This Press Release from, Center for Biological Dioversity dated September 2, 2011 makes it absolutely clear where CBD’s priorities are…

Border Patrol Plan to Triple Base Size on Arizona-Mexico Border Puts Endangered Wildlife, Fragile Lands at Risk

TUCSON, Ariz.— The Center for Biological Diversity today criticized a new environmental analysis by the Department of Homeland Security that fails to adequately assess the effects of its border-security and enforcement activities along the U.S.-Mexico border, including tripling the size of its base in the desert. In comments submitted to the Department, the group called on Homeland Security to produce a thorough, realistic analysis of the impacts of its activities on the fragile and diverse landscapes of the border region, home to a range of threatened and endangered species.

“In its slipshod analysis of the impacts of tripling the size of its forward operating base near Organ Pipe National Monument and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Homeland Security seems to condone ongoing damage to these precious public lands and their wildlife,” said the Center’s Cyndi Tuell. “For imperiled species like Sonoran pronghorns, this lip-service study is a death knell.”

Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta lie adjacent to each other along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona and have been significantly hurt by off-road vehicle use in recent years — much of the damage has been the result of Border Patrol vehicles riding roughshod over wilderness areas.

“For an agency devoted to securing the border, the Border Patrol does an awful lot of off-road driving 15 to 20 miles north of the border, through extremely sensitive habitat for a range of species,” said Tuell. “Sonoran pronghorn are especially vulnerable to this kind of disruption, which can stop them from raising their fawns or getting enough to eat.”

Surveys and satellite data show that nearly 8,000 miles — and some estimate up to 20,000 miles — of illegal, “wildcat” roads now exist on the Cabeza Prieta, some of which were created by illegal cross-border vehicle activity, but an increasing percentage of which have resulted from misguided enforcement strategies.

“A memo of understanding between Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior was signed to create protocols for border-security activities on our precious public lands,” said Tuell. “In many places it works well, but on Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta, Homeland Security routinely ignores it.”

“The Department of Homeland Security should focus its enforcement efforts closer to the border to prevent damage to America’s public lands before it encroaches so far into the United States,” said Tuell. “And it needs to work more closely with land managers on the ground in these areas to reduce the damage caused by their activities.”

COMMENTARY: The border will never be secure against illegal entry and drug smuggling as long as portions of the border are widen open.

The reason these areas are wide open is because of federal land managers who put protecting lizards ahead of national security, and radical environmental groups like CBD who fight everything in the name of protecting endangered species.

I think it is time the federal government looks into where CBD gets its donations.

If I were in charge of the Mexican drug cartel I’d be giving money to outfits like CBD which fight securing the border. Groups like CBD consciously or unconsciously are aiding and abetting the Mexican drug cartels.

The people of America have got to stop this nonsense of debating border security versus proptecting the environment along the border. The drug smugglers and illegal aliens do not care about our environment and are destroying it. This must be stopped.

Environmental laws must be subordinated to national security in the area adjacent to our land borders so the Border Patrol can secure the border at the border.

Did you know it is a misdeamnor to illegally enter the country, but a felony to run over an endangered species lizard?

And those who want immigration law reform…it ought to be clear that is not going to happen until the border is secured.

Do not buy Janet Napoltiano’s claim the border is secured. We can show you exactly where it is not secure…the zone where illegal aliens killed Border Patrol agent Brian Terry west of Nogales. There is a wilderness area and national forest land along this stretch of the border that has virtually no Border Patrol access due toi environmental priorities.

Until the Border Patrol can gain access to the border, finish the fence, put in more roads, and saturate the border zone with agents, the border is not secure…and thus no immigration law reform.

Immigration reform advocates…your cause is being destroyed by groups like the Center for Biological Diversity.

More….

Jaguars versus the border fence

What is the difference between a drug smuggler and a deer?

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

Groups Call for Passage of Republican Legislation to Enhance Border Security on Federal Lands

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

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

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

Border security versus the environment

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

America at a crossroads….protect endangered species or protect the American people?

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

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

The following press release was issued by the Metropolitan Pima Alliance asking Pima County to collaborate with the Rosemont mining company:

MPA ENCOURAGES PIMA COUNTY TO COLLABORATE WITH ROSEMONT MINE

by Hot Off The Press (Release) on Jun. 16, 2011, under Press Release

TUCSON (June 8, 2011) – The Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA) is dedicated to advocating for responsible development in the Pima County metropolitan area by collaboratively working through various public processes. As active participants of the community, the MPA Board of Directors (Board) performed its due diligence in becoming educated on the various issues surrounding the Rosemont Copper Mine. First, MPA hosted a breakfast in which both Rosemont Copper Mine and its opponents presented their respective positions. Following this meeting, members of the Board and staff toured the mining site, viewed the County mine model, and separately met with Rosemont Copper Mine representatives as well as Pima County staff members.

