Klamath Republicans target ESA

A press release from Republicans in Klamath County, Ore.:

The following resolution was unanimously passed by the Klamath County Republican Central Committee at its March 10, 2011 meeting:

“Moved that the Klamath County Republican Central Committee resolve to take on the charge and the focus, for the next two years, to rally all Republican Central Committees and all Tea Patriot groups and other appropriate groups in the Western United States to Reform the ESA, (the Endangered Species Act), so that farmers, ranchers, timber industry employees, fishing industry employees, mining employees and other employees can keep their jobs and make an acceptable living. And; so that economic growth, economic recovery and economic stability are given no less than equal status to non-human species.”

Klamath Republican Party leads the charge to reform the ESA

Never in our history, since the implementation of the ESA, has there been a more obvious need for a reform of the ESA. Earlier attempts have been made with no real success. The political climate across our nation is calling for this reform. Our local communities and our entire nation is being held hostage by the heavy handed, one-sided use of the ESA. There is a definite need for a watchdog advocate for our environment, but the ESA has become an out of control, rabid pit bull that needs to be contained. Our entire Nation is suffering from the effects of the ESA, from high fuel prices, loss of timber jobs, agriculture jobs, fishing jobs, mining jobs, development jobs and the list goes on and on. No one is immune from the negative effects inflicted on our citizens by the unanticipated use of the ESA. Our local budget crisis is a direct result of ESA collateral damage.

Our community can be united in this quest. We can survive, with a true balanced approach.

NFU sends condolences to Japan

From the National Farmers Union:

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (March 12, 2011) – At a meeting preceding the National Farmers Union (NFU) 109th Annual Convention in San Antonio, Texas, the NFU Board of Directors signed a letter lending support and condolences to the people of Japan in the wake of the tragic earthquake and tsunami.

“The members of the National Farmers Union of the United States extend our sympathy to the people of Japan and to our friends at JA Zenchu,” said NFU President Roger Johnson. “As farmers, ranchers and fishermen in the U.S., we are saddened to see the tragedy that struck your country. Words cannot express the dismay we feel as we see the destruction that has struck.”

“Our sympathy is with you and our prayers are for you,” said Johnson. “We want to help your members heal from that destruction in an appropriate manner. As the rebuilding and recovery process begins from this horrific tragedy, Farmers Union members from across the United States offer their support.”

Don't mess with the ocean

Fierce waves are now crashing onto the beach near the Yaquina Head Light House in Newport, basically warning people to stay out of their way. Otherwise, it looks to be a pretty nice day. (Photo from The Coast Is Clear, a promotional Web site for Newport.)

Japan quake rattles US ag markets

From the Wall Street Journal:

A severe earthquake and tsunami in Japan rattled U.S. agricultural markets Friday, as traders tried to assess the potential impact on import demand for such commodities as pork and corn.

Corn and lean hog futures saw some of the sharpest declines as most farm products sold off on fears the disaster would slow demand from a key buyer. Further selling came from traders looking to just exit commodity markets because of the overall uncertainty that follows a natural disaster.

"The immediate impact of the earthquake was extreme uncertainty -- the condition most hated by investors," said Bryce Knorr, analyst for Farm Futures, an agricultural publication.

Avoiding the broad sell-off was lumber, with futures for May delivery climbing $6.40, or 2.1%, to $315.50 per 1,000 board feet on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Futures rose $10 in overnight trading, the largest one-day gain allowed under exchange rules. [...]

Hog futures sold off with the April contract, which is the most actively traded, recently falling one cent, or 1.1%, to 88.85 cents a pound. June hog futures were off 1.6 cents, or 1.6%, at 99.85 cents a pound.

Japan is the largest international customer for U.S. pork based on total sales, with the country spending nearly $1.65 billion on imports in 2010 and accounting for more than 34% of total U.S. export sales, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Meat Export Federation.

It is too early to assess the overall damage, yet in the short term "it appears there will be significant disruption to transportation," said Jim Herlihy, a spokesman for the export federation.

Delays of meat shipments from the U.S. may occur, which could temporarily put more pork supplies into the domestic market.

