Press Release August 9, 2011:

• SunPower Corp.  • First Solar, Inc.  • Defenders of Wildlife  • Sierra Club  • Center for Biological Diversity 

Statement on Settlement Agreement Between National Environmental Organizations and Solar Development Companies Regarding San Luis Obispo Solar Projects

Governor Brown Commends Agreement

August 9, 2011

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (August 9, 2011) – Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and Center for Biological Diversity issued a statement today with SunPower Corp. (NASDAQ: SPWRA, SPWRB) and Topaz Solar Farms, LLC, a subsidiary of First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR), on a settlement agreement regarding two solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant projects in development in San Luis Obispo County, Calif.

With regard to the agreement, California Governor Jerry Brown said, “This is another step in positioning California as the national leader in solar technology. These projects and California’s overall renewable energy industry will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

The conservation organizations and solar development companies said: “Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Topaz and SunPower have reached an agreement to provide additional conservation protections for the Carrizo Plain in eastern San Luis Obispo County, Calif., where SunPower’s 250-megawatt California Valley Solar Ranch and Topaz’s 550-megawatt Topaz Solar Farm are planned for the generation of renewable solar power for delivery to California’s grid.

Governor Brown’s office facilitated the discussions leading to this agreement and the organizations and companies appreciate the Governor’s leadership in this matter.

The projects are located in the Carrizo Plain, a core recovery area for endangered San Joaquin kit fox and giant kangaroo rats. While both companies have previously agreed to significant commitments to protect and preserve species in this important habitat area and have received project approvals based on environmental reviews by various federal, state and local agencies, with this agreement SunPower and Topaz commit to provide a suite of additional environmental benefits to further increase protection of the area. This agreement provides for additional conservation for the remaining unprotected lands in the northern Carrizo Plain above and beyond those provided under existing local, state and federal permits.

The significant, additional environmental benefits under the agreement include:

• -More than 9,000 acres will be added to the 17,000 acres of land required to be permanently protected and preserved under the permits, resulting in a total of approximately 26,000 acres, or about 40 square miles, of the Carrizo Plain receiving protection as a result of these projects.
• -Thirty miles of fencing will be removed from the area, allowing for greater wildlife movement around the projects. Additional beneficial enhancements will be made to the wildlife-friendly fencing around the solar system arrays.
• -No rodenticides will be used in the construction or operation of the projects, and the solar companies will help fund efforts to eliminate rodenticides on the Carrizo Plain and in other San Joaquin kit fox conservation areas.
• -Topaz and SunPower will make additional significant financial contributions to help San Luis Obispo County acquire lots in the largely undeveloped subdivision in the Carrizo Plain to restore for wildlife conservation.

The parties negotiated in good faith and recognize that many challenges may be minimized or avoided in the future through earlier, more comprehensive communication between conservation groups and the solar companies with the goal to locate projects outside of important wildlife areas and sensitive natural resources. Our organizations strongly support the development of renewable energy in California to reduce carbon emissions and transition away from fossil fuels, and believe that renewable energy projects must be located and designed in the most sustainable manner possible to ensure that projects move forward expeditiously and avoid, minimize, and mitigate their impacts on our native wildlife and natural landscapes.”

For First Solar Investors
This release contains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The forwardlooking statements in this release do not constitute guarantees of future performance. Those statements involve a number of factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, including risks associated with the company’s business involving the company’s products, their development and distribution, economic and competitive factors and the company’s key strategic relationships and other risks detailed in the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. First Solar assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking information contained in this press release or with respect to the announcements described herein.

SunPower’s Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are statements that do not represent historical facts and may be based on underlying assumptions. SunPower uses words and phrases such as “”will,” “agreement to,” “commit,” and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements in this press release. Such forwardlooking statements are based on information available to SunPower as of the date of this release and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, some beyond its control, that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated by these forwardlooking statements, including risks and uncertainties such as: (i) the impact of regulatory changes and the continuation of governmental and related economic incentives promoting the use of solar power; (ii) construction difficulties or potential delays, including obtaining land use rights, permits, license, other governmental approvals, and
transmission access and upgrades, and any litigation relating thereto; (iii) the significant investment required to construct power plants and SunPower’s ability to sell or otherwise monetize power plants; and (iv) other risks described in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 2, 2011, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 3, 2011 and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing the company’s views as of any subsequent date, and the company is under no obligation to, and expressly disclaims any responsibility to, update or alter its forwardlooking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

COMMENT: I doubt there is a single solar energy project in the West that is not the target of radical environmental groups. No matter where one goes, it seems a project is always impacting some endangered species. SDolar projects in soputheastern California in the Mohave Desert are claimed to be imparing the habitat of the Mohave desert tortoises for example.

