Call Our Firm:   605.385.0330   |   701.355.6885

Commercial Transactions & Litigation, Environmental Law, Natural Resources Law, & Energy Law

Posts Tagged ‘Environmental Law’

Water Systems Security

Posted on: April 28th, 2014
by David Ganje

WATER SYSTEMS SECURITY

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW……………………………………………………………………………… 1

WATER SECURITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

  1. Physical Security ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
    1. i.        Milwaukee & Cryptosporidium…………………………………………………………….. 4
    2. ii.      WaterWorks: Physcial Security…………………………………………………………….. 6
  2. Cyber-Security………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
    1. i.        WaterWorks: Cyber-Security………………………………………………………………… 11

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCED SECURITY………………………………………………. 12

VIRTUAL ATTACHMENT:

Ass’n of State Water Admins., Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Small Drinking Water Systems, Nat’l Rural Water Ass’n (May 30, 2002), available at http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/dwa/pdfs/vulnerability.pdf.

 

 

Presentation to the Illinois Chapter of the American Water Works Association.

 

 

© 2014. All Rights Reserved. David L. Ganje.

 

I. Introduction

This article discusses current security issues surrounding water treatment and waste facilities. The sources of attack are myriad, but manifest via physical attacks and cyber-attacks. A physical attack on a water treatment and waste facility occurs when an individual or group causes physical damage to the facilities, structures infrastructure, systems, or the water itself on site. A cyber-attack occurs remotely and disrupts the computer systems that control the treatment and waste facility. Whether the attack be physical, cyber, or some combination, the goal is the same: to harm, even kill, the local population and cause panic. This article will give a brief historical overview of American water systems, discuss the current water security concerns of both physical and cyber-security, and make some practical recommendations for enhanced security.

 

AAPL Southwest Land Institute

Posted on: April 23rd, 2014
by David Ganje

 

Institute Covers:

  • Executive Rights vs Nonexecutive Rights: The Increasing Duty of the Nonexecutive Mineral Owner
  • Production of Horizontal Wellbores & Pertinent Case Law
  • Legal Update: Recent Developments in Non-Regulatory Oil & Gas Law
  • Ethics
  • Dormant/Abandoned Mineral Rights
  • The Klotzman Complaint: Allocating Well Permitting
  • Joint Operating Agreements: Recent Developments and Horizontal Modifications

 

Institute Information:

The day begins with on-site registration and a breakfast spread at 7:30 am, and presentations will begin at 8:30 am. The program includes a buffet lunch.

 

Materials Provided:

  • Seminar Guide

 

Course Agenda

Monday, April 28th

 

  • 8:00 am – Registration/Continental breakfast
  • 8:30  – Opening Remarks (Christopher Halaszynski, AAPL)
  • 8:40  – “Executive vs Nonexecutive Rights: The Increasing Duty of the Nonexecutive Mineral Owner” (Lane Brown, Freeman Mills PC)
  • 9:40  – “Production of Horizontal Wellbores & Pertinent Case Law” (Kimberly Puckett, Brashier, Crosby, PLLC)
  • 10:40 – BREAK
  • 11:00 – “Legal Update: Recent Developments/Non-Regulatory Oil & Gas Law” (Jonathan Baughman, McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore LLP)
  • Noon – BUFFET LUNCH
  • 12:45 pm – “Ethics” (Rob Shultz, Independent Landman)
  • 1:30 – BREAK
  • 1:45 – “Dormant/Abandoned Mineral Rights” (David Ganje, Attorney at Law)
  • 2:45 – “The Klotzman Complaint: Allocation Well Permitting” (David Gross, Attorney at Law)
  • 3:45 – BREAK
  • 4:00 – “Joint Operating Agreements: Recent Developments and Horizontal Modifications” (Paul Westbrook, Harris, Finley & Bogle, PC
  • 5:00 – ADJOURN

*Note: Schedule subject to change

Brownfields-An Unused Part of North Dakota’s Environmental Law

Posted on: April 19th, 2014
by David Ganje

 

BROWNFIELDS – AN UNUSED PART OF NORTH DAKOTA’S ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

 

Laws by their nature create tension between different economic interests in a democratic society.  When the free market system includes environmental laws which affect the market­ability and development of contaminated or polluted property, the system must also include a mechanism to protect the owner’s ability to sell and develop such property.  Man-made ‘controls’ created by man-made regulations need man-made protections to reduce the affect of these ‘controls’.  Environmental laws and regulations are no exception.  Contemporary environmental laws contain many restrictions on transfer of property, as well as hazardous spill reporting and cleanup requirements.  Such laws affect the marketability of property.  State and federal agencies in recent years have focused attention on the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated property sites in North Dakota.  These sites are called brownfields.

Brownfields are properties the use, expansion or redevelopment of which is complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance.  Environmental laws now include financial assistance for the cleanup of such properties.  Brownfield cleanup can address mine-scarred lands, sites contaminated by petroleum, chemicals or sites contaminated as a result of manufacturing.

Environmental issues in North Dakota are primarily the jurisdiction of the state’s Department of Health, Environmental Health Section (EHS).  The EHS has significant management authority over environmental matters in the state and has had cooperative agreements in place with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under which the EHS is the principal state government agency dealing with environmental matters.

North Dakotans are fortunate in that the EHS is generally accessible and open in its regulatory and management style.  Such accessibility is not always the norm among environmental agencies across the country.  EHS has established policies that promote the development of environmentally affected properties. The brownfields program is application based.  Cities, counties or local government groups may apply for assistance under the program.

Many North Dakota municipalities and local governments are missing the boat.  Not all environmental regulations are bad.  One useful but underused environmental program in the state is North Dakota’s State Response Program (Brownfields Program).  This program is a source of funding for site assessments and, if necessary, cleaning up qualified brownfield sites throughout the state.  Access is available to qualified property owners (counties and municipalities), community development organizations, and nonprofits.  The expenses of approved site assessment and environmental testing can be cost free to the property owner; The North Dakota Brownfield Program manages and pays for these expenses.

One can be fairly certain that in North Dakota many cities and counties, in both rural and urban areas, have abandoned, underutilized, or potentially contaminated properties.

EPA data indicates that only three North Dakota municipalities and five tribal organizations have received Brownfield Grants since 1998.

The prevailing view is that many people think that brownfield sites are only associated with abandoned manufacturing sites that were so prevalent in the rust belt states located east of the Mississippi River.  Brownfield sites exist in very state and they include but are not limited to abandoned gas stations, dry cleaners, factories, warehouses, bus facilities, parking lots, aircraft hangars and heavy equipment repair and storage centers.

In years to come we will probably see an increase in North Dakota brownfield sites due to the development of oil and gas resources in the Bakken Formation.  The state’s Brownfield Program will enable qualified property owners to clean up Brownfield sites so they can be put to better economic use for the benefit of investors and residents of North Dakota.

The EPA reports that qualified applicants are eligible for up to $200,000 in cleanup grants per property and that 3 out of 4 applications received in 2013 were successful.  The cleanup grant recipients are required to provide a 20% share (e.g. $200,000 Grant has a $40,000 match).  The cost share does not have to be money; it could be in the form of a contribution of labor, material, or services from a non-federal source.  Hardship waivers can also be requested.

That environmental problems with properties should remain hidden based upon a public misunderstanding is the old way of doing business.  EHS and affected communities and counties should partner up and pursue this course of action.  It would be in the economic interest of the communities in which such properties are located and the state.