PLF sues over sturgeon listing

From the Pacific Legal Foundation:

Sacramento, CA; March 10, 2011: The federal government’s 2009 critical habitat designation for the green sturgeon must be withdrawn and reworked, says a lawsuit filed today by attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation, representing San Francisco Bay Area business and landowners associations.

The suit points out that regulators illegally set aside vast areas as green sturgeon habitat, up and down the West Coast and in California’s Central Valley, without even considering economic impacts in some areas and without properly balancing economic considerations, in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition, the suit was brought because the government utterly failed to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Donor-supported PLF is the leading legal watchdog that litigates, without charge, for limited government, property rights, free enterprise, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations. In this lawsuit, PLF attorneys represent the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area and the Bay Planning Coalition, whose members are directly injured by the illegal government rule.

The case is Building Industry Association of the Bay Area and Bay Planning Coalition v. National Marine Fisheries Service. The complaint may be viewed at PLF’s website: www.pacificlegal.org. A PLF video on the case also may be viewed at PLF’s website.

"This critical habitat designation was not only illegal, it was reckless, because officials ignored the potential pain for the economy in many of the areas they designated as critical habitat," said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Ted Hadzi-Antich. "As tens of millions of Americans struggle to find jobs, comfortable federal regulators designated much of the West Coast as critical habitat for the green sturgeon, while refusing to comply with economic balancing requirements in the ESA. The government’s failure to consider the appropriate economic criteria and tests for critical habitat designation under the ESA, and its failure to consider alternatives under NEPA, is, quite frankly, flat-out illegal."

"By definition, critical habitat designations curtail economic activity," Hadzi-Antich continued. "So common sense – and federal law – require regulators to show care, nuance, and balance in making these decisions, but the regulators did not do so in this case."

Green sturgeon critical habitat: More than 12,000 square miles at issue

The green sturgeon has been listed as a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act since April 7, 2006. The critical habitat designation for the green sturgeon was issued in its final form by the National Marine Fisheries Service on October 9, 2009, and it covers a vast area in the waters, shorelines, and land areas of California, Oregon, and Washington.

Included are:

1) Coastal U.S. marine waters within 60 fathoms depth from Monterey Bay, Calif. (including Monterey Bay), north to Cape Flattery, Wash., including the Straight of Juan De Fuca, Wash., to its U.S. boundary;

2) the Sacramento River, lower Feather River, and lower Yuba River in California;

3) the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisin, San Pablo, and San Francisco bays in California;

4) the lower Columbia River Estuary; and

5) certain coastal bays and estuaries in California (Humboldt Bay), Oregon (Coos Bay, Winchester Bay, Yaquina Bay, and Nehalem Bay), and Washington (Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor).

In total, the final rule designates approximately 11,421 square miles of coastal marine habitat, 897 square miles of estuarine habitat, and 320 miles of freshwater riverine habitat.

"All responsible Americans care about environmental protection, including protecting the green sturgeon, but a careful, balanced approach is essential, so we don’t derail ourselves economically in the name of protecting the environment," said Hadzi-Antich. "Critical habitat designations have the effect of limiting productive uses of property. Because the harms to human beings can be significant, federal law requires regulators to carefully balance economic impacts against conservation goals before designating any area as critical habitat. The National Marine Fisheries Service simply refused to follow this legal requirement when it decided to set aside as green sturgeon habitat large swaths of territory they viewed as high value areas. In short, the government broke the law in its misguided efforts to implement it."

The Endangered Species Act requirement for considering human economic impacts is set forth at 16 U.S.C. section 1531, et seq.

Additionally, under NEPA (42 U.S.C. section 4332(2)(C)), the Environmental Impact Statement for any regulation that would "significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment" must include an assessment of alternatives to the regulatory action.

"Put simply, the regulators broke the law when they designated critical habitat for the green sturgeon," said Hadzi-Antich. "This lawsuit isn’t just about the importance of a balanced approach to economic regulations. It’s also about the rule of law: Government has to comply with the law, just like the rest of us."

Plaintiffs in challenging the feds’ failure to weigh the economic impacts

PLF attorneys represent two plaintiff organizations in this case.