Litigious environmental groups can block projects for years. Or…as they seem to be doing mnore and more..agree to drop all their opposition if they get what they want.

And that is on top of whatever US Fish and Wildlife extracts from projects to grant an “incidental take permit”.

At least this solar project gets a green light…with the added cost of saving foxes and kangaroo rats. Next time you turn on your lights, remember some rats are saying thank you.

_____________________________________________

Western water rights imperiled by Endangered Species Act

Fish and Wildlife Service Proposes To Revise Critical Habitat For Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

The endangered species tax

Enviro-Marxists seek to protect the environment by destroying capitalism

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

It is Time to Reform the Endangered Species Act

Reformation of the Endangered Species Act
_____________________________

More on the envionmental litigation factory war on America….

Center for Biological Diversity — a multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of:”Harm”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

From the Sacramento Bee:

Judge denies suit against Tahoe fire restoration

The Associated Press Published: Saturday, Jul. 16, 2011 – 6:05 am

CARSON CITY, Nev. — The U.S. Forest Service says it plans to begin restoration work this month in the Angora Fire area at Lake Tahoe after a federal judge rejected arguments by environmental groups that logging burned areas would harm the blackbacked woodpecker and other wildlife.

In an order filed in Sacramento, U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell granted the federal agency summary judgment against Earth Island Institute and Center for Biological Diversity.

More….

COMMENT: Bet CBD won’t be issuing a press release on this loss.

Press Release from Congressional Western Caucus and Senate Western Caucus July 12, 2011:

Obama Administration Rewards Job Crushing Litigation in Escalation of War on Western Jobs

Administration’s announcement puts jobs across the entire West in jeopardy

Washington, D.C. – Today, the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it was “further strengthening” an agreement with a “frequent plaintiff group” on a plan to review more than 250 candidate species to determine if they should be added to the Federal Endangered and Threatened Species lists. 

Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus Steve Pearce (R-NM) released the following statement in response to the announcement:

“We should not reward litigation happy groups like WildEarth Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity for continuing to hamper the intended goal of the Endangered Species Act.  They continue to overload the petition process while creating expensive litigation on the taxpayers’ dime. We can do better than a 1% recovery rate for species while killing jobs across the West.

“We should be working towards updating and modernizing our approach to ensure greater recovery success and increased job creation.  I am confident there is an appropriate balance between protecting species and economic development without sending millions of taxpayer dollars to these extreme groups in attorneys’ fees.”

Chairman of the Senate Western Caucus John Barrasso (R-WY) released the following statement in response to the announcement:

“Once again, Washington has reached an agreement behind closed doors that doesn’t benefit endangered species, Western communities, or unemployed Americans.  Instead, two lawsuit driven environmental groups reap the reward,” said Barrasso.  “It’s time for Congress to finally modernize the ESA and restore it to its original intent.  We can recover truly threatened species at the local level without killing jobs and undermining economic growth.”

The Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973 to protect plants and animal species facing extinction. The ESA currently protects more than 1,300 species in the U.S. and about 570 species abroad. However, only about 1 percent of the species listed have been recovered.

In May, The Washington Post reported that two groups – WildEarth Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity had filed petitions aimed to list more than 1,230 plants and animals since 2007.  Yesterday, New York Times reported some of these same groups have been reimbursed over $6.1 million in attorneys’ fees in the last 6 years by US taxpayers.

###

More….

Fish and Wildlife Service Strengthens Work Plan to Restore Biological Priorities and Certainty to Endangered Species Listing Process

Study: Forest Service Paid $6.1M in Groups’ Legal Fees Over 6 Years

and…

Taxpayers Pay People to Sue the U.S….abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act by environmental litigation factories

More on environmental litigation factories: “Taxpayer-funded job security”

Center for Biological Diversity — a multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

Posted in The Westerner:

Study: Forest Service Paid $6.1M in Groups’ Legal Fees Over 6 Years

The Forest Service paid $6.1 million in legal fees to groups that sued it over a six-year period, according to an academic study that casts new light on a politically charged issue. At issue is the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which requires the federal government to pay attorneys fees when it loses cases under statutes that do not specifically call for such fees to be paid by the government. Some Republican lawmakers argue that environmental groups have taken advantage of a lack of oversight on such payments and file numerous lawsuits they know they can win on procedural grounds. Recently introduced legislation (pdf), the “Government Litigation Savings Act,” would amend the statute. The measure’s lead sponsors are two Wyoming Republicans, Sen. John Barrasso and Rep. Cynthia Lummis (E&ENews PM, May 25). The new report (pdf) — published in the latest issue of the Society of American Foresters’ Journal of Forestry — includes data from the Forest Service and Justice Department obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. The payments cover the period 1999 to 2005…more

From the study: The Equal Access to Justice Act and US Forest Service Land Management: Incentives to Litigate?

