Newspaper column: Constitution stretched to the breaking point

A Utah prairie dog peeks out of an artificial burrow after arriving at a remote site in the desert, some 25 miles away from Cedar City, Utah. (AP pix via WSJ)

If words can mean anything anyone says they mean, then words are meaningless. That is what the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has done with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The appellate court overturned a federal judge who found that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to regulate a species that exists only within the boundaries of one state and has no commercial value whatsoever — specifically the Utah prairie dog.

Nevada has joined with Utah and 21 other states to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to strike the circuit court ruling, saying that if the ruling stands “then Congress has virtually limitless authority, and the Tenth Amendment is a dead letter,” as well as the concept of federalism. (prairiedogamicusbrief)

If Nevada is to have any control over any economic activity within its borders, which include numerous endangered and threatened species, it is vital that the high court reverse this Constitution-rendering exercise in legerdemain.

The circuit court judges stretched the meaning of the Commerce Clause — which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce in order to promote commerce by preventing interstate tariffs — to include anything Congress could imagine in its wildest flights of fantasy.

“We conclude that Congress had a rational basis to believe that regulation of the take of the Utah prairie dog on nonfederal land is an essential part of the ESA’s broader regulatory scheme which, in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce,” the circuit court ruled, without any hint as whether that conclusion was at all rational rather than delusional sophistry.

The judges dived further into base speculation by stating, “‘ESA’s drafters were concerned by the “incalculable” value of the genetic heritage that might be lost absent regulation,’ as well as observing that the majority of takes of species ‘result from economic activity …’” Might that incalculable value be zero? Species became extinct before mankind arrived on the scene.

The amicus brief filed by the attorneys general of 23 states paraphrased the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights by stating, “The Framers correctly concluded that both restraints – separation of powers and federalism – are necessary to preserve individual liberty and avoid tyranny. So powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the States and the people. But federalism serves its purposes only if the federal-state interplay remains properly balanced. That means courts must ensure that the federal government operates only within its enumerated powers so the States can function within their proper spheres.”

Adding insult to constitutional injury is the fact the state of Utah was actually doing a better job of protecting the prairie dog population than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Fish and Wildlife rules made it a federal crime to “take” the Utah prairie dog — which means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect — without first obtaining time-consuming and expensive federal permits. Meanwhile, the burrowing prairie dogs were damaging parks, sports fields, airports and cemeteries and preventing the construction of homes and businesses. Especially hard hit is the small college town Cedar City.

During the time after the federal judge blocked the Fish and Wildlife rules the state of Utah spent a considerable amount of money to move the prairie dogs from population centers to remote and safer conservation areas, allowing the population to boom from a low of 24,000 in 1984 to an estimated 80,000 today.

The original lawsuit was brought by 200 private property owners calling themselves People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners. They were represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which litigates on behalf of personal liberty and property rights.

“For decades, the federal government’s harmful Utah prairie dog regulation has prohibited residents of Cedar City from doing things that most of us take for granted in our own communities,” PLF attorney Jonathan Wood is quoted as saying in a press release. “They have been blocked from building homes, starting small businesses, even protecting playgrounds, an airport, and the local cemetery from the disruptive, tunneling rodent.

“The Commerce Clause has long been a source of federal mischief, but the Supreme Court has never allowed it to be stretched this far,” Wood noted. “With their prairie dog regulation, federal bureaucrats have asserted control over local activities that are not interstate commerce, do not affect interstate commerce, and are not necessary to any federal regulation of interstate commerce.”

If the words of the Constitution are so malleable, it has no meaning and Congress is our dictator.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Advertisements

Newspaper column: Tax reform bill divides Nevada delegation along party lines

Like everything else to come out of Washington, the House tax reform bill introduced this past week has turned into a partisan hissing match in a fact-free zone.

Republicans hail it as an economy stimulating second coming, while Democrats decry it as a sop to the wealthy and a death knell for the middle class.

