Friday, November 19, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Supreme Bullshit: The High Courts Stripping Away of the EPA
I was jus diddlin round on the net doing various research projects when I stumbled cros this old article about the Supreme Court and the EPA, and as I read it over it struck me how very similar the sound of it all was, relative to the current wild horse (and burro) situation with the BLM today. (My annotations in red.)
Supreme Court Limits the Endangered Species Act
WASHINGTON, DC, June 25, 2007 (ENS) - In a 5-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court today limited the obligation of federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize federally listed threatened or endangered species.
In two combined cases - EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife and National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife - the court reversed an appeals court decision that required the U.S. EPA to consider the protection of listed species before handing Clean Water Act permitting authority over to the states.
The Clean Water Act requires that the EPA transfer permitting powers to the states if nine criteria are met.
The Endangered Species Act, ESA, requires that a federal agency must consult with other relevant agencies to ensure its actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species.
The question resolved by the court ruling is whether the ESA consultation requirement is effectively a tenth criterion on which the transfer of Clean Water Act permitting power must be based. The majority concluded that it is not.
Delivering the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "The transfer of permitting authority to state authorities - who will exercise that authority under continuing federal oversight to ensure compliance with relevant mandates of the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental protection statutes - was proper. We therefore reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
This is the case that "sped up" the "resource development" processes, as it did away with the necessity of compliance to certain provisions of the EPA, provisions that were meant to give PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT Considerations a top priority BEFORE any development action could be taken. In effect, what this ruling does is NULLIFY that provision of the EPA, allowing development to proceed without any environmental impact studies. Justice John Stevens saw the error in this ruling and expressed it in his DISSENTING Opinion;
"The Endangered Species Act (Think Wild Free-roaming Horse & Burro Act of 1971) works in harmony with other federal mandates and should not be trumped by other federal laws without the express direction of Congress." (Hello! Thank you Judge Stevens for being the wiser one and seeing through the BS in this case. If ever we do sue the BLM for their NULLIFICATION of the Wild Horse and Burro Act,....I hope the case will be heard by YOU!)
Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife said, "Today�s decision, while unfortunate, should apply only to a very narrow category of actions by federal agencies - actions compelled by the terms of another federal law - and should not be read as a broad abrogation of the authority of the Endangered Species Act."
Expressing the view that the majority opinion, "ignores the clear intention of Congress when they enacted the Endangered Species Act," Schlickeisen said, "We are concerned that the Court�s decision, combined with the Bush administration�s clear history of undermining the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act, could lead to additional extinctions of American wildlife - extinctions which the Act is intended to prevent."
National Association of Home Builders President Brian Catalde was pleased with the ruling.
"This decision recognizes that we must always maintain a balance when we look at environmental regulations. We can't say that the Endangered Species Act is an 'uber-statute' that should slow down regulatory decisions under the Clean Water Act even as we recognize that both laws concern issues that are vital to preserving this earth for the next generation."
"This decision also tells us that the U.S. Supreme Court is helping to preserve housing affordability by striking down efforts at unnecessary, duplicative regulation," he said.
"Forcing the EPA to issue discharge permits in Arizona, which an unfavorable Supreme Court decision would have required," said Catalde, "would have cost builders more time and money, making homes less affordable in affected areas."
In the case of one protected species in Arizona, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that Endangered Species Act consultations delayed the typical development by five to 18 months and, when added to the cost of onsite mitigation and project modifications, cost between $1.7 million and $2.7 million, said Catalde.
Supreme Court Limits the Endangered Species Act
WASHINGTON, DC, June 25, 2007 (ENS) - In a 5-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court today limited the obligation of federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize federally listed threatened or endangered species.
In two combined cases - EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife and National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife - the court reversed an appeals court decision that required the U.S. EPA to consider the protection of listed species before handing Clean Water Act permitting authority over to the states.
The Clean Water Act requires that the EPA transfer permitting powers to the states if nine criteria are met.
