Fracking/Takings

As the use of fracking has spread during the recent oil and gas boom, inevitable conflicts have arisen between industry and its neighbors, particularly as fracking has moved into densely populated urban and suburban areas. Concerned over the impacts of fracking – such as risks to health and safely, diminished property values, air and water pollution, as well as noise, traffic, and other annoyances – many people have demanded a government response. Government regulation of fracking has struggled to catch up, although in recent years many state and local governments have taken steps to reduce the impacts of fracking in their communities. This article focuses on government restrictions in New York and Colorado, two of the key battlegrounds in the fight over fracking. New York recently prohibited fracking across the entire state, after several towns had enacted their own bans. In Colorado, the people have used the ballot initiative process to enact restrictions on fracking directly. The industry has responded not only with public relations spending to improve the fracking’s damaged reputation, but also legal challenges to these efforts to rein in oil and gas development. In addition to suing local governments, often arguing they do not have authority to regulate fracking, industry threatens to bring costly takings claims for compensation due to alleged economic harms. This Article examines the numerous legal and factual issues that should make it difficult for industry to succeed on fracking/takings claims. First, regulation of fracking, even including outright bans, can almost always be defended as necessary to prevent a nuisance or other background principle of law that justifies government regulation. Even if a nuisance defense could be overcome, industry would have difficulty proving that regulation has destroyed all economic value in their property, unless courts take a narrow view of property that would highlight the arbitrary nature of the “denominator problem.” When fracking/takings claims are considered under the default balancing of the Penn Central case, takings are unlikely to be found except in rare outlier cases. Finally, because requiring governments to pay compensation in fracking/takings cases would likely create a windfall for industry, particularly if the oil and gas eventually is extracted in the future, courts should resist the temptation to rule against government restrictions to protect public health, safety, and the environment.

Perceptions Surrounding the Implementation of Colorado Senate Bill 10-191's New Teacher Evaluations

In 2013, many public education reform efforts in the United States of America center on testing and accountability. Recent data revealed that teachers have the single greatest in-school impact on student learning; however, the methods to assess teacher effectiveness are widely criticized for not holding teachers accountable and, consequently, are experiencing significant legislative attention. In 2010, Colorado passed Senate Bill 10-191: The Great Teachers and Leaders Act to improve student learning by revising teacher and principal evaluations, including linking them to student learning data, and eradicating tenure. Teachers, administrators, and policymakers hold critical roles in the implementation of this bill, yet little is known about how members of each group perceive their respective roles in the implementation. This explanatory sequential mixed methods study was designed to gather perception data from these three groups, through surveys and interviews. Data revealed that teachers and administrators do not have similar perceptions of many matters related to teacher evaluations, education reform, and the implementation of Senate Bill 10-191 (SB 191). The data also revealed that teachers and administrators expected they would agree on these matters. These collective findings led to multiple recommendations, such as the need for increased dialogue between teachers and administrators about their own perceptions of education reforms.

The Museum/School Partnership: A New Role for Art Museums in K-5 Art Education

For nearly thirty years, the arts have been poorly represented in public school classrooms due to tight budgets, state mandates, and a belief that the arts are not essential to education. In this paper, I will investigate the absence of focused art education curriculum in K-5 classrooms across the United States’ public school system, explain the advantages of reinstating art as a basic subject in the classroom curriculum, and advocate for a more active art museum role in public school elementary art education. The art museum may be in the ideal position to help develop and facilitate programming in K-5 classrooms. By placing teams of art museum professionals in public school classrooms, art museums can establish a prominent role in the museum/school relationship and can help ensure that children have adequate access to art education. The outcome would be children who have greater academic and personal successes throughout their lives.