The bill lowers the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, doubles the standard deduction, lowers the individual tax rates for all but millionaires, allows 100 percent expensing of business costs instead of the current 50 percent, eliminates deductions for state and local taxes, except for property taxes, and allows mortgage interest deduction.

Republican Dean Heller said the bill will provide tax relief for middle class families, while Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto said the bill rewards corporations and the rich at the expense of working families, seniors and the poor.

“As a member of the U.S. Senate’s tax-writing committee, I’m waking up each and every day with the sole focus of ensuring that Nevada’s hardworking families and small business owners come out ahead when the Senate passes its final product,” Heller said in a statement, adding, “I’m going to continue fighting for a major tax overhaul that will help my state and push for policies that will create jobs, boost growth, and make it easier for Nevadans to provide a better life for their kids.”

A Cortez Masto press release fulminated, “Republicans in Congress have one priority: ripping off America’s middle class and working families. Rather than transparently writing a bill that puts economic growth and American’s financial security first, the current Republican tax proposal targets Nevada families. The latest Republican proposals would put our country even further in debt, take money out of working families pocketbooks …”

Cortez Masto also claimed, “The average tax increase on families nationwide earning up to $86,100 would be $794.”

But the Washington Post fact checked that claim and found it was based on a report by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee who actually said, “If enacted, the Republican tax reform proposal would saddle 8 million households that earn up to $86,100 with an average tax increase of $794 …”

But you see, there are 122 million households making less than $86,100. Thus only 6.5 percent of those households would see a tax hike of that amount. The Post reported that more than 97 million, or 80 percent, of that group would get a tax cut averaging about $450.

Republicans say the bill would result in a tax savings of $1,182 for a typical household of four with gross income of $59,000, resulting in their tax bill being only $400.

Las Vegas Democratic Rep. Dina Titus joined the partisan fray by calling the bill “a red herring tax plan that relies on the myth of trickle-down economics in order to give the nation’s top earners a handout.”

Titus said she could not see how working families could save money if the bill removes certain deductions, including the one for state and local sales taxes — ignoring the fact 70 percent of Americans take the standard deduction and do not itemize, nor the fact Nevadans who do itemize can deduct only about 10 percent as much as taxpayers in high-tax states such as California and New York and thus are subsidizing those states.

Democratic Rep. Ruben Kihuen, who represents southern rural Nevada and northern Clark County, used the occasion to solicit contributions while slamming the bill by saying, “We expected Paul Ryan and the Republicans would bend over backwards to make big corporations and the super rich the winners in this plan, and that’s exactly what they did. Meanwhile, it’s all at your expense.”

Republican Congressman Mark Amodei, who represents northern Nevada, took a more nuanced approach, promising in an email to constituents to thoroughly research the 429-page bill, while also saying, “I think we can all agree the American taxpayer would be better off if Congress were to reform our current tax code in favor of a system that is simpler, fairer, and has lower tax rates.”

The bill also eliminates the $7,500 tax credit for purchasing electric cars, such as Teslas, whose batteries are built in Sparks, and drops the tax exemption for municipal bonds to finance sports stadiums, such as the one planned for Las Vegas for the Raiders.

Next, Congress needs to address the runaway federal spending.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

(AP pix)

Newspaper Column: Federally funded gun study misfires

A potential buyer checks a gun at a Las Vegas outdoor trade show. (AP pix by John Locher via LA Times)

Spend enough money, crunch enough data — you can “prove” anything.

A recent study out of the hallowed halls of the University of California at Berkeley found a 70 percent increase in gun deaths and injuries in California communities after gun shows in nearby Nevada cities, but no increase in gun violence following gun shows in California.

If research shows it, it must prove something nefarious about the difference between state gun laws in California and those in Nevada, right?

“Our study suggests that California’s strict regulations — on firearms, generally, and on gun shows, specifically — may be effective in preventing short-term increases in firearm deaths and injuries following gun shows,” a news account quotes the study’s lead author, Ellicott Matthay, a Ph.D. student, as saying.

The study was funded in part by more than $2 million in federal funds from the National Institutes of Health.

