Washburn Law Journal
Editor's Note
Volume 49, No. 1 (Fall 2009)
The first issue of this volume is dedicated to wind energy. Until recently, most Americans readily accepted the powerful role of fossil fuels in driving our nation's economy. In response to warnings of adverse climate changes and rapidly depleting domestic oil reserves, however, both state and federal policymakers have signaled a shift towards exploring "alternative" sources of energy. Because of its renewability and relative low cost, wind is an often-considered alternative. With its advantages, wind energy also brings new issues and challenges to the existing legal framework.
In March 2009, Professor Donald Zillman discussed his experiences addressing some of these challenges in the 31st Annual Foulston Siefkin Lecture at the Washburn University School of Law. With significant expertise in energy and natural resources law, Professor Zillman, as the interim President of the University of Maine at Presque Isle, helped guide his school towards the installation of its first wind turbine. His lecture to Washburn University faculty and students explained both the practical and legal problems he experienced during the course of this project.
Professor Zillman further develops his narrative in the article, More Than Tilting at Windmills. He relates his university's journey through the unfamiliar process of installing a wind turbine-from inception to operation. His account serves as a useful instructional tool for anyone considering a similar endeavor. Moreover, Professor Zillman adds flavor to his story with frequent referrals to contemporaneous diary entries and illuminating communications with other project participants.
Providing a national context to Professor Zillman's personal perspective, his co-author, Mary E. Walta, examines the legal and policy issues that wind energy developers both have and will be facing as the United States contemplates a move towards increased reliance on wind energy. Adding an international dimension to the discussion, co-author Professor Iņigo del Guayo Castiella discusses the development of wind energy in Spain and the EU and examines the various policies that have had an impact on wind energy development there.
This issue contains two other contributions to the discussion of wind energy and the law. In Animal, Vegetable, Mineral-Wind? The Severed Wind Power Rights Conundrum, Professor K.K. DuVivier challenges the conclusion that the legal status of wind rights is analogous to traditional mineral rights classification schemes. She proposes that courts and policymakers should refrain from blindly analogizing wind energy to the legal models of oil, gas, and water. Rather, she suggests that they should acknowledge wind's unique and specific physical qualities and tailor the law appropriately.
Finally, Brent Stahl, Lisa Chavarria, and Jeff Nydegger in their article, Wind Energy Laws and Incentives: A Survey of Selected State Rules, provide an overview of the legal landscape facing wind project developers in the seventeen largest wind-producing states. Specifically, they discuss laws, rules, and incentives that these developers should consider as they plan wind projects.
In covering areas of law unrelated to wind energy, this issue concludes with two Notes and a Comment. In Conservation Easements as Charitable Trusts in Kansas: Striking the Appropriate Balance Between the Grantor's Intent, the Public Interest, and the Need for Flexibility, Matt Richardson proposes that Kansas's courts construe conservation easements as charitable trusts in order to provide greater flexibility in their enforcement and to protect the public's interests. Joshua Ney challenges Kansas's method of electing members to its Supreme Court Nominating Commission in his note, Does the Kansas Supreme Court Selection Process Violate the One Person, One Vote Doctrine?. He argues that the current system may fail under a challenge using the Equal Protection Clause's "one person, one vote" requirement because members of the state bar exert a disproportionate amount of influence. To conclude this Issue, Stephen Freeland in his Comment, The Invisible Badge: Why Bounty Hunters Should Be Regarded as State Actors Under the Symbiotic Relationship Test, argues that bounty hunters provide a vital function for the criminal justice system by ensuring the return of criminal defendants and, therefore, should be considered state actors for purposes of the Fourth and Fourteen Amendments.
J.D.S.