Knowing the Mine will create jobs and generate millions of dollars annually during its 20-year life, the Board insists that the years beyond the Mine’s lifespan are just as important as the immediate benefit the Mine will have on our community. Recognizing that Rosemont Copper Mine presented a reclamation plan, the Board believes the Mine is making a good faith effort to be good stewards of the environment. Furthermore, the direct revenue to the County, and the number of jobs created, is significant for our community.

After careful consideration of the economic benefits and possible environmental implications of the Mine, the Board of Directors votes to support the mining operations as proposed by Rosemont Copper Mine. However, as an organization that works to facilitate collaborative processes, we urge representatives of the Mine and Pima County to work together in creating a reasonable and balanced reclamation plan in which the concerns and issues of both parties are carefully considered.

Copper mining has always been one of our State’s core industries while also establishing itself as a necessary commodity for our everyday lives. The County has the opportunity to embrace the economic benefits of the Mine while constructively engaging with Rosemont Copper Mine representatives to ensure the environmental and residential concerns of the Mine are addressed. We encourage Pima County to partner with Rosemont Copper Mine and work towards a mutually beneficial resolution.

MPA welcomes the opportunity to assist in reaching common ground.

Please contact Executive Director Amber Smith for additional information.

Mission: “Metropolitan Pima Allianceis dedicated to advocating responsible development in the Pima County metropolitan area and furthering the interests of the real estate and development industry through education, public policy advocacy and networking.”

Amber Smith

Amber@mpaaz.org

520.878.8811

COMMENT: Pima County and espcially County Supervisor Ray Carroll and County Adminstartor Chuck Huckelberry and his staff have made it their life mission to block the Rosemont mine project.

The chances of Pima officials now sitting down and trying to work collaboratively with Rosemont are right up there with peace breaking out between Israel and Palestine.

The folks in the region should be asking several questions right now about the vehemence of Pima County’s fight against Rosemont:

How much taxpayer money has Pima spent to date fighting Rosemont?

What is the relationship between Ray Carroll and mine opponent Nan Walden, the Center for Biological Diversity and Save the Scenic Santa Ritas? Like disclose all letters and emails Carroll has sent or received relating to Rosemont.

What is the relationship betwen Chuck Huckelberry and his staff with Walden, CBD and SSSR? Same thing…disclose all letters and emails sent and received relating to Rosemont.

What about meetings between County officials and staff with mine opponents?

And…before I forget…someone really needs to look at all the threats Mr. Carroll has made to folks who support the mine or even dare to publish the mine’s ads…like the Green Valley News.

I strongly suggest if some paid newspaper type dug around deep enough in the relationship between Pima County officials and staff and the opposition to the mine, it would stink to high heaven.

Pima County is nothing more than a branch office of the Center for Biological Diversity, Save the Scenic Santa Ritas and the Walden family in pursuing the anti-mine agenda….and Pima taxpayers are footing the bill.

From the Arizona Republic June 13, 2011:

Federal legislation pits environment against security

Plan to ease conservation laws for Border Patrol draws outcry

by Shaun McKinnon – Jun. 13, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Federal authorities can’t secure sections of the U.S. border because of environmental laws that block access to public lands and slow efforts to stop drug smugglers and illegal immigrants, say backers of legislation that would waive those laws along the border.

But conservation groups say the congressional bills, two in the U.S. House and one in the Senate, create solutions for non-existent problems and are largely driven by opportunistic, anti-environmental lawmakers who want to weaken laws they always have opposed.

The proposals thrust together two of the West’s most volatile issues, border security and environmental regulation, and pit activists on both sides in a fight that likely will spill over into the 2012 elections.

The bills’ backers have tried to frame the debate as a choice between securing dangerous borders or complying with onerous, bureaucratic rules. The endangered desert pupfish emerged as a symbol last month of the clashing priorities. Both sides have cited the same federal audit of border-law enforcement to prove points.

The dispute is centered on thousands of acres of public lands along the border, most of them under the jurisdiction of federal agencies that enforce an array of restrictive environmental regulations.

The rules apply to any potential land user, including the Border Patrol and other Homeland Security agencies. They require the agencies to complete detailed environmental assessments to gauge the effects of roads or other developments, and they impose limits on various activities, such as crossing into protected wildlife habitats.

Supporters of the bills say the rules impede quick action on the border and give land-management agencies more authority over national-security decisions than the security agencies.

“The different trails that drug smugglers and human smugglers use change depending on where Border Patrol agents are stationed,” said Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., author of one of the three bills. “Our agents need to have the ability to move quickly. But sometimes it’s taking as much as four months to get them through all the hoops.”