The news account detailed the findings, “Compared to the two weeks before the gun shows occurred, post-show firearm injury rates remained stable in regions near California gun shows. But post-show firearm injury rates increased from 0.67 per 100,000 people to 1.14 per 100,000 in regions near Nevada shows. This 70 percent increase translates to 30 more firearms deaths or injuries in California near the state line after 161 Nevada gun shows.”

There is no mention of whether or not anyone bothered to ask whether any of the guns used in said deaths and injuries had any link to any gun show anywhere ever. It was noted that the California areas “near” Nevada gun shows are largely rural.

Presumably gun shows in California are largely in urban areas surrounded by typical urban rates of violence less susceptible to spikes than rural areas. If you have 100 incidents in a two-week period, followed by 110 incidents in the next two weeks there is no “spike.” But if you have two incidents in two weeks in a rural area and four in the following weeks, that’s a “spike.”

Nor was there any mention of whether there was a spike in gun violence during a new moon as opposed to a full moon.

It is also unclear which gun show intervals were chosen since there are usually at least two gun shows a month in Nevada, meaning the study intervals are likely to overlap.

The news account also duly noted that all firearms sales in California require a background check, including private sales, such as those at gun shows, while Nevada does not. Nevada voters narrowly approved a law requiring background checks prior to private sales, but the law was written in such a way as to make it unenforceable.

“The study suggests that travel to less-restrictive states may threaten the effectiveness of firearm laws within California,” Matthay was quoted as saying. “When a less-restrictive is next to a state that is more restrictive, there may be spillover effects. More research is needed to know for certain.”

The news account neglected to mention that federal law prohibits an unlicensed seller transferring a firearm to an individual who does not reside in the same state.

“Generally, for a person to lawfully transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient’s State of residence. He or she may then receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] background check,” according to an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms website, which answers frequently asked questions.

The last time we checked, federal laws take precedent over more lax state laws.

The Washington Free Beacon quotes John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and author of “More Guns, Less Crime,” as being critical of the Berkeley study’s conclusions and methodology.

Lott pointed out that the better metric is to look at what happens in states after they change their gun background check laws. He said his research found a 2 percent increase in firearm murders after laws requiring background checks on private transfers were enacted.

Cause and effect? Coincidence?

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

 

Newspaper column: Gun law backers too wily for their own good

The backers of a 2016 ballot initiative to create a state law requiring criminal background checks for all private party gun sales — something not required by federal law — are asking the courts to fix a fatal flaw that they themselves created.

Failure to comply with the Background Check Act requirement would carry a penalty of up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine — if it were enforceable.

The measure, Question 1 on the November ballot, passed with a mere 50.45 percent of the vote, failing in every county except Clark.

The initiative backers — in order to avoid having a fiscal note saying what the mandatory background checks would cost taxpayers, something that might cost votes — wrote the new law to say that those in involved in a private gun sale must contact a licensed gun dealer to conduct a background check and: “The licensed dealer must contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS], as described in 18 U.S.C. § 922(t), and not the Central Repository, to determine whether the buyer or transferee is eligible to purchase and possess firearms under state and federal law …”

The Central Repository is handled by the Nevada Department of Public Safety and uses NICS data as well as state and local data to run background checks required by federal law and those sought voluntarily by private gun sellers.

After the initiative passed the FBI was twice asked if would conduct the private sale background checks for the state, but refused, saying state law “cannot dictate how federal resources are applied.”

Attorney General Adam Laxalt’s office issued an opinion saying the law is unenforceable since the state could not force the federal government to perform the background checks and the law specifically prohibits the state from doing so.

The lawsuit filed earlier this month on behalf of three individuals names Gov. Brian Sandoval and Laxalt as defendants. The suit asks the court to force Sandoval to enforce the background check law or, in the alternative, to sever any portion of the law that is invalid or unenforceable. In other words, rewrite the law that the voters so narrowly approved.

Like most laws the Background Check Act contains a severability clause that states if any portion of the law is found invalid or unconstitutional that should not affect the law as a whole because that part could be excised. But the section that the suit seeks to remove was placed there specifically to avoid incurring cost to the taxpaying voters. Without that section the election outcome might well have been different.