Discussion

The challenge in analyzing our results is that we are left with perhaps more questions than with which we began. Although we can contribute to the empirical understanding of fee shifting and land-management litigation, we can not resolve the entirety of questions
surrounding EAJA with any degree of certainty.

In terms of what our study can definitively tell us, we know this much. We can establish that the US Forest Service faces a formidable litigation environment and that the number of lawsuits is increasing.

We found that lawsuits against the agency are accompanied by requests for legal fees under the EAJA and that the agency has paid out approximately $6 million over a 7-year period—although we acknowledge that this dollar total is imprecise. This is a relatively small percentage of the US Forest Service’s annual budget, [7] and that is not surprising because only a small percentage of the thousands of projects proposed by the US Forest Service are ultimately litigated. We also found that the most common US Forest Service EAJA fee recipients, environmental groups, are also the organizations that file the most lawsuits against the agency (Gambino Portuese et al. 2009). Finally, although not homogenous, most of these frequent environmental litigants possess substantial financial resources (Table 8). By using the example of national forest litigation and of the litigants from our study,we can also establish that current use of EAJA by these plaintiffs diverges from the law’s initial purpose on ts passage nearly 30 years ago. As discussed earlier, the congressional intent behind the EAJA appears focused.

The overarching theme behind the statute’s passage was the prevention of “excessive government” regulation. The three goals of the EAJA were to “(1) encourage parties that are the subject of unreasonable federal government action to seek reimbursement for attorney’s fees and other costs, (2) restrain overzealous regulators, and (3) ensure that the government pays for the costs of refining and formulating public policy” (GAO 1998, p. 8).  Bill sponsor Senator Pete V. Domenici stated that the EAJA’s purpose was “to redress the balance between the government acting in its discretionary capacity and the individual” (House Hearing 1980). The EAJA was intended to allow plaintiffs access to the legal system to challenge excessive regulation by the federal government, particularly where such regulations caused economic harm to members of the public. Although agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) typically engage in public regulation, landmanagement agencies, such as the US Forest Service, do not.

Legal actions directed against land-management agencies are rarely brought by individuals or small businesses contesting excessive government regulation. Rather, litigation against the US Forest Service usually challenges discretionary land management decisions. [8] Congress was informed that EAJA could be used in lawsuits contesting agency decisions. For example, during EAJA’s legislative hearings federal agencies, including the EPA, warned Congress of the bill’s potential to encourage excessive interference with agency decisionmaking (Mezey and Olson 1993). Whether Congress disregarded or underestimated these concerns is difficult to discern; however, recent events, such as the Western Congressional Caucus members’ (Western
Congressional Caucus 2009) and Idaho Senate Delegation’s (2009) letters to DOJ, indicate that some legislators believe EAJA may not be addressing its original purposes.

Congress’s intention when it enacted EAJA was to address the resource disparity between private litigants and the government— the ultimate “repeat player” (see Galanter 1974). However, our findings suggest EAJA’s legal eligibility requirements may not be restricting its use to groups with limited financial resources. For example, we found the organizations involved in more than one EAJA case collectively reported net assets in 2005 of more than $88 million and annual revenues of more than $116 million (Table 8).

 More….

Table 7. Organizations listed as a plaintiff in more than one lawsuit against the US Forest Service that resulted in an Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) payments from 1999 through 2006, by number of times listed.

Organization name No. of times listed as plaintiff in EAJA suit

American Wildlands 6

Center for Biological Diversity 6

Earthjustice 3

Forest Guardians 8

Heartwood (includes Kentucky Heartwood) 7

Idaho Sporting Congress 8

Kettle Range Conservation Group 4

Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center 2

League of Wilderness Defenders 4

Native Ecosystems Council 7

Oregon Natural Resources Council 5

Sierra Club/Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 12

Swan View Coalition 4

The Ecology Center 9

Total 85
Source: Data provided by the US Forest Service.
_______________________

Table 8. Description and 2005 financial summary of the organizations listed as a
plaintiff in more than one lawsuit against the US Forest Service, which resulted in Equal
Access to Justice Act award payments from 1999 through 2006, by number of times
listed.