The Endangered Species Act, ESA, requires that a federal agency must consult with other relevant agencies to ensure its actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species.
The question resolved by the court ruling is whether the ESA consultation requirement is effectively a tenth criterion on which the transfer of Clean Water Act permitting power must be based. The majority concluded that it is not.
Delivering the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "The transfer of permitting authority to state authorities - who will exercise that authority under continuing federal oversight to ensure compliance with relevant mandates of the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental protection statutes - was proper. We therefore reverse the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
This is the case that "sped up" the "resource development" processes, as it did away with the necessity of compliance to certain provisions of the EPA, provisions that were meant to give PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT Considerations a top priority BEFORE any development action could be taken. In effect, what this ruling does is NULLIFY that provision of the EPA, allowing development to proceed without any environmental impact studies. Justice John Stevens saw the error in this ruling and expressed it in his DISSENTING Opinion;
"The Endangered Species Act (Think Wild Free-roaming Horse & Burro Act of 1971) works in harmony with other federal mandates and should not be trumped by other federal laws without the express direction of Congress." (Hello! Thank you Judge Stevens for being the wiser one and seeing through the BS in this case. If ever we do sue the BLM for their NULLIFICATION of the Wild Horse and Burro Act,....I hope the case will be heard by YOU!)
Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife said, "Today�s decision, while unfortunate, should apply only to a very narrow category of actions by federal agencies - actions compelled by the terms of another federal law - and should not be read as a broad abrogation of the authority of the Endangered Species Act."
Expressing the view that the majority opinion, "ignores the clear intention of Congress when they enacted the Endangered Species Act," Schlickeisen said, "We are concerned that the Court�s decision, combined with the Bush administration�s clear history of undermining the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act, could lead to additional extinctions of American wildlife - extinctions which the Act is intended to prevent."
National Association of Home Builders President Brian Catalde was pleased with the ruling.
"This decision recognizes that we must always maintain a balance when we look at environmental regulations. We can't say that the Endangered Species Act is an 'uber-statute' that should slow down regulatory decisions under the Clean Water Act even as we recognize that both laws concern issues that are vital to preserving this earth for the next generation."
"This decision also tells us that the U.S. Supreme Court is helping to preserve housing affordability by striking down efforts at unnecessary, duplicative regulation," he said.
"Forcing the EPA to issue discharge permits in Arizona, which an unfavorable Supreme Court decision would have required," said Catalde, "would have cost builders more time and money, making homes less affordable in affected areas."
In the case of one protected species in Arizona, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that Endangered Species Act consultations delayed the typical development by five to 18 months and, when added to the cost of onsite mitigation and project modifications, cost between $1.7 million and $2.7 million, said Catalde.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Oil Industry Looks to Forestry Folk for Advice on How to Deal w/ Enviros
John Spears
Business Reporter
Oil industry players have been sniffing around the landmark Boreal Forest Agreement between industry and environmental groups, says one of the agreement’s architects.
Avrim Lazar, who head the Forest Products Association of Canada, says he’s fielded inquiries from senior civil servants, executives and oil industry associations about how the forest industry got together with its one-time adversaries.
“They’re saying: What were you thinking? How did you do it? What’s working, what’s not working? What would your advice be?” Lazar said in an interview Thursday.
"It seems like very honest, good faith curiosity.”
The forest agreement was signed in May between the forest companies and a coalition of environmental groups who had fought the industry bitterly for decades, and boycotted their products.
Under the pact, the 21 member forest companies agreed to suspend new logging on 29 million hectares of forest. Environmental groups agreed to end their boycotts.
The signatories set themselves a three-year target to set up detailed, working agreements in areas such as developing more sustainable harvesting practices and protecting wildlife and water systems.
Oil and gas officials, while expressing interest, are skeptical that a similar process could work in their sector, says Lazar. “Who wouldn’t be? I was skeptical when I started.”