On the day the suit was filed Laxalt sent an opinion to the governor telling him that he has the authority to again ask the FBI to conduct private sale backgrounds, but that the request would be “unique and unprecedented” and might jeopardize the state’s current status in which it conducts all federally required and voluntary private sale background checks.

In the December opinion declaring the Background Check Act unenforceable, Bureau Chief Gregory Zunino pointed out that the state-run background checks are in fact superior to those run through just the federal database.

“Because background checks run through Nevada as the Point of Contact incorporate data from both NICS and Nevada’s own state records, the process as currently administered by the Department ensures that persons legally barred from firearms possession do not circumvent the bar simply because the FBI may lack records that Nevada possesses, like mental-health records, records of domestic violence, misdemeanor criminal records, arrest reports, and restraining orders,” Zunino noted. “By having Nevada serve as the Point of Contract, a wide net is cast. The FBI recently suggested, for instance, that the lack of Point of Contact program in South Carolina played a role in Dylan Roof acquiring a gun before murdering nine congregants at a church in Charleston, South Carolina.”

It should be noted that the gunman who fired into a country music concert from the 32-second floor of the Mandalay Bay killing 58 and injuring about 500, obtained his dozens of weapons legally, passing all required background checks in Nevada and several other states.

The initiative was a futile gesture at best, but the backers outsmarted themselves by trying to hide its true cost from the voters.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Newspaper column: Bill would limit power to create national monuments

Gold Butte National Monument (BLM pix)

The House Committee on Natural Resources this past week approved a bill sponsored by Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop to rein in the powers granted by the Antiquities Act of 1906 that allow a president to unilaterally create huge national monuments.

The bill advanced on a party line vote of 27-13, with Democrats in opposition.

The bill, H.R. 3990, the National Monument Creation and Protection Act, amends the Antiquities Act to limit the size of future monuments and specifically grants the sitting president the power to reduce the size of existing monuments — a power Democrats have argued President Trump does not have under current law.

During his administration President Obama created 26 national monuments totaling more than 500 million acres — including the 700,000-acre Basin and Range National Monument on the border of Lincoln and Nye counties and the 300,000-acre Gold Butte National Monument in Clark County.

President Trump ordered Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review recent monument designations and Zinke sent a memo to the president recommending the reduction in size of six of those, including Gold Butte. The president has not yet acted on those recommendations.

Bishop’s bill would allow the president to unilaterally reduce the size of any monument by 85,000 acres — and by more with the consent of affected counties and states.

The bill would allow a president in the future to create a new monument unilaterally, but only up to 640 acres. Anything larger than that, up to 10,000 acres, would require an environmental review. Anything between 10,000 and 85,000 acres, the apparent size cap on new monuments, would require approval of counties and state officials, as well as the governor.

“Congress never intended to give one individual the power to unilaterally dictate the manner in which all Americans may enjoy enormous swaths of our nation’s public lands,” Bishop was quoted as saying. “Designations are no longer made for scientific reasons or archaeological value but for political purposes. Unfortunately, overreach in recent administrations has brought us to this point and it is Congress’ duty to clarify the law and end the abuse.”

Like the Natural Resources Committee, Nevada’s congressional delegation is divided along party lines when it comes to national monuments. The four Democrats have all objected bitterly and volubly to reducing the size of Nevada’s monuments.

But its two Republican delegates in January introduced legislation that would prevent future designations of monuments in Nevada without the consent of Congress — the Nevada Land Sovereignty Act of 2017 (H.R. 243, S. 22).

The legislation introduced by Sen. Dean Heller and Rep. Mark Amodei is terse and to the point. It basically piggybacks onto current law that reads: “No extension or establishment of national monuments in Wyoming may be undertaken except by express authorization of Congress.” Their bill would amend this by simply adding the phrase “or Nevada” after the word Wyoming.