Organization name Net assets ($) Revenues ($)

American Wildlands 438,600 521,833

Center for Biological Diversity 2,347,991 3,477,044

Earthjustice 28,261,755 21,086,300

Forest Guardians 511,326 764,626

Heartwood 86,539 159,435

Idaho Sporting Congress 31,657 60,428

Kettle Range Conservation Group Tax extension filed

Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center 73,199 350,684

League of Wilderness Defenders 16,171 82,996

Native Ecosystems Council Information not available on Guidestar

Oregon Natural Resources Council (now Oregon Wild)1,181,477 1 ,214,995

Sierra Club 54,604,888 85,183,435

Swan View Coalition 84,040 37,891

The Ecology Center 1,166,694 3,158,765

Total 88,804,337 116,098,442

Agency records repeatedly list the Sierra Club as an EAJA fee recipient. Because the Sierra Club is ineligible to receive fees as a501(c)(4) organization, the court awards were most likely awarded to the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.

A fight has broken out between Republicans and Democrats in Washington over what takes priority:

….protecting the American people from Mexican drug cartel smugglers and terrorists who have easy access to our border with Mexico through National Forest and Department of Interior managed lands?

…or protect endangered species and wilderness areas along the border?

The battleground is HR 1505 which seeks to waive environmental laws in favor of giving the Border Patrol better access to federal lands along our borders.

Let us first consider the Endangered Species Act itself.

The ESA does not just seek to protect “species” like polar bears. It also seeks to protect “subspecies” and “distinct population segments” of species and subspecies.

There are lots of subspecies….and it is not extinction of an entire species if a subspecies is threatened.

Where the ESA gets really squirrelly is the “distinct population segments”.

We can have a wolf which is genetically identical whether it lives in Montana or eastern Arizona. But because each is living in a different area, both are claimed to be “endangered”.

One would assume that the ESA is about saving plants and animals…but it has morphed into a powerful tool to attack virtually every kind of land use radical environmentalists oppose.

God forbid one should want to drill for oil or natural gas in an area inhabited by a subspecies of lizard.

Never ever even think about building a solar array or a wind farm if that will interfere with a distinct population segment of some critter that may actually be quite abundant somewhere else.

The really powerful weapon in the ESA arsenal is Section 9…the “take” provision.

If, for example, a Border Patrol vehicle should run over a protected lizard, that is a felony under US law. Modifying a “habitat” that is or could be used by an endangered species, subspecies or distinct population segment is also a felony.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&W) can grant what are called “incidental take permits” to allow the Border Patrol to occasionally run over a protected lizard…provided the Border Patrol pays a ransom to USF&W such as the $50 million deal Janet Napolitano entered into which diverted Department of Homeland Security funds to USF&W so they could study…among other things…bats in the borderlands.

Ironically it is a misdemeanor to illegally enter the country, but a felony if a Border Patrol agent runs over a protected lizard.

Using the Endangered Species Act, environmental litigation factories such as the Center for Biological Diversity have launched a war against Fort Huachuca. In CBD’s pantheon, protecting endangered fish in the San Pedro River is more important than national security.

The ESA has set up a massive conflict between national security and national economic self-sufficiency versus the environment.

And to radical environmental groups there is no question which comes first…protecting endangered species and subspecies and distinct population segments of species. The heck with being able to mine copper or rare earths inside our country. The heck with producing our own oil and natural gas. The heck with renewable energy projects.

The Endangered Species Act need a serious re-think.

The subspecies element needs to be eliminated.

The distinct population segment protection needs to be eliminated.

The length of time the US Fish and Wildlife Service has to evaluate a listing or habitat protection petition needs to be increased. Why? So the feds don’t end up paying millions of dollars in Equal Access to Justice Act fees to groups like Center for Biological Diversity…which are paid not because there was any merit in CBD’s lawsuits…but because the feds simply don’t have enough time to respond to hundreds of petitions filed by groups like CBD.

And Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act needs a serious re-writing.

I doubt if anyone would oppose a felony charge for a poacher killing eagles for feathers or other endangered species for their livers or horns or whatever.

But when US Fish and Wildlife can threaten a rancher with felony charges because his cows may accidentally step on a frog and then give USF&W the ability to charge ransom for permission for the cows to continue walking around the range…or charge an energy company ransom to protect flies….we have gone way too far.

But when US Fish and Wildlife can demand millions from the Central Arizona Project because fish from the CAP canals “might” escape the canal system and then swim upstream on the Santa Cruz River and eat native species…we have gone way too far.

HR 1505 directly focuses the conflict between national security and the environment.

Do we want our borders open to both drug cartel smugglers and jaguars?

 Radical environmental groups want to tear down the border fence so jaguars can roam from Mexico into the United States.

They apparently don’t care if drug smugglers follow the jaguar’s tracks.

More….

Battle lines drawn–protect the environment? or protect national security?

