Meaning: extend the traveling distance into which Mexican nationals can penetrate New Mexico, so that they can bring their cash to cities like Las Cruces, Lordsburg, and Deming.

In response, Senators Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman have proposed legislation — the Southern New Mexico Economic Development Act — asking for an extension of the 25-mile zone in which Mexican citizens can travel into New Mexico to shop, to conduct business, to visit family and friends to 75 miles.

“This bill means more business for companies in border communities,” said Dan Watson of Udall’s Washington D.C. office. “With more people coming in to shop and do friendly business, the better off they are.”

Currently, holders of the Border Crossing Card (also known as a Laser Card) can only venture 25 miles from the border into New Mexico, Texas and California. New Mexico has fewer towns within that range than California and Texas, which offer shoppers cities such as El Paso and San Diego. In 1999, Arizona extended the card’s range to 75 miles, which granted Mexican nationals access to Tucson. “New Mexico should have the same opportunity as Arizona to benefit from this added commerce,” said Watson.

Momentum for the extension has been gaining. This past September, New Mexico’s legislature passed a resolution asking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to extend the zone.

“This bill extends that line further to boost our border economy in a manner that is consistent with our border security needs,” added Watson.

Meaning: extend the traveling distance into which Mexican nationals can penetrate New Mexico, so that they can bring their cash to cities like Las Cruces, Lordsburg, and Deming.

In response, Senators Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman have proposed legislation — the Southern New Mexico Economic Development Act — asking for an extension of the 25-mile zone in which Mexican citizens can travel into New Mexico to shop, to conduct business, to visit family and friends to 75 miles.

“This bill means more business for companies in border communities,” said Dan Watson of Udall’s Washington D.C. office. “With more people coming in to shop and do friendly business, the better off they are.”

Currently, holders of the Border Crossing Card (also known as a Laser Card) can only venture 25 miles from the border into New Mexico, Texas and California. New Mexico has fewer towns within that range than California and Texas, which offer shoppers cities such as El Paso and San Diego. In 1999, Arizona extended the card’s range to 75 miles, which granted Mexican nationals access to Tucson. “New Mexico should have the same opportunity as Arizona to benefit from this added commerce,” said Watson.

Momentum for the extension has been gaining. This past September, New Mexico’s legislature passed a resolution asking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to extend the zone.

“This bill extends that line further to boost our border economy in a manner that is consistent with our border security needs,” added Watson.

The letter stresses the urgency of making payments quickly. Last summer was a lost season for much of the Gulf Coast’s economy, and if money doesn’t start flowing soon, 2011 could be too. #

One passage is especially important to Floridians who have had their claims denied or ruled ineligible: #

In resolving claims, it is important to note that [the Oil Pollution Act, which governs the process for oil spill claims] does not create categories of eligible and ineligible claimants. Rather, in determining whether a particular damage resulted from the spill, the GCCF must examine the facts and circumstances of each claim and ascertain whether the harm asserted by the claimant occurred “as a result of’ the oil spill and is a type of harm, such as lost profits, covered by OPA. In so doing, it is relevant to consider the nature of the economy from which the claim arises. In many parts ofthe Gulf, tourism is the economic engine on which many industries and professions depend. #

Former state Attorney General Bill McCollum made a similar argument back in August, when he blasted Feinberg’s protocol for applying a stricter standard than the Oil Pollution Act. #

There businesses of all sorts — perhaps especially in the Florida panhandle — whose fortunes are closely tied to the health of the region’s tourism industry. And there claimants — see here, here and here — in some of those industries whose fortunes were damaged by the spill, but whose emergency payments were denied. #

The Justice Department’s letter continues: #

As we enter this most critical period, I urge you to take a second look at the categories of eligible and ineligible claims that the GCCF applied with respect to emergency advance payments. As noted above, OPA does not create such categories. Rules of decision regarding a particular industry that may make sense further inland may be wholly inapplicable for that industry in a purely coastal community that depends on visitors whose plans changed as a result of the spill. Communities that can demonstrate pervasive effects of the spill on their overall economy should have that evidence credited. The National Pollution Funds Center will issue its rulings based on the particular facts and circumstances of these claims, and the GCCF should, too. #

Can the panhandle demonstrate “pervasive effects of the spill” on its “overall economy?” There are studies showing it can. #

Has your claim been denied or ruled ineligible? Share your story: travis(at)floridaindependent(dot)com. #

Speaking at a Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association meeting in Tampa, Feinberg said some claimants have been reporting inconsistencies — that their neighbors and co-wokers got paid, but they didn’t, or that they got less than they felt they deserved. #

“We’ve made some mistakes,” he said, and the facility will “take another look” at those issues when those claimants seek final and interim payments. #