In response to Bishop’s bill passing the committee, a Heller press aide sent out a comment, “Unilateral federal land grabs in a state like Nevada where the federal government already owns 85 percent of our land should not be permitted. Public input and local support remain critical to the decision-making process of federal land designations, and that is why I’ve introduced legislation that prevents last year’s land grab under the Obama administration from occurring without input from Congress and local officials. I’ll continue working with my colleagues to see that it is signed into law.”

Congressman Amodei said in January before Trump’s inauguration, “I continue to be amazed by the fact that some people hug unilateral, non-transparent monument designations, while at the same time, protesting vehemently over the introduction and public discussion of congressional lands bills proposals. In contrast to the last eight years of this administration’s one-sided approach on major land management decisions in Nevada, our bill simply ensures local stakeholders have a seat at the table going forward.”

Bishop’s proposal also declares that existing water and land rights are to preserved despite a monument designation.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Newspaper column: Jobs and wildlife can coexist

In 2015 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that years of science-based protections by federal and state land use plans had substantially reduced risks to more than 90 percent of the greater sage grouse’s breeding habitats across its 173 million-acre range.

Thus, its extinction no longer imminent, the breed was removed as a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Despite this finding the Obama administration unilaterally instituted draconian land use restrictions across 10 Western states intended to prevent any presence of the non-native, invasive species known as mankind.

But the Interior Department under Montanan Ryan Zinke is displaying an uncommon outbreak of common sense.

Just this past week the Bureau of Land Management canceled Obama’s prohibition of mining on 10 million acres of federal lands across six Western states, including Nevada. The BLM also announced plans to invite public comments on reworking land use plans that a Nevada federal judge had determined were illegal.

Greater sage grouse (BLM pix)

In a press release the BLM reported the withdrawal of 10 million acres was unreasonable, because mining affected less than 0.1 percent of sage grouse range.

“The proposal to withdraw 10 million acres to prevent 10,000 from potential mineral development was a complete overreach,” said acting BLM Director Mike Nedd. “Secretary Zinke has said from the beginning that by working closely with the states, who are on the front lines and a valued partner in protecting the health of these lands, we can be successful in conserving greater sage grouse habitat without stifling economic development and job growth. And that’s what we intend to do — protect important habitat while also being a good neighbor to states and local communities.”

The 10 million acres had been off-limits to mining for two years, but that restriction expired Sept. 24.

Gov. Brian Sandoval issued a statement saying, “I support Secretary Zinke’s action to cancel this withdrawal and terminate the environmental analysis associated with it. Mining has not been identified as a widespread significant threat to the sage-grouse and I appreciate the Department of Interior recognizing the overreach of this action, which had such significant economic impact on our state mining and exploration industries.”

Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt said of the BLM’s decision, “I am gratified that the BLM has accepted our basic argument, which is that we can balance conservation of the sage grouse without injuring the economic lifeblood of Nevada’s local communities. In our suit, we consistently urged that the BLM failed to properly take into account Governor Sandoval’s well-supported and convincing comments about the many shortcomings of the 2015 plan.”

On March 31 in a suit brought by the state of Nevada, nine counties, several mining companies and a ranch, Nevada federal Judge Miranda Du ruled Interior land agencies erred in preparing environmental impact statements for 2.8 million acres of land primarily in Eureka and Humboldt counties and must prepare a supplemental statement.

BLM’s Nedd said of the decision to rework the environmental impact statement, “The BLM is committed to being a good neighbor and cooperating with its partners at all levels of government, including states, as well as tribal leaders, industry and conservation groups, ranchers, and other stakeholders throughout the amendment process. During this process, we are particularly interested in hearing from the many governors whose states put hard work and time into collaborative efforts to develop the existing plans. We welcome their input.”

Sandoval has complained in the past about Nevada’s input on sage grouse protection being ignored.

Nevada Mining Association President Dana Bennett was quoted as saying of the BLM change of direction, “A wholesale land withdrawal that encompassed 20 times more land than all mining activity combined did little to address the risk of fire and invasive species that threaten the species and its habitat.”