The Building Industry Association of the Bay Area (BIABA), a nonprofit association of builders, contractors, and related trades and professions involved in the residential construction industry, is bringing this lawsuit on its own behalf and on behalf of its members. BIABA represents the interests of its members and the residential construction industry in areas of California improperly designated by Defendants as critical habitat under the final rules, including the San Francisco Bay Area and the Yolo and Sutter bypasses adjacent to the Sacramento River.

The ability of these owners and developers to use their properties is undermined by the critical habitat designation because of strict land use restrictions that are triggered for the affected property.

Paul Campos, senior vice president and general counsel for the BIABA, issued this statement:

"It is ironic that at a time when there is an emerging consensus that federal regulations must take into account the impact on jobs and economic health, here we have a federal statute that requires just that – yet it is being ignored and undermined by the very federal agency charged with implementing the law. We are fortunate PLF is there to help us fight against this type of illegal government activity and to give us our day in court. The livelihoods of many property owners and businesses are at issue."

The Bay Planning Coalition is a nonprofit membership-based organization whose mission is to ensure a healthy and thriving San Francisco Bay Area for commerce, recreation, and the natural environment. BPC represents the interests of, among others, businesses and property owners in the San Francisco Bay Area whose land has been designated as critical habitat under the final green sturgeon rules.

John Coleman, executive director of the Bay Planning Coalition, issued this statement: "The rules go way too far in designating critical habitat in vast areas without properly considering economic impacts. This legal action is necessary to make sure the government plays by the rules."

Did the California DFG threaten farmers?

There appears to be a question in some people's minds as to whether California Department of Fish and Game officials actually threatened farmers and ranchers in the Scott and Shasta valleys with prosecution, or whether the landowners merely "claimed" they were threatened. Here's what we reported on May 13, 2010:

Those who don't sign up -- or don't obtain permits on their own later -- could expect inspections by game wardens and face civil and criminal penalties of up to $25,000 per violation and up to six months in jail, said Mark Stopher, the DFG's acting regional manager in Redding, Calif.

"We do have to have a point where we say one way or the another, they need to be compliant with the law," Stopher said. "We can't just let it be open for them to choose ... when they want to comply with the law."

Stopher said he sent a "rather stern letter" to ranchers in April as the irrigation season was beginning to "lay out their options." [...]

Stopher said for everyone who's complaining about the state's requiring the permits, there's an equal number of people impatient with the pace of the state's enforcement efforts.

"If telling people that they actually do have to comply with state law is intimidation, I can't help that," he said. "What we have done is frankly given people a five-year grace period since coho salmon were listed to comply with state law.

"We didn't have to develop this (watershed-wide permit), but we did," he said.

In my interview with him in May, Stopher said agricultural users in the two valleys are "currently out of compliance with state law," adding that Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires landowners to notify the DFG if they're making a substantial diversion from a river or stream.

"Nobody in either valley has agreed with us to substantially divert flow yet they're doing it already," he said. He added later, "The question of whether somebody is diverting in accordance with a water right is moot at this point." Then later, he said there's a "route we don't want to minimize, and that's the enforcement route."

Talk of enforcement actions didn't end when Stopher was replaced by Neil Manji, the DFG's current regional manager in Redding. As we reported on Sept. 9:

Some ranchers who signed up for the blanket permits are being asked to cut back on their irrigation, said Neil Manji, the DFG's regional manager based in Redding.

Holdouts were sent new letters in August again warning them of potential penalties, and wardens have visited the properties of some of the ranchers, he said.

"At this time we're not going out there with billy clubs and mace trying to get this thing done," Manji said. "We're trying to get as many ... permits issued to show the community up there that it's not really pulling teeth, it's just a nice teeth cleaning. I think everybody knows a lot of folks are afraid to go to the dentist to begin with."

Fallout over the threats of penalties prompted complaints from Northern California's state Assemblyman Jim Nielsen and later from Sen. Doug LaMalfa, and it ultimately moved Manji to try to change the department's approach with the landowners.

What we don't know is how heated some wardens' conversations with individual landowners may have become. But when it comes to its stance on enforcement, the DFG as a whole has left little ambiguity.