Feinberg stopped short of offering a formal appeals process, which some Florida officials, including former Attorney General Bill McCollum and outgoing Department of Children and Families Secretary George Sheldon, had been calling for. Right now, only claimants receiving more than $250,000 can appeal the fund’s decisions. #

Feinberg said it has taken him longer than expected to get a handle on the long-term outlook for the Gulf Coast, but that the claims fund he oversees will begin making quarterly “interim” and final payments in February. #

For some members of his audience, who had survived an oil-soaked summer and what for the Panhandle is a characteristically slow winter, the relief can’t come soon enough. Feinberg acknowledged that for many in the state’s hospitality industry, it’s almost time to start investing in things like advertising as they prepare for the coming season. #

“When am I going to get paid?” asked Jeff Stillwell, the owner of Barnacle Bill’s seafood restaurant in Tallahassee, warning that he could be out of business in a month or two if a check didn’t arrive. #

Feinberg pointed him to some of his newest hires — part of a group of Floridians who would be helping claimants get answers about the process, which he admitted had been one of the Gulf Coast Claims facility’s biggest shortcomings in the early going. #

People like Stillwell, whose businesses were struggling to shore up losses from over the summer or otherwise needed money urgently, could have their claims expedited, Feinberg said, while the facility prepares to begin issuing final and interim payments. #

So-called “quick payments” have been moving out the door, but he said he would also speed up payments for claimants who needed immediate help but didn’t want to chose that option. #

He also said he would also make public his eligibility criteria and formula for calculating damages. #

Earlier in the day, he held town-hall meetings in Panama City Beach and Fort Walton Beach. #

Judging by the standard set by some of his early appearances along the Gulf Coast, Feinberg’s was warmly received at the tourism group’s meeting. Its chairman, Keith Overton, announced that he has received a claim worth $800,000 for his Tradewinds Island Resort and said his relationship with Feinberg had moved from “hate” toward “the love side,” according to Bloomberg News. #

But how likely is it these would-be governors would actually enact Arizona-style immigration laws? It varies from state to state. Georgia and South Carolina were on the “danger list” in a report from a pro-immigration group Immigration Works USA earlier this week on which states are most likely to be the next Arizona. Both Georgia governor candidates have said they would mimic Arizona’s law, and the likely winner, Republican Rep. Nathan Deal, has pushed for a number of extreme anti-illegal immigration positions. His efforts against birthright citizenship, among others, earned him an A+ from NumbersUSA, a pro-enforcement group that grades politicians on immigration toughness.

South Carolina Republican nominee Nikki Haley also supports an Arizona-style law, although NumbersUSA picked her primary opponent as the “true reformer” on immigration.

Colorado, where third-party candidate Tom Tancredo is leading in the polls for governor, was on the “maybe” list for passing a copycat law to SB 1070, as was Nebraska. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R) is favored to win re-election and has predicted Arizona-style laws in every state within the next year. But both states might lack support for immigration enforcement bills in their legislatures, according to Immigration Works USA.

On the less likely list: Nevada, where Khimm notes Republican candidate Brian Sandoval has shifted right on immigration. When a state lawmaker announced a plan to create an Arizona-style bill in the state earlier this year, though, business leaders came out strongly against the effort, arguing it would hurt tourism. Two industry groups successfully killed the idea this summer.

New Mexico did not make the Immigration Works USA list of states likely to pass immigration enforcement legislation. While Republican gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez has criticized the “sanctuary” policies of her opponent and promised to repeal immigrant-friendly state laws, she may face opposition in the legislature. New Mexico is one of the more pro-immigrant states, with Latinos making up 45 percent of the population, and might not let go easily of laws that allow undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses that supporters claim are needed for public safety.

BP has capped the gushing well. But Destin’s economy has been walloped by a phantom ripple effect: Widespread fear by tourists that the oil had wrecked its coastline.

Destin Snorkel has been hit hard. Revenue was down 60% according to Val Costley, one of the partners of the operation. “I get calls every day: Are you snorkeling in oil?” said Costley. “We’ve been painted in this broad brush that we’ve been destroyed and that’s just not true.”

Trevor and Sarah Ladner, the sole proprietors of WhiteSandVacationRentals.com, have had about 30 percent of their reservations cancel. They rent out nine homes in Destin.

“It is the fear that people have. The misconception,” said Sarah. “They are imagining a tar slick on the beach,” added Trevor.

The timing of the oil spill proved catastrophic, and not just in economic terms: it came just in time to disturb fish breeding season, in time to spook away a full summer’s full of tourists and in time for hurricane season.