“All that being said, there are pieces of the model which are very importable,” Lazar said.
“A precondition of having a constructive conversation is acknowledging the legitimacy of each other’s public interest.”
That means environmentalists would have to stop calling oil sands extraction “an abomination that has to be stopped,” and acknowledge that the oil industry is going to operate in the sands.
“We’re not debating that. We’re debating how, and at what pace and under what conditions.”
The oil industry, for its part, must say: “We recognize that over time this degree of greenhouse gas intensity, this degree of effluent in the water, this disturbance of biodiversity, is not going to be acceptable. We know we have to be quite a bit better. It’s a question of how, and how fast.”
“Once you have those two, then you have something to talk about. You can go to problem-solving mode…It doesn’t become easy, but it becomes possible.”
Lazar says progress is continuing toward fleshing out the boreal forest agreement.
A panel on acceptable forest practices has been established, for example: Each of the three members was agreed to by both. The panel’s recommendations must be accepted in whole by both sides, unless there’s a fundamental disagreement.
A working group is pursuing protocols for protecting caribou habitat and migration routes.
But hurdles remain. The agreement was negotiated at a national level, but many areas lie within provincial jurisdiction. First nations groups were not part of the pact; their participation is now needed.
And vast cultural changes must take place. Forest industry managers, for example, were always rewarded for extracting every last scrap of fibre from a given area. That must change.
“It’s complicated,” says Lazar. “But over-all, we’re moving forward
Business Reporter
Oil industry players have been sniffing around the landmark Boreal Forest Agreement between industry and environmental groups, says one of the agreement’s architects.
Avrim Lazar, who head the Forest Products Association of Canada, says he’s fielded inquiries from senior civil servants, executives and oil industry associations about how the forest industry got together with its one-time adversaries.
“They’re saying: What were you thinking? How did you do it? What’s working, what’s not working? What would your advice be?” Lazar said in an interview Thursday.
"It seems like very honest, good faith curiosity.”
The forest agreement was signed in May between the forest companies and a coalition of environmental groups who had fought the industry bitterly for decades, and boycotted their products.
Under the pact, the 21 member forest companies agreed to suspend new logging on 29 million hectares of forest. Environmental groups agreed to end their boycotts.
The signatories set themselves a three-year target to set up detailed, working agreements in areas such as developing more sustainable harvesting practices and protecting wildlife and water systems.
Oil and gas officials, while expressing interest, are skeptical that a similar process could work in their sector, says Lazar. “Who wouldn’t be? I was skeptical when I started.”
“All that being said, there are pieces of the model which are very importable,” Lazar said.
“A precondition of having a constructive conversation is acknowledging the legitimacy of each other’s public interest.”
That means environmentalists would have to stop calling oil sands extraction “an abomination that has to be stopped,” and acknowledge that the oil industry is going to operate in the sands.
“We’re not debating that. We’re debating how, and at what pace and under what conditions.”
The oil industry, for its part, must say: “We recognize that over time this degree of greenhouse gas intensity, this degree of effluent in the water, this disturbance of biodiversity, is not going to be acceptable. We know we have to be quite a bit better. It’s a question of how, and how fast.”
“Once you have those two, then you have something to talk about. You can go to problem-solving mode…It doesn’t become easy, but it becomes possible.”
Lazar says progress is continuing toward fleshing out the boreal forest agreement.
A panel on acceptable forest practices has been established, for example: Each of the three members was agreed to by both. The panel’s recommendations must be accepted in whole by both sides, unless there’s a fundamental disagreement.
A working group is pursuing protocols for protecting caribou habitat and migration routes.
But hurdles remain. The agreement was negotiated at a national level, but many areas lie within provincial jurisdiction. First nations groups were not part of the pact; their participation is now needed.
And vast cultural changes must take place. Forest industry managers, for example, were always rewarded for extracting every last scrap of fibre from a given area. That must change.
“It’s complicated,” says Lazar. “But over-all, we’re moving forward
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
