technology and proprietary information, we’re protective of our customer information,” said Kahn.

Buser is not the only person who has been affected by noncompete clauses recently. According to the Boston Herald there have been plenty of other instances where former employees found themselves in trouble because of a noncompete clause.

• A student trying to intern at a tech firm was requested to sign a one-year noncompete.
• A Massachusetts man whose job involved spraying pesticides on lawns was asked to sign a two-year noncompete agreement.
• A Boston University graduate was asked to sign a one-year noncompete for an entry-level social media job at a marketing firm.
• Phil Poireir, a pastor at a Megachurch in Seattle, was let go because he refused to sign a noncompete contract.
• A hair salon in Norwell, Mass., obtained an injunction requiring hairstylist Daniel McKinnon to stop working at a nearby salon because he had signed a noncompete, which prohibited him from working at any salon in neighboring towns for a year.

In McKinnon’s case, he was forced to live on unemployment benefits for months. “I almost lost my truck, I almost lost my apartment. Almost everything came sweeping out from under me,” McKinnon told the Times.

From the employer’s perspective, noncompete clauses make sense. The company has invested its time and money into training its employees, so it would only be logical to protect those investments. But it seems that some companies are taking it a bit overboard. Can one hairdresser really cause a business to flop? What does it say about your company if you’re trying to scare your employees to stay committed? These are the questions that businesses need to ask themselves when they put noncompete clauses in their employees’ contracts.

Many noncompete clauses put people like Daniel McKinnon out of work for weeks and even months at a time. MIT professor Matthew Marx thinks that people should have the freedom to come and go as they please. “There was a saying at the Silicon Valley startup where I worked, ‘You never stop hiring someone.’ They can go where they want. People are free to leave and start companies if they’re not happy,” Marx said.

Over the past year there has been a 60 percent rise in departing employees who face lawsuits from their former bosses for breaching these agreements, the Wall Street Journal reported. These disputes lead to long, drawn out court battles that impede productivity on both sides of the disagreement.

Many legislators are trying to bar noncompetes in various states throughout the country. State Representative and Vice Chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, Lori Ehrlich,  contends that noncompetes are hurting growth in our economy by “decreasing working mobility and squelching startups.”

Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has proposed a bill that will make it easier for workers in all types of industries to move from one job to another with ease by banning noncompete agreements. These agreements seem to cripple employees’ ability to be innovative, leaving them befuddled and frustrated with their inability to advance.

While the fear that former employees may take confidential information is understandable, companies should sue if, and only if, the former employee is caught doing so, not beforehand. Should their personal knowledge be considered company information? Does that make sense to anyone out there?

Currently, only California and North Dakota ban noncompete clauses according to the Herald. So if you are working for a company and you have a brilliant idea for a new startup, you can go to California or North Dakota and the judge will not honor the agreement. Since startups in North Dakota aren’t exactly booming, I would look to the Golden State.

— Trevor Smith Featured Image Courtesy of [Penn State via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Want to be a Camp Counselor? Better Check Your Noncompete Clause appeared first on Law Street.