In his most recent advisory email, he cites Louisiana State University Professor Loren Scott on how the movement of the slick might change the economic impact. The economist says:

My biggest concern for the country is that the slick will move to the West. If it does there are two serious issues. The first is that that is where the great majority of the producing platforms are and most of the few active drilling rigs. If the slick gets under those platforms — as you pointed out — will the MMS or Coast Guard require those platforms to be abandoned for security reasons (fire)? Some can be remotely operated, but not forever. Even if they can remain manned, there is a huge fleet of supply boats operating around the clock supplying those platforms with potable water, food, supplies, etc. Will the Coast Guard allow those supply boats to motor through the slick to make their deliveries? If the answer is no, then the platforms will have to be abandoned. About 31 percent of our domestic oil supply will be shut off. You can imagine the impact on fuel prices.

He also predicts serious consequences if the slick gets near the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port:

LOOP is the only super port in the U.S. and is the only place where very large crude carriers can offload their oil. Will the LOOP be closed if it is surrounded by the slick?  There goes another 10 percent of our nation’s oil supply. Combine that with issue #1 above, and the impact on fuel prices is scary.

And he notes that most tourists don’t go to Mississippi for the pretty beaches, but for the casinos. Therefore, the worst effect on tourism would be if the oil slick moved east to the white-sand beaches of Alabama and Florida:

People come there to get in the water. For most of these communities their entire economy is based on tourism and the military. Just the prospect of the slick coming onshore is hurting bookings from Gulf Shores, Alabama to all along the western coast of Florida. The good news is that this should be a short-run problem. Sandy beaches can be cleaned up. New sand can be brought in. If this thing goes to the West — where Louisiana has no sandy, or even identifiable coast — and gets into Louisiana’s marshes, that is another more difficult cleanup altogether.

Kotok himself interjects at the end of the note: “Our point is that there are no good outcomes here.” Indeed.

A NASA satellite photo of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The bulk of the spill appears as a dull gray area southeast of the Mississippi Delta. (EPA/ZUMApress.com)

This much everyone agrees is true: The 5,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil leaking from the ocean floor 50 miles off of the coast of Louisiana, caused by an explosion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig on April 20, will cause serious economic damage to the Gulf Coast. For the past two weeks, the question has been: How much? How many jobs and dollars lost?

Analysts, politicians and businesses are now starting to grasp the extent of the financial damage of the ecological disaster. The Gulf Coast economies in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida are heavily reliant on three interconnected industries: Energy, fishing and tourism. Ironically, the energy industry that caused the spill looks likely to emerge relatively unscathed from the disaster, while the service industries, including fishing and tourism, are already starting to suffer from its effects.

[Economy1] Of the Gulf Coast’s prominent sectors, oil and gas might seem to have the most exposure to losses from the Deepwater Horizon incident. Approximately one quarter of the United States’ crude oil comes from the offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and the industry employs around 100,000 people in the area. But experts admit the disaster has not and will likely not have much of an impact on the industry, its employment figures or gasoline prices in the United States.

Why? The massive explosion caused the shutdown of just three other rigs — out of more than 700 in the Gulf. The slick remains small enough that most pipeline and shipping routes have not been impacted. And the legal and cleanup costs for the disaster will be concentrated on the federal government and BP, which as a single company in a competitive industry with price-sensitive customers will not pass its new costs on.

Of course, BP is on the hook for a considerable amount. The company is spending $6 million a day on cleanup; recently granted $25 million each to the states of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida; is drilling two “intervention wells” at a cost of $300 million; has civil liabilities estimated in the low billions; and has watched its stock drop from around $60 to around $50 a share, where it has stabilized. But the oil industry has a $1 billion trust fund to tap to help BP pay for damages, and its liability for non-clean-up costs beyond that are capped at a mere $75 million. BP — an international company with hundreds of rigs — made $5.6 billion in the first three months of the year alone.

As for the industry-wide outlook: Some speculate that the Deepwater Horizon incident has accounted for and will continue to account for rising oil prices, with The Chicago Tribune, for instance, writing, “No one knows exactly how much oil is leaking from [BP's] blown gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, but this much is certain: It’s enough to send energy markets higher.”

Analysts argue that rising oil prices across the United States are not tied to Deepwater or BP at all. “Oil prices, particularly for gas and crude, are incredibly tidal, and they peak in April or May. If you look at 28 years of oil and gas futures and prices, the average day of peak annual prices is May 6, with retail about 14 days later than that,” explains Tom Kloza, the chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service. “This is no different than the temperature hitting 100 degrees in Washington in August. It’s when it happens.”

Thus, the economic fallout looks to be light for oil and gas — something that will not be true for the Gulf Coast’s service industries, including fishing and tourism. The extent that those businesses turnaround depends on the extent of the ecological damage, impossible to assess now. But in the near-term, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has banned fishing for the impacted area from Louisiana to Arkansas, worrying fishing experts and scaring off tourists.