Quayle’s bill would give the U.S. Customs and Border Protection ready access to federal lands for security activities, including motorized patrols and the deployment of temporary tactical infrastructure, such as surveillance equipment.

The agencies would be directed to protect natural and cultural resources as much as possible, but they would not be forced to comply with land-management rules. The unrestricted access would extend 150 miles from the U.S.-Mexican border, a distance that would stretch north of Phoenix.

Republican Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl included a similar provision in a broader border-security bill, waiving environmental laws within the same 150-mile band along the southwestern border.

But a wider-reaching bill, introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, pushed the issue to center stage. Bishop’s bill is more specific and expansive than the others. It lists nearly three dozen laws that would be waived along the border, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Wilderness Act.

It would also allow the federal government to waive those laws within a 100-mile corridor around the entire U.S. border for border-enforcement agencies.

Critics jumped on that provision and produced a map to illustrate the reach of the bill. It would extend across all of Florida, most of the Northeast and all of Hawaii.

“It’s clear to me this is a political game being played by someone whose district is nowhere near the border, someone who doesn’t understand what’s going on along the border, someone with a political agenda,” said Randy Serraglio, a conservation advocate for the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity. “This is bad government waiting to happen.”

Bishop, who toured the Arizona border region earlier this year, said the environmental laws allow land managers to impose what he called “unacceptable restrictions” that give them more influence over border security than law-enforcement agencies have.

In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office found that environmental laws had led to restrictions on border enforcement and delays in patrolling and monitoring activities. The GAO said 14 Border Patrol agents in charge reported blocked access to land or slow response times by land agencies in issuing permits.

Those delays often occurred when agents needed access to an area without roads or when the agency needed to locate monitoring equipment. The report cited one instance when the Border Patrol asked to move a mobile surveillance system, but in the four months needed to process the request, illegal traffic had shifted to other areas.

Allowing bureaucratic procedures to dictate border-security measures, Bishop said, “has jeopardized the safety and security of all Americans.”

The GAO report also found that 22 of 26 patrol agents in charge said the overall security of their area had not been affected by environmental regulations despite the delays or time spent on paperwork. Conservation groups cite those findings, along with comments by patrol agents that their most pressing needs are more agents and more resources.

Although the GAO found issues at several locations along the U.S. border, the potential for conflict was highest in the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector, where there is a high concentration of public lands: three national wildlife refuges, two national monuments, a national conservation area, a national forest and the Tohono O’odham Reservation.

In many cases, say supporters of the three bills, the multiple jurisdictions mean patrol agents can’t even keep up a chase because they don’t have permission to enter certain areas.

“The difficulties encountered by the Border Patrol to gain operational control are not the result of poor management or lack of resources,” said retired patrol agent Gene Wood, who testified at a hearing on behalf of Bishop’s bill. “It is simply an issue of denied access.”

Quayle and Bishop both say their bills ultimately could protect the environment if fewer illegal border crossers make their way north into the parks and monuments.

“The environmental damage that is currently occurring from drug smugglers and human smugglers will vastly outweigh any damages by the Border Patrol,” Quayle said. “The Border Patrol will have much better sense and take much better care of the area.”

Critics of the environmental laws also have complained about rules that protect riparian areas and wildlife habitat. One group tried to elevate the endangered desert pupfish to symbol status, alleging that Border Patrol agents had to chase illegal border crossers on foot in one area of southern Arizona to avoid disturbing the fish.

Homeland Security officials said the fish did not impede regular patrols or other activities.

The conservation groups say almost all of the complaints have been from outside the security agencies. They cite testimony by Ronald Vitiello, the Border Patrol’s deputy chief, during an April hearing in Washington. He gave numerous examples of his agency working with land managers in the border area and talked about the patrol’s commitment to protecting resources.

“There is no access issue for the Border Patrol,” said Jenny Neeley, an advocate for the Sky Island Alliance, a group that focuses on fragile habitats near the border. “They’re not asking for these additional waivers. To say that environmental rules are getting in the way of border security is just a complete farce. There’s no evidence of it.”

Vitiello, in his testimony, talked about cooperative agreements, signed in 2006 and 2008, that have provided guidelines for the various agencies, including the Border Patrol, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service to work with one another. Those agreements have resulted in successes, he said.

Matt Skroch, executive director of the Arizona Wilderness Coalition, said both security and resource protection would be better served by continued cooperation.

“It’s about balance,” he said. “Border security and natural resources are both very important. They can work with one another, not against one another. This waiver authority would set the clock back a decade.”

COMMENT: I think Congress ought to investigate the role the Center for Biological Diversity is playing in attacking our national security interests.

Securing the border at the border…while there would be roads and other environmental impact close to the border….a whole lot of country would be better protected for environmental values farther inside the country.