Ranchers support improving Border Patrol access to federal lands

National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers support new legislation to improve Border Patrol access to federal lands

Dept of Interior responds to claims it is hampering border security

Forest Service responds to claims it is hampering border security

Environmental lawyer trashes effort to improve Border Patrol access on federal lands

Federal land managers under the gun of the Endangered Species Act responsible for destruction of over 300,000 acres of border wild lands

More on how federal land managers compromise border security

GAO confirms federal environmental laws and federal land managers hinder securing our border

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

More on “politically correct fire stories”

Many in S. Ariz. fire zone blame border crossers

Chiricahua Mountains … another “sky island” turned to ash

Border security versus the environment

Wilderness Areas on the border? What a great idea if you are a cartel drug smuggler

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions…burning down our wildlands

Taxpayers Pay People to Sue the U.S….abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act by environmental litigation factories

More on environmental litigation factories: “Taxpayer-funded job security”

Center for Biological Diversity — a multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

From FOX Business June 6, 2011:

Taxpayers Pay People to Sue the U.S.

By Elizabeth MacDonald

….”When the government stopped tracking (Equal Access to Justice Act) payments in 1995, it was a dream come true for radical environmental groups,” Rep. Lummis said in a statement. “Lack of oversight has fueled the fire for these groups to grind the work of land management and other federal agencies to a halt — and it does so on the taxpayers’ dime.”

Lummis points to two private studies, one done by a Cheyenne, Wyoming, law firm and another by Virginia Tech University, which show that despite Congress’s original intent to help out the little guy in fighting the federal government for its allegedly wrongful actions, the big business of large environmental groups now are potentially the biggest beneficiaries of EAJA payments.

Moreover, Rep. Lummis says, a number of environment groups have purposely flooded this lawsuit reimbursement system, in order to overwhelm the government to simply rubberstamp the refunds. Many government agencies have 90 days to respond to suits, and if they blow past that deadline, then the government ponies up.

For example, Lummis says, the Dept. of the Interior must answer petitions to list species as protected wildlife. The Interior Department must respond within 90 days to petitions to list species under the Endangered Species Act. If they don’t, environmentalists turn around and sue to get the listing and collect attorney fees from the Justice Department.

Many environmentalists purposely ram through hundreds and hundreds of petitions, knowing overwhelmed government officials can’t get to them within the allotted 90 days. They then sue and get their money back, at taxpayer expense.

More…

COMMENT: The Plaintiff environmental litigation factores are not winning on the “merits”…they are playing games with the unrealistic time limits the US Fish & Wildlife has to respond to petitions for endangered species listings and habitat protection.

A real solution is to reform the Endangered Species Act and not allow hundreds of listing petitions to be filed and to give USF&W more time to review petitions to make sure they are scientifically valid.

From High Country News: http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.22/firebrand-ways

‘Firebrand ways’

A visit with one of the founders of the Center for Biological Diversity

by Tony Davis

Twenty years ago, they were Earth Firsters, living in tepees, trying to save spotted owls and grafting together a shoestring budget from their unemployment checks. Today, the Center for Biological Diversity has a budget of $7 million, 62 full-time staffers and 15 offices nationally, in locations from Washington, D.C., to Silver City, N.M. By filing 600 lawsuits and countless petitions against the federal government, the center has won the listing of 380 species as threatened or endangered. It also says it has secured 110 million acres of critical habitat and proposed another 130 million acres. CBD has won a reputation as the country’s most militant large environmental group, one that seldom shrinks from controversy.

From its Tucson headquarters, it’s expanded its species-saving tactics to protect rivers, stop sprawl, battle overgrazing and even tackle climate change. Last year, the group helped get the polar bear listed as a threatened species. Here, one of CBD’s founders, 45-year-old director Kieran (pronounced Keer-Onh) Suckling, looks back at how the group got where it is and explains how it differs from the “Big 10″ green groups
….

HCN What role do lawsuits play in your strategy to list endangered species? 

SUCKLING They are one tool in a larger campaign, but we use lawsuits to help shift the balance of power from industry and government agencies, toward protecting endangered species. That plays out on many levels. At its simplest, by obtaining an injunction to shut down logging or prevent the filling of a dam, the power shifts to our hands. The Forest Service needs our agreement to get back to work, and we are in the position of being able to powerfully negotiate the terms of releasing the injunction.

New injunctions, new species listings and new bad press take a terrible toll on agency morale. When we stop the same timber sale three or four times running, the timber planners want to tear their hair out. They feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed — and they are. So they become much more willing to play by our rules and at least get something done. Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning. …

More…

The Tucson based Center for Biological Diversity has been waging a nation-wide war against ranchers, mines, military bases and other land uses.

