As part of his chronicle of the LAT’s disgorging information on top Democrats now that the election’s over, Patterico points out a new story on Harry Reid:

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vows to make reform of congressional earmarks a priority of his tenure, arguing that members need to be more transparent when they load pet projects for their districts into federal spending bills.

But last year’s huge $286-billion federal transportation bill included a little-noticed slice of pork pushed by Reid that provided benefits not only for the casino town of Laughlin, Nev., but also, possibly, for the senator himself.

Reid called funding for construction of a bridge over the Colorado River, among other projects, “incredibly good news for Nevada” in a news release after passage of the 2005 transportation bill. He didn’t mention, though, that just across the river in Arizona, he owns 160 acres of land several miles from proposed bridge sites and that the bridge could add value to his real estate investment.

Reid denies any personal financial interest in his efforts to secure $18 million for a new span connecting Laughlin with Bullhead City, Ariz.

“Sen. Reid’s support for the bridge had absolutely nothing to do with property he owns,” said Rebecca Kirszner, Reid’s communications director. “Sen. Reid supported this project as part of his continuing efforts to move Nevada forward.”

But some Bullhead City property owners and local officials say a new bridge will undoubtedly hike land values in an already-booming commuter town, where speculators are snapping up undeveloped land for housing developments and other projects. Experts on congressional spending say Reid’s earmark provides yet another sign of the need for reform.

Moving Nevada forward is important, you know, apart from whether or not Harry’s going to reap the financial benefits of the project.  Unemployed lapdancers from Las Vegas could not be reached for comment, as they are busily packing to move to Laughlin.

Nowhere in Reid’s statements about the project was any mention of his Bullhead City land holdings; he does list it on his Senate financial disclosure forms. He valued the Arizona land at $500,000 to $1 million in his most recent disclosure, which reported total assets of at least $2.2 million.

Reid’s interest in the Arizona land dates back more than 20 years and, according to his staff, has been a long-running headache. He paid about $150,000 for 100 acres of the Bullhead City parcel, and his longtime friend Clair Haycock bought the remaining 60 acres for $90,000.

Californians who bought the property from the two in the early 1990s defaulted on a $1.3-million note and returned the land to Reid and Haycock.

In early 2002, Haycock sold out to Reid for $10,000, or about $166 an acre.

At the time, the Mohave County assessor valued the entire parcel at $339,620, or more than $2,000 an acre.

And this is interesting:

Haycock, who owns Haycock Petroleum Co. of Las Vegas, said in an e-mail that he needed to sell his share to liquidate a company pension plan, which owned the property.

He said in a statement that he “expected nothing from Sen. Reid” in return for selling him the property.

Hmmm.  Wonder how company pensioners feel about that.

A quick glance at Google confirms that the company’s largesse toward Reid doesn’t end there.  Since at least 1996, they’ve been pretty major contributors to the Friends of Harry Reid.

No, there’s no quid pro quo.

Today, Haycock Petroleum’s station at Washington and A streets will unveil the first biodiesel pumps in Las Vegas available to the public.

The company has provided fuel to some private companies and government agencies in the Las Vegas Valley.

Gary Weinberg, products specialist for Haycock Petroleum, predicts some of the company’s other five stations across valley will become biodiesel outlets for the public as the 2005 Energy Policy Act takes hold.

A federal subsidy gives companies about $30,000 per location for signage and “pump toppers”—identification signs on the top of pumps—if they convert products, pumps or sites to alternative fuels or build new ones that sell biodiesel.

“We’re going to take advantage of that with one or two for sure,” he said about expanding biodiesel outlets like the A Street station.

The emphasis is mine.  Nope, nothing against biodiesel, and nothing against Harry’s comments about it:

Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement:

“If the President is serious about reducing the cost of gasoline then he would support a dramatic increase in the use of biodiesel and ethanol in gasoline as part of the energy bill. Consumers are facing record gas prices at the pump, while oil companies are reporting record profits. Oil companies are not expanding their purchases of lower-priced biodiesel and ethanol and are continuing to purchase expensive crude oil and raise gasoline prices. The President should immediately call on oil companies and refiners to use more domestically produced biodiesel and ethanol.

“The President’s energy plan is a bad deal for American consumers and will do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce our consumption or increase production here at home. We should continue to work together to find bipartisan solutions to reducing our dependence on foreign oil and firmly place us on the path towards energy independence.”

. . . .

Biofuels: The bill and conference report should require a significant increase in home-grown biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. We can reduce our use of gasoline, create a new domestic industry with thousands of jobs, and gain secure supplies of fuel.

Emphases mine.

Of course, Harry doesn’t like “subsidies for big oil companies.  Other subsidies are another matter:

Neither biofuel [corn ethanol or soybean biodiesel] was cost-competitive in 2005 without subsidies. Biodiesel cost 55 cents a liter to produce, or 20 percent more than ethanol. Wholesale gasoline prices in 2005 averaged 44 cents a liter, or 4 percent less a liter to produce than ethanol, the study said. Still, biodiesel receives a subsidy that is 45 percent greater a liter than ethanol.

Analysts agreed with the study’s conclusion that biodiesel compares favorably with ethanol from an environmental standpoint. “Biodiesel is much cleaner-burning fuel and much less harmful to the environment,” Daniel W. Basse, president of AgResource in Chicago, an economic forecasting firm, said Wednesday.

But Mr. Basse said ethanol production is far more efficient, with some 420 gallons of ethanol produced per acre of corn versus only 60 gallons of biodiesel per acre of soybeans. If biodiesel use ever increased greatly, Mr. Basse said, the cost of soybean oil would rise significantly.

Brent Erickson, executive vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, based in Washington, agreed that biodiesel’s potential was limited. “If you look at the amount of biodiesel you can produce, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of cellulosic ethanol that could be produced one day,” he said.

The Minnesota researchers write that with a projected doubling of global demand for food within 50 years and an even greater expected increase in demand for transportation fuels, “there is a great need for renewable energy supplies that do not cause significant harm and do not compete with food supply.”

Oh, there’s much, much more in this rich vein, but enough for now.