The Gulf Coast generates 40 percent of the lower 48 states’ annual commercial fishing catch. To Louisiana, the state with the biggest commercial fishing industry on the Gulf Coast, that is worth $2.4 billion. Right at the beginning of the shrimping season, losses are at least $8 million a day. David Yoskowitz, a professor of socioeconomics at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A&M University, says the region’s catch is expected to fall by hundreds of millions of pounds, costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

And of all the industries effected, tourism — hotels, restaurants and tour-guides — might be worst-hit. In Louisiana and Mississippi, hotels are reporting cancellations in droves. Industry experts there point to the problem of perception: Beaches from Texas to Florida might be viewed as contaminated, and the thought of the spill is enough to convince tourists to rebook elsewhere. Janice Jones of the Mississippi Gulf Coast Convention & Visitors Bureau, based in Gulfport, says, “The sound is open for all types of recreation, including fishing. I know some folks who were out this morning on charter boats, and said they came back with awesome catches.” She notes, still, “The issue is definitely more of perception,” and says that the state is launching a massive public-relations campaign to convince holidaymakers to come, including offering $75 gift cards to hotel guests.

Wall Street analysts have also extrapolated that the perception of oil wash-up on the coast — again, the extent of which is unknown as of now — will severely strain the industry. For instance, Neil McMahon of Bernstein Research recently estimated the exposure of Florida’s tourism industry alone to be $3 billion, even though the state has not seen a drop of oil yet, and might not. (The Florida Tourism Board is blaring the message that, “There are no impacts on travel in the state of Florida” and that “beaches are clear and open.”)

Yoskowitz points to one further cost, as of yet unknown and worrisome. It is with the “multiplier effect” that hurting the coastline and damaging the environment will have. And as fishing and tourism turn down along the coast, selling fewer goods and hiring fewer workers, businesses that support them, from shipping to restaurants to tackle sales, look certain to suffer as well. “If you have a fisherman who can’t go out and bring shrimp or oysters, there’s a processor who isn’t processing, a shipper who isn’t shipping, a gas salesman selling less gas. It also means that all of those families impacted are spending less money, further hurting the economy” — underscoring that the worst effects of this disaster will be local.

“Expanding offshore oil sites when you already have tens of millions of acres currently available to the oil industry for exploration that they’re not using, to me, is something that really will not help a comprehensive energy policy for this country,” the Maryland Democrat said in an interview with PBS Wednesday. “We’re talking about a minuscule amount of oil, and the risks here are great.”

Cardin, of course, has good reason to be wary of any plan that would allow new drilling in the mid-Atlantic. Maryland’s economy hinges largely on the health of both the Atlantic and the Chesapeake Bay, where agricultural run-off already poses an enormous threat to the crab and fishing industries.

We’re talking about the fishing industry. We’re talking about watermen. We’re talking about tourism. We’re talking about property owners. It could have a major impact on the economy of the Mid-Atlantic.

The comments put Cardin sharply at odds with a number of other Atlantic-coast lawmakers, who see new drilling as a boon to the local economy. Just to Cardin’s south, Virginia Sens. Mark Warner (D) and Jim Webb (D) both applauded Obama’s proposed expansion this week. Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell (R) told reporters yesterday that the White House announcement melds with “our plan to truly make Virginia the energy capital of the East Coast.” And Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms said a drilling expansion will help tourism by keeping gas prices low.

“These things are miles offshore,” Sessoms told The Washington Post, referring to the oil rigs that could pop up off of Virginia’s coast. “They won’t be seen.”

But neither those arguments nor the claims that more underwater drilling will lead the country to greater energy independence has convinced Cardin that an expansion is worth the environmental risks that could ruin Maryland’s economy.

“There are places,” he told PBS, “that are too special to risk offshore drilling.”

The National Conference of State Legislatures, in conjunction with the University of Maryland and the Center for Integrative Environmental Research, is releasing reports that also show that economic and environmental interests are aligning in other states.

The studies lay out the rising economic costs of global warming on states’ agriculture, water resources, public health, tourism, transportation, forestry and infrastructure. In some states, cutting greenhouse gas emissions has reduced these costs and fostered economic growth.

The conference recommends that all states pursue tougher environmental regulations because a state’s economy is invariably linked to the economies of its neighbors.

Among the states featured in the new reports are North Carolina, Tennessee, North Dakota and Pennsylvania (pdf here). (Cost-analysis reports for Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey and Ohio were released in July at the conference’s Legislative Summit in New Orleans.)

As in California, energy-efficiency policies are the most cost-effective options for states seeking to reduce greenhouse gases, according to the reports. Minnesota, for instance, saw a return of $3 in economic gains for every dollar spent on its energy-efficiency programs. Other states are considering legislation that would require new buildings to meet certain efficiency standards, while renovations of existing ones would have to meet green standards. You can read the cost reports for 12 states here.

The policy recommendations of the National Conference of State Legislatures will probably encounter some resistance from industry forces. But if California’s example shows anything, it’s that industry can benefit from tougher environmental protections.