In a form filed with the IRS for 2008 the Center for Biological Diversity repoprted the following salaries for its top officials:

Peter Galvin, Director $94,922
Todd Schulke Treasurer 51,500
Robin D. Silver Secretary 81,500
Kieran Suckling Exec Dir 104,313

The Center for Biological Diversity is also one of the targets in federal efforts to stop litigious environmental groups from soaking US taxpayers with a tsunami of law suits.

According to the 2008 IRS filing, the Center received $1,398,161 for its legal fees and costs from suing the government. That dropped to $ 1,173,517 in 2009 and to $ 685,981 in 2010 according to its annual reports for a toital of $ 3,257,659 over a 3 year period.

The CBD received $ 1,423,127 in foundation grants in 2009 and $ 1,876,800 in foundation grants in 2010.

The CBD received $ 4,795,424 in memberships and donations in 2009 and $ 5,389,003 in memberships and donations in 2010.

Total revenue from legal fees, foundations and memberships was $7, 392,068 in 2008 and $ 7,951,784 in 2010.

Obviously fighting for the environment is a serious business financially.

______________________________

Here is some publicly available financial information about the Center for Biological Diversity:

From the IRS 2008 form 990 posted at http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/850/850420285/850420285_200812_990.pdf

Cost recovery for environments litigation $1,398,161

List all states in which the organization is registered or licensed to solicit funds or has been notified it is exempt from
registration or licensing.
AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IL, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, WA, WI

Compensation of Officers , Directors , Trustees , Key Employees

Peter Galvin, Director $94,922
Todd Schulke Treasurer 51,500
Robin D. Silver Secretary 81,500
Kieran Suckling Exec Dir 104,313

Center for Biological Diversity 2009 2010 from annual report

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/reports/AnnualRpt2010.pdf
SUPPORT AND REVENUE 2009   2010

Grants and donations

Foundation grants $ 1,423,127   $ 1,876,800

Membership and donations 4,795,424 5,389,003

Revenue

Legal returns $ 1,173,517    $ 685,981

Contracts    5,780     7,354

Miscellaneous 15,162 52,017

Investment income 69,531     14,104

EXPENSES

Program services

Endangered Species 1,261,075     1,339,726

Climate 987,648     1,118,601

Public Lands 1,368,117 1,586,664

International 207,108     171,880

Oceans 638,570     735,379

Urban Wildlands 369,136     528,052

General and administrative 284,064 414,437

Fundraising 675,408      445,361

_____________________________
More

Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions

Press Release from US Rep Denny Rehberg (R Montana)  June 1, 2011:

Rehberg Among Army of Western Lawmakers to Introduce Legislation to Combat Frivolous Lawsuits on Taxpayer Dime

06/01/11

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, has introduced legislation with Representative Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL) to reduce taxpayers’ burden to pay for the attorneys’ fees of environmental obstructionist groups who abuse the legal system to block economic development and destroy jobs.  The Government Litigation Savings Act makes long overdue reforms to the implementation and oversight of funds distributed through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

“The abuse of our legal system and attack on Montana jobs is a big enough problem without the government asking the taxpayer to foot the bill for the lawyers,” said Rehberg, a member of the Congressional Western Caucus.  “Whether it’s wolf management, timber production or energy development, you can’t walk across the street in Montana without being sued by an out-of-state environmental obstructionist group.  And while these groups have millions in the bank, they’re using tax dollars to fund their legal obstruction.  This bill helps change that.”

“When the government stopped tracking EAJA payments in 1995, it was a dream come true for radical environmental groups. Lack of oversight has fueled the fire for these groups to grind the work of land management and other federal agencies to a halt — and it does so on the taxpayer’s dime.  Americans have unwittingly funded these obstructionist political agendas for far too long at the expense of individuals, small businesses, energy producers, farmers and ranchers who must pay out of their own pocket to defend the federal government against relentless litigation,” said Lummis. “This common sense legislation would help restore integrity to EAJA and return the program to the original intent of Congress.”

In 1980, Congress passed EAJA to help individuals, small businesses and non-profit organizations with limited access to financial resources defend themselves against harmful government actions.  EAJA allows for the reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs associated with suing the federal government. When operating as it was intended, EAJA allows plaintiffs who sue the federal government to recover part of their attorney’s fees and costs if they “prevail” in the case.

The original legislation required annual reports to Congress on the amount and nature of EAJA payments, but those reports ended in 1995.  Two private studies, one by a Wyoming law firm and another by Virginia Tech University, have shown that despite congressional intent to assist small organizations, some large environmental obstructionist groups appear to be the biggest beneficiaries of EAJA payments.  The Wyoming study, for example, found that more than 1,200 federal cases were filed in 19 states and the District of Columbia by just 14 environmental groups.  The cost to the taxpayer was $37 million.

