Tulsa World. Dec. 17, 2016.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a plan to refinance state turnpikes and pay for several projects, including some that are critical to the Tulsa area.
Opponents to Gov. Mary Fallin’s “Driving Forward” initiative argued that the plan to cross-pledge revenues in a multi-turnpike package amounted to a violation of the state Constitution’s ban of logrolling, meaning the plan would combine unlike things into a single act in an attempt to mass together political support from various places.
The high court ruled that cross-pledging and multiple turnpike packages are legal. The package is about one thing: improving the state transportation system, the court said.
The court also pointed out that it has approved similar turnpike packages several times in the past, and specifically ruled in favor of a cross-pledged package some 50 years ago.
The court’s ruling is not only legally correct, but in the best interest of the state. The ability of the turnpike authority to use its profitable roads - especially the Turner Turnpike - to help pay for other needed projects creates jobs and economic opportunity. It gets done what needs to get done and does it in the right way.
The fact that highway users are paying for highways is absolutely appropriate. Turnpikes are financed with user fees, which are the best and fairest means of financing such government services. Appropriate use of user fees leaves general tax money available for projects where user fees are inappropriate or impractical, such as public schools and prisons.
Specifically, we’re pleased that the Driving Forward package is now on track.
The package includes a critical link in Tulsa’s outer loop, reconstruction of the first 20 miles of the Turner Turnpike and a rebuild of a troubled portion of the Muskogee Turnpike. All of the projects are needed for the local economy and couldn’t get done without the financing package.
The Supreme Court’s decision is appropriate and good for Oklahoma. It’s a plan that will truly drive Oklahoma forward.
___
The Enid News & Eagle. Dec. 17, 2016.
With 2016 winding down, we know earthquakes in Oklahoma are on a decline this year but remain higher than pre-2014 totals.
There were 1,888 magnitude 2.5 or greater earthquakes recorded in the state this year, U.S. Geological Survey records show.
In contrast, Oklahoma recorded 2,661 magnitude 2.5 or greater quakes, which included 829 magnitude 3.0 or greater temblors and 29 magnitude 4.0 or greater quakes, as of Dec. 12, 2015.
While there were no earthquakes in 2015 measuring magnitude 5.0 or greater, this year’s historical magnitude 5.0 or greater earthquakes were the first of that size since 2011.
Still, it’s too early to declare victory. The big ones are troubling.
Cushing Citizen Publisher David Reid, a litigant in the Cushing class action class action lawsuit against disposal well operators, claims the downtown building he lives in and operates his business out of was significantly damaged.
“Most of us live here and we all love the oil and gas industry,” Reid told the Stillwater News Press, urging his friends and neighbors to consider doing what they have to do to take care of themselves. “We all want the producers of oil and gas to make an embarrassing amount of money.
“My property was damaged. You can defend yourself without being mad at big oil and without being mad at the people who are buttering your biscuit … (You can tell them) ’You just need to find another way to get rid of your salt water.’”
We still have a lot of science to learn about the link between an increased volume of wastewater injected into disposal wells and higher numbers of earthquakes. The regulatory Oklahoma Corporation Commission and the Coordinating Council on Seismic Activity must continue with regular reporting on how energy production wastewater and earthquake severity and frequency are correlated.
There still is so much we don’t understand. It’s critical to get good data on wastewater disposal - how much and where. How well is that reported and regulated?
As the oil and gas industry rebounds with the introduction of new production techniques and decisions are made on existing wells, the state needs to reassure a wary public.
Oklahoma officials also need to offer good direction to the energy industry so they can make smart and safe investment decisions. Share new science to show what’s working.
___
The Oklahoman. Dec. 19, 2016
We often have reason to criticize government regulations that impose unfunded mandates upon private businesses in pursuit of questionable goals. But officials’ complaints regarding a new state law that may, someday, require posting of signage appear a case of making a mountain out of a molehill.
Among other things, a measure passed this year, House Bill 2797, requires entities licensed by the State Department of Health to post signage in restrooms that informs pregnant women of programs that can assist them. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure more women are aware of the support they can receive in order to potentially reduce the state’s abortion rate.
Yet at a December meeting of the state Board of Health, some officials suggested the sign requirement could dramatically harm the finances of private entities.
Estimating that signs would cost about $80 apiece, officials with the Oklahoma Hospital Association said the law would require Integris Health to spend $60,000 on signs, while small rural hospitals would spend about $750. The association predicted the total cost of compliance would be $225,000 at Oklahoma’s 140 licensed hospitals, while the cost to other licensed industries could total $2.1 million.
Jim Hooper, president of the Oklahoma Restaurant Association, decried the requirement as “just another mandate on small businesses.”
Here’s the problem: There is no mandate in state law forcing any business to spend even one dime on new signs.
As Sen. A.J. Griffin, the Guthrie Republican who authored the sign provision, noted, the law explicitly states that the sign requirement will take effect “contingent on the availability of funds being appropriated by the Legislature specifically for this purpose .” This means state government - not private businesses - must pay for the signs. And lawmakers appropriated no money for the signs. Therefore, there is no requirement for anyone, anywhere to post a sign.
Furthermore, there are no penalties in the law for failure to comply. So even if the law required businesses to expend funds for the signs, those choosing not to do so would face no adverse consequence. No fines. No regulatory penalties. Nothing.
And, the sign provision doesn’t even take effect until Jan. 1, 2018. So lawmakers have more than a year to address any logistical problems. Griffin has already said she will do so.
That said, it’s fair to criticize legislators for passing a law without funding it. In this case, that’s the same thing as not passing the law in the first place. All that was accomplished by passing the sign legislation was to waste regulators’ time and resources discussing its non-implementation. State officials’ time would have been better spent on truly pressing needs.
Had lawmakers defunded the programs that will be highlighted by these signs, there would have been a great hue and cry from advocates for the poor. So those same advocates should now praise lawmakers for trying to advertise availability of those services and increase public awareness.
But if such advertising is worthwhile, it’s also worth funding. And if state finances don’t allow for that, then next time lawmakers should simply shelve the idea until circumstances change.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.