Of course the usual environmentalist reaction was one of doom and gloom. “This move shows Zinke’s total contempt for imperiled species and the places they need to live,” said Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Zinke might as well form a shotgun posse to kill off these animals directly. The Trump administration is perfectly willing to wipe out sage grouse, and a host of other species, to reward its industry friends.”

Interior’s own draft environmental impact statement estimated its grouse restrictions in Nevada alone would reduce employment by 739 jobs every year for the next 20 years.

Jobs and wildlife can coexist when just a little common sense is applied.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Newspaper column: Lawsuit falsely claims fracking will be devastating

The Luddites are tossing legal wrenches into the economic machinery.

A pair of self-styled environmental groups have filed a lawsuit in federal court in an attempt to block oil and gas leases on tracts on Bureau of Land Management public land, claiming hydraulic fracturing or fracking might somehow jeopardize aquifers and all manner of wildlife.

Fracking is the process of pumping fluid into the ground to create fractures in a rock formation to facilitate the recovery of oil or gas.

In June the BLM offered 196,000 acres for auction in Eureka, Lander and Nye counties, but only 5,800 acres drew any bids. The 10-year leases fetched less than $7 an acre on average and some went for as little as $2 an acre. Another 9,000 acres were sold the next day in a non-competitive sale.

Despite the lack of interest and the uncertainty as to whether any drilling will ever take place, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club filed suit, declaring the leases have the potential to devastate the environment.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to “overturn BLM’s unlawful sale and ensure that BLM allow oil and gas leasing and subsequent development on the lands at issue, if at all, only following a thorough environmental review that fully considers the potential impacts of fracking and possible effects to, inter alia, water resources, wildlife, air quality, and seismicity.”

A BLM official told The Associated Press such a sweeping environmental review “would amount to speculation” and that analysis is performed on each site once a drilling permit is actually sought.

The lawsuit cites a 2016 Environmental Protection Agency study, saying that study “concluded that fracking can and has resulted in adverse effects on drinking water resources.”

The suit fails to mention the EPA reported that fracking “can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances,” but “the scientific evidence is insufficient to support estimates of the frequency of contamination.” They said the instances of contamination were small in comparison to the vast number of fracked wells across the nation.

“Turning over northern Nevada’s public lands to Big Oil risks polluting the region’s air, water and soil with toxic chemicals while fueling the global climate crisis,” said Clare Lakewood, an attorney at the Center’s Climate Law Institute, in a press release announcing the suit. “The Trump administration wants to turn public lands into private profits for the fossil fuel industry at the peril of local communities and wildlife.”

Pay no heed to the fact private profits are used to pay salaries of workers as well as taxes.

“At a time when Nevada should be developing its abundant renewable energy resources, the BLM is giving a boost to dirty fossil fuel development in the state,” Lakewood said, revealing more of the group’s real agenda. “Instead of surrendering public lands to oil companies, we must keep fossil fuels in the ground and transition to cleaner, safer sources of energy.”

The lawsuit spells out a litany of woes.

“For example, new oil and gas leases will allow increased fracking and oil and gas development, resulting in noise, visual blight, increased traffic, seismic risks, habitat fragmentation and degradation, increased air pollution, increased water pollution and increased water consumption,” the suit details. “All of these harms will diminish Plaintiff’s members’ ability to enjoy the recreational, spiritual, professional, aesthetic, education, and other activities in and around the Lease Area.”

And as though that were not enough the lawyers speculated about possible effects that are “highly certain or involve unique or unknown risks.”

The Luddites don’t seem to realize that the “fracking industry” has been around since the Civil War and hydraulic fracking has been used since World War II.

More than half of all oil production in the U.S. in 2015, whether using horizontal drilling or not, came from fracked wells. Currently, 46 percent of all natural gas production in the country comes from shale, tight sandstone and coal formations that once were not profitable. Also, 90 percent of all natural gas wells drilled require fracking at some point during production.

Despite the EPA’s diligent efforts to find problems caused by fracking, it found “the scientific evidence is insufficient to support estimates of the frequency of contamination.”

Never let the facts get in the way of a Luddite’s litigation.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.