Rehberg’s legislation returns EAJA to its original intent reforming eligibility requirements to receive EAJA reimbursements, limiting repeated lawsuits, and reinstating tracking and reporting requirements to make EAJA more transparent.  Under the Government Litigation Savings Act, veterans, social security claimants, individuals and small businesses will still enjoy full access to EAJA funds.

“No one wants to restrict access to the courts,” said Rehberg.  “But let’s use some common sense and stop asking the taxpayer to fund the very lawsuits that are destroying their jobs and livelihoods.”

The legislation has been endorsed by over 85 agriculture, sportsmen, recreation and energy groups including the Montana Association of State Grazing Districts, Montana Public Lands Council, Montana Stockgrowers Association and Montana Wool Growers Association.  The full list is below:
• Boone and Crockett Club
• National Rifle Association
• Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
• National Federation of Independent Businesses
• Public Lands Council
• National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
• National Association of Conservation Districts
• Congressional Sportsman Foundation
• National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
• National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
• Safari Club International
• Western Energy Alliance
• National Mining Association
• United States Cattleman’s Association
• American Sheep Industry
• National Association of Forest Service Retirees
• Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
• Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association
• Motorcycle Industry Association
• Americans for Responsible Recreational Access
• Specialty Vehicle Institute of America
• American Agri-Women
• Mule Deer Foundation
• Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
• Independent Petroleum Association of America
• Foundation for Environmental and Economic Progress
• Women in Farm Economics
• National Trappers Association
• Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever
• U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
• Wildlife Forever
• Wildlife Management Institute
• Archery Trade Association
• Campfire Club of America
• Catch-a-Dream Foundation
• Masters of Foxhounds Association of America
• Orion-the-Hunter’s Institute
• Quality Deer Management Association
• Ruffed Grouse Society
• Tread Lightly!
• Pope and Young Club
• Association of National Grasslands
• Specialty Equipment Market Association

Regional, State, and Local Associations
• Western Legacy Alliance
• Western Business Roundtable
• Intermountain Forestry Association
• Wyoming Stock Growers Association
• Black Hills Forest Resource Association
• Wyoming Wool Growers Association
• Colorado Timber Industry Association.
• Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation
• Idaho Farm Bureau Federation
• Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts
• South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association
• Wyoming Petroleum Association
• Independent Cattlemen’s Association of Texas
• Dallas Safari Club
• Houston Safari Club
• Delta Waterfowl Foundation
• Texas Wildlife Association
• Texas Cattle Feeders Association
• Oregonians for Food and Shelter
• New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association
• New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.
• Arizona Farm Bureau Federation
• Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association
• Arizona Public Lands Council
• California Cattlemen’s Association
• California Wool Growers Association
• Central Committee of Nevada State Grazing Boards
• Nevada Cattlemen’s Association
• Colorado Cattlemen’s Association
• Colorado Public Lands Council
• Colorado Wool Growers Association
• Florida Cattlemen’s Association
• Georgia Cattlemen’s Association
• Hawaii Cattlemen’s Association
• Idaho Cattle Association
• Idaho Wool Growers Association
• Iowa Cattlemen’s Association
• Kansas Livestock Association
• Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association
• Montana Association of State Grazing Districts
• Montana Public Lands Council
• Montana Stockgrowers Association
• Montana Wool Growers Association
• North Dakota Stockmen’s Association
• Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association
• Oregon Cattlemen’s Association
• Utah Cattlemen’s Association
• Utah Farm Bureau Federation
• Washington Cattlemen’s Association

From Idaho Statesman:

Idaho Sens. Crapo, Risch and Rep. Simpson co-sponsor bill to spotlight lawsuits against feds

Submitted by Dan Popkey on Fri, 05/27/2011 – 7:48am.

GOP Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and 2nd District GOP Rep. Mike Simpson are co-sponsors of companion bills they say will protect taxpayers by shining a light on those who sue the United States.

A news release from Crapo and Risch cited court documents providing examples of certain groups having sued the government over 1,200 times and receiving upwards of $35 million in taxpayer funds. In response, the act would require organizations that file numerous lawsuits to show a “direct and personal monetary interest” in the legal action, establish caps on attorney fees, and create an online database to track funds paid out of the Equal Access to Justice Act.

“These proposals represent common-sense efforts to level the playing field for Idahoans and all westerners who use federal public lands day in and day out,” said Crapo in a news release about the Government Litigation Savings Act and the Grazing Improvement Act of 2011. “Idaho’s ranchers and other public land users deserve a fair shake when it comes to managing our federal lands and addressing critical natural resource issues, whether it be through the permit process or in the courts.”

