Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

[EX Q]: Officials in energy-friendly Weld County say the law gives the county complete control over the location of new wells in unincorporated areas. That could challenge the state's attempts to tighten regulations. Just across the county line in Longmont, environmental activists are trying to use the same statute to revive the city's ban on hydraulic fracturing, which the courts threw out under the previous laws. Because fracking is standard practice in the area, the ban would essentially prohibit all drilling. Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed the bill into law on April 16. In addition to switching the state's top priority to public health and the environment, it gives cities and counties new powers to regulate the drilling locations. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is in the early stages of rewriting its rules to comply with the law referred to as Senate Bill 181 and several counties are looking at drafting their own regulations. It's too early to measure the impacts, but the industry is clearly concerned. The Colorado Oil and Gas Association invited Polis to speak Wednesday at a session titled "Can You Still Drill for Oil in a Blue State?" Polis told the audience that was a silly question. He said international markets and overseas instability have more impact on the industry than state regulations. "Energy is not inherently political, it's inherently economic," he said. Dan Haley, president of the Oil and Gas Association, asked Polis several times to respond to industry concerns about its standing in the state. The governor eventually replied he values industry jobs but added that they're part of a diverse state economy. Colorado ranks fifth in the nation for crude oil production and sixth in natural gas, and much of that is concentrated in Weld County northeast of Denver. Weld County Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, a fierce defender of the industry, argued hard against the new bill and led a short-lived campaign to overturn it after it became law. Now she maintains the bill, coupled with older statutes on local government powers, gives counties like hers the final word on land-use decisions that affect the industry in areas outside cities. "Basically what S.B. 181 said is the state no longer has land use authority," she said in an interview. Weld County established an oil and gas department and adopted its own rules, but Kirkmeyer said energy companies won't have free rein to drill wherever they want. The county rules are similar to ones the state had before the new law was passed, she said. The goal is to ensure a common-sense approach to regulating oil and gas companies, Kirkmeyer said. "We are willing to work with them for responsible energy development in our county," she said. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Stephen Fenberg, a sponsor of Senate Bill 181, disputed Kirkmeyer's interpretation of the law. The intent was to give both the state and local governments a say in regulating the surface impacts of oil and gas, and to allow cities and counties to enact stricter rules than the state's, but not more lenient ones, he said. "I would argue that the Weld County commissioners know this," he said, accusing them of "political theater." Polis said Wednesday that state officials are working on a written agreement with Weld County officials but offered no details. Environmental groups Colorado Rising and Our Longmont say the new law clears the way for Longmont and other local governments to ban oil and gas drilling. Longmont voters approved a fracking ban in 2012, but the Colorado Supreme Court overturned it in 2016, saying only the state could regulate the industry under the laws in force at the time. Senate Bill 181 "flips the script" on state and local control, said Democratic state Rep. Jonathan Singer of Longmont, who supports the ban. "The state does not take precedence over what local governments want to do when it comes to protecting our health and safety," he said. The two environmental groups asked the courts to restore the ban earlier this month. The case is pending. Fenberg said the law doesn't specifically allow or prohibit local drilling bans. But he said they could open a city or a county to damage claims from mineral rights owners who can't access their underground oil and gas reserves. If the goal is to protect public health and safety, strong local regulations are a better option than a ban, he said. ___ Follow Dan Elliott at http://twitter.com/DanElliottAP .
[EX A]: Oil and gas defenders, critics test Colorado's new law.

[EX Q]: Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital plans to open a second proton therapy center in 2020, and Mercy Hospital St. Louis expects to open its own proton center two years later, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported . Proton therapy zap cancerous cells with precise beams of radiation while sparing surrounding tissue. Unlike traditional X-rays, the proton beams stop at the tumor instead of traveling through the body. The new $32 million proton system planned at Barnes-Jewish Hospital will provide "pencil-beam" precision to target tumors, said Dr. Jeffrey Bradley, director of Siteman's S. Lee Kling Proton Therapy Center. It will be built next to a $20 million machine, which opened in late 2013, that uses magnets to scatter proton beams across a tumor. Siteman has treated about 800 patients with the proton therapy, close to its projections of 200 patients a year. The first proton centers built in the 1990s were known for their football-field size and up to $200 million price tag. To offset the costs, the centers marketed heavily to men with prostate cancer, despite a lack of evidence that patients have better outcomes or fewer side effects compared to cheaper treatment alternatives. In 2013, Washington University was the first to open a smaller, less-expensive proton system with one treatment room. "That's very different from other centers that went all in, borrowed money, and put in four-room centers," Bradley said. "The one room at a time idea is a very viable idea." Bradley and other radiation oncologists say a major hurdle is insurance companies' reluctance to cover proton therapy. That can cost 50 percent to 75 percent more than traditional radiation, according to industry groups. "Where the insurers like to say that proton therapy is not beneficial is often because they do not perform an adequate review of the evidence," said Scott Warwick, executive director of the National Association for Proton Therapy. "We have notified the payers that they have often either misinterpreted data, reviewed older evidence or omitted key evidence in development of their coverage policies." ___ Information from: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, http://www.stltoday.com
[EX A]: St. Louis medical organizations plan more proton therapy.

[EX Q]: The Justice Department argued in court documents recently that providing the money to the Tuskegee Human and Civil Rights Multicultural Center would violate an agreement reached in 1975 to settle a class-action lawsuit. For the study, hundreds of black men suffering from the sexually transmitted disease were allowed to go untreated for decades so doctors could analyze the progression of the illness. The government said that it "does not intend in any way to justify, condone, or defend the Tuskegee Syphilis Study," but allowing remaining money from a $9 million settlement to be used for the museum would violate the settlement's original provision that any left over money go back to the government. Fred Gray, a civil rights attorney who represented men in the study and made the funding request in 2016, declined comment on the government's position. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson held a telephone conference on the request on May 30, records show, but hasn't ruled yet. Starting in 1932 and continuing for four decades, government medical workers operating in rural, segregated Alabama withheld treatment from unsuspecting black men infected with syphilis so doctors could track the disease and dissect their bodies afterward. Revealed by The Associated Press in 1972, the study ended and the men sued, resulting in the settlement negotiated by Gray on behalf of the victims, all of whom have died. The men wanted to be remembered in a memorial that told their story, Gray said in court documents, and a county-owned history museum that already includes exhibits about the study could use the "relatively small" amount of unclaimed money. The men's names are emblazoned in a circle on the floor of the museum, which only opens during the summer because of funding shortages. The Justice Department said sending the money to the museum would "fundamentally alter the terms of the agreement." Days after the government made its argument in legal documents, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo barring third-party organizations from receiving money from settlements involving the government. Officials say more than 6,000 heirs of the roughly 600 men who were involved in the study received settlement payments through the decades, but an undisclosed amount of mainly interest earnings remains in court-controlled accounts. Court officials say they can't find additional descendants, if any exist. Some descendants of the men have said they support using the settlement money to help the museum, while others like the idea of a new memorial at Tuskegee University, where the study was based. Still others want new medical screenings on relatives. A judge's decision could be a step toward ending the study participants' class-action lawsuit, first filed in 1973.
[EX A]:
Trump administration opposing bid for syphilis study museum.