All you need to do is look at the burnt down Chirchahua Mountains to understand the trade-offs.

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 the Siskiyou Daily News June 8, 2011

Taxpayer-funded job security

By Dan KeppenSiskiyou Daily News

Posted Jun 08, 2011 @ 02:31 PM

Klamath Falls, Ore. — Earlier this month, the Obama administration announced that it will clear a decades-long backlog of petitions for the endangered species list, agreeing to decide within six years whether 251 new species deserve federal protection. The settlement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and WildEarth Guardians could open the flood gates of new listings under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The amount of radical environmental litigation in the United States is staggering, and WildEarth Guardians is a driving force behind this movement. According to research conducted by the Budd-Falen law firm of Cheyenne, Wyo., from 2000 to 2009, just nine environmental groups, including WildEarth Guardians, filed 3,313 cases filed against the federal government for “enforcement” of environmental statutes. Many of these cases end up … are you ready? … getting “settled” with the feds.

According to Budd-Falen, the system works like this: A radical environmental group like the Center of Biological Diversity (or, “CBD,” which recently petitioned NOAA Fisheries to list Klamath River spring-run Chinook salmon under the ESA) files federal court litigation against a federal agency like NOAA Fisheries, complaining that the agency failed to timely act on a petition to list a species. The environmental group cannot get the court to tell NOAA Fisheries how it should make its decision; the court can only require a “timely” decision be made. NOAA Fisheries loses the case because it almost never makes a decision in the amount of time required by Congress. The federal government then pays the CBD attorneys fees for filing the litigation. So, not only does NOAA Fisheries have to go back and remake its decision, your tax dollars paid an environmental group to sue the fishery agency.

Funds awarded to the “prevailing” litigants are taken from the “losing” federal agencies’ budget. There is no oversight in spending this money, which could otherwise be funding on-the-ground programs to protect public lands, national forests, wildlife and other land uses. Instead, nonprofit, tax exempt groups are making millions of dollars, while ranchers and other citizens are being forced to expend millions of their own dollars to intervene or participate in these lawsuits to protect their way of life when they have no chance of the same attorney fee recovery if they prevail.

Currently, nearly 1,400 U.S. species are listed under the ESA. Once a plant or animal is listed as threatened or endangered with extinction, federal officials must designate critical habitat for it and require review by USFWS officials for any federal action that could impact it. These reviews often come in the form of biological opinions, similar to the ones prepared every year on Klamath Irrigation Project operations by USFWS (for endangered suckers) and NOAA Fisheries (for coho salmon).

Under the proposed Obama administration settlement, USFWS officials will decide whether to add to the endangered list 251 species that are now classified as “warranted but precluded” from the ESA list. The settlement still needs to be accepted by the court, and it remains unclear whether the Center for Biological Diversity will sign off.

In this instance, the Obama administration has given what appears to be a significant victory to an obscure environmental group that filed a lawsuit for the purpose of creating a pretext for the administration to do this very thing. But the predictably enormous costs and all the other damage that will come from agreeing to these listings is completely unknown. All of those problems won’t be identified until after the 2012 election. And if President Obama is not re-elected, this mess will be dumped in the lap of his successor.

This whole settlement agreement would be laughable, if not for the fact that some of us in the rural West (Klamath Basin 2001 and 2010, San Joaquin Valley 2009) have seen firsthand the economic devastation that can occur when single-species biological opinions are actually implemented. With the WildEarth Guardian settlement, the government has agreed to pay attorneys fees – not just for the litigation but also for the petitions that were prepared to try to get the 251 species listed in the first place – to one environmental group who is not even the biggest ESA litigator in America. And while the WildEarth Guardians have agreed to limit listing petitions (not petitions for up-listings, not petitions to designate critical habitat, not challenges for failure to do recovery plans), none of the other environmental groups are bound by a similar limit.

Plus, if USFWS does not (1) follow the new work plan timetable or (2) come to what some environmental group thinks is the right conclusion on one of the 251 species … federal court, here we come!

This settlement is simply another set up for failure that portends a grim future for western rural communities that rely on healthy agriculture and forestry economies.

But – it could prove to be a great cash cow for environmental attorneys … all at the American taxpayer expense.

– Dan Keppen is the executive director of the Family Farm Alliance in Klamath Falls, Ore.

COMMENT: Are you beginning to see that while the Center for Biological Diversity is the number one environmental litigation factory in America and is drawing federal legislation to stop the abuse of the Equal Access to Justice Act… there has not been one word about any of this in the Arizona Daily Star?

The Star has gone from being a Pulitizer Prize winning newspaper to nothing more than a public relations outpost of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Sad to see.
______________________________________

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

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