More…

From Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson…

Simpson Seeks Reform of Taxpayer Lawsuit Subsidies

Idaho Congressman cosponsors legislation reforming the Equal Access to Justice Act

Washington, May 25 –

Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson today acted to protect taxpayers by requiring new transparency in a federal program that pays people to sue the federal government. Simpson did so by signing on as an original cosponsor to the Government Litigation Savings Act, authored by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), which reforms the federal Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and shines a spotlight on abuses of the program, which are particularly prevalent with regards to land management agencies. Simpson is the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment.

“For too long, the Equal Access to Justice Act, and its millions of dollars in yearly federal payouts, has operated without review by Congress and without regard for taxpayers, allowing litigation to become a cottage industry,” said Congressman Mike Simpson. “The Government Litigation Savings Act is a prudent, responsible step in the right direction toward a more accountable and less costly judicial access program for those with limited means. It is well past time for this program to see fundamental reforms, and I am pleased a bill like this is now before Congress.”

Among its many provisions, the Government Litigation Savings Act:

Requires that EAJA filers must show a “direct and personal monetary interest” in the action to be eligible for payments. Direct and personal interest includes personal injury, property damage, or unpaid agency disbursement.

Establishes a cap of $175 per hour for attorney’s fees, pegged to inflation.
Caps total EAJA reimbursements to $200,000 for any single action, and allows no more than three EAJA awards in a calendar year.

Establishes reporting requirements government-wide, including an explanation from the agency explaining why its position was not substantially justified, and establishes an online, searchable database for funds paid out of EAJA and to whom the funds were paid.
Requires that funds paid from EAJA in sealed settlement agreements must be included in the online report.

In addition, the legislation requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of EAJA payments over the last 15 years.

“The EAJA program was originally intended to help people with limited resources seek redress against the wrongs of the federal government, and nobody disagrees with that intent,” said Simpson. “Unfortunately, it has turned into a program that uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize the litigious addictions of special interest groups. American taxpayers, businesses, farmers, and ranchers, as well as our nation’s court system, are ill-served by EAJA in its current form and that is why this legislation is so important.”

From Billings Gazette in Montana..

Bill would limit attorney fees in suits

Posted: Monday, May 30, 2011 12:30 pm

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A bill introduced by members of Wyoming’s congressional delegation would limit the amount of attorneys’ fees recovered in lawsuits against the government.

Rep. Cynthia Lummis and Sen. John Barrasso, both R-Wyo., introduced the Government Litigation Savings Act in their respective chambers last week, according to the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on Monday. If approved, it would cap attorneys’ fees and block groups whose net worth exceeds $7 million from filing for payment under the 1980 Equal Access to Justice Act.

“When the government stopped tracking (Equal Access to Justice Act) payments in 1995, it was a dream come true for radical environmental groups,” Lummis said in a statement. “Lack of oversight has fueled the fire for these groups to grind the work of land management and other federal agencies to a halt — and it does so on the taxpayers’ dime.”

Barrasso’s office said a study by the Cheyenne-based Budd-Falen Law Offices found 12 environmental groups that filed more than 3,300 lawsuits in the past decade.

More…

COMMENT: There is a major war going on in the West over abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act by Tucson’s own Center for Biological Diversity.

And one has to wonder why none of this is being reported in the Arizona Daily Star….

More
Extreme environmental groups hurt environmental cause

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San Pedro River

Wilderness Areas on the border? What a great idea if you are a cartel drug smuggler

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

Republicans Introduce Bill to Secure Border on Federal Lands, Protect Environment

Border Patrol Banned From Top Smuggler Routes

White House reveals plan to streamline Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act series of articles:

Endangered Species Act…it ain’t what you think it is — Part 1

Endangered Species Act — Part 2– this land is not your land

Endangered Species Act – Part 3 – Never swat a fly

Background info on Endangered Species Act:

Endangered Species Act — an Introduction

Endangered Species Act — Which Animals and Plants are “Threatened” or “Endangered”?

Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation

Endangered Species Act — USF&W Introduction and Key Sections

Endangered Species Act — Definition of ”Harm” and “Take”

Endangered Species Act–Listing and Critical Habitat

Endangered Species Act–Habitat Conservation Plans

_________________________________________________________

News about litigious environment group activities:

Dispatches from the litigious environmental group war on America

Center for Biological Diversity demands Rosemont Mine site be included in protected habitat for frog

Judge puts WildEarth Guardian endangered species agreement on hold

Center for Biological Diversity fights imperiled species deal

Stop The Drilling! A Lizard Is Imperiled

Desert Pupfish Forces Border Agents to Patrol on Foot

New high recorded in frivolous environmental litigation

EPA Doles-Out Taxpayer Dollars to Environmentalist Activist Groups

Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories poised to be introduced

Environmental groups bury feds with Endangered Species petitions