ESA "not about saving species" says Karen Budd Falen‏

Sent: May 28, 2010 9:37:50 PM


The following article was first published by Budd-Falen Law Offices,
of Cheyenne, Wyoming, as a "Memorandum to Interested Parties", May
26, 2010, and is reproduced by Man In Nature with permission.

http://www.maninnature.com/Management/Conservation/WConservation1k.html

Endangered Species Act
It's not about saving species. It's about spending taxpayer money and
making some groups wealthy

By Karen Budd Falen

Below please find some disappointing data regarding the Endangered
Species Act ("ESA") and its cost to the American public. ESA process
and litigation are not about saving species; they are about spending
American taxpayer money. In an economic time where American jobs are
scarce, private property rights are being taken and the federal
deficit is trillions of dollars, certainly the federal government can
find a better way to spend American taxpayer dollars than lining the
pockets of radical environmental groups and their "pro bono" (i.e.
allegedly free) attorneys and spending money on a program that by the
federal government's data is a complete failure.

The ESA was signed into law in 1978 with the best of intentions.
However, over the years it has become the battle cry to eliminate
private property rights and property use, shut down agriculture and
other industries and fund radical environmental groups and their
attorneys. There is not a single state within the United States that
does not have listed, threatened or endangered species. It would not
be so bad if the original intent of the ESA was followed and species
were listed, then recovered, then removed from the list - but that is
not what is happening.

As of May 17, 2010, there are a total of 1,374 species listed as
threatened or endangered. This list includes everything, even bugs,
worms, plants, snakes, spiders, bogs, moss, mice, rats and other
species. According to a 2009 report by Greenwire citing the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the average cost of listing a single species is
$85,000 and the average cost of designating critical habitat is
$515,000 per species.

Thus, the approximate cost to the American taxpayer of listing the
1,374 species is $116,790,000 and the approximate cost of designating
critical habitat for those species is $707,610,000.

If it weren't bad enough that America's taxpayers are spending
millions simply listing species, that is not the end of the story.
The ESA sets very specific time frames for species listing and
critical habitat designation; time frames which the federal
government cannot seem to meet. Species are listed by a petition
process, which means that anyone can send a letter to the federal
government asking that a species, either plant or animal, be put on
the ESA list. The federal government has 90 days to respond to that
petition, no matter how frivolous. If the federal government fails to
respond in 90 days, the petitioner - in the vast majority of cases,
radical environmental groups - can file litigation against the
federal government and get its attorneys fees paid. The simple act of
filing litigation does not mean the species will get listed or that
it is warranted to be protected; this litigation is only over whether
the federal government failed to respond to the petition in 90 days.
Between 2000 and 2009, in just 12 states and the District of
Columbia, 14 environmental groups filed 180 federal court complaints
to get species listed under the ESA and were paid $11,743,287 in
attorneys fees and costs.

Again, there are listed ESA species in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia and the U.S. Territories. Consider how much in attorneys
fees have been paid if all litigation in all states is considered.

And it doesn't end there; the federal agencies have placed 341 more
species on the candidate species list, meaning that they are under
consideration for listing on the ESA threatened or endangered species
list. That is 341 species times the average cost of listing of
$85,000 per species and $515,000 for each critical habitat
designation for a total of $204,600,000 - all from America's
pocketbooks.

And it still doesn't end there; certain radical environmental groups
have petitioned for additional listings of even more species and
critical habitat designations.

In the last 8 months, the Center for Biological Diversity, the
WildEarth Guardians and the Western Watersheds Project have
threatened the federal government with litigation if the government
fails to list 238 more species. If the federal government does not
respond to those listing petitions or Notices of Intent to Sue,
federal court complaints will be filed and according to recent
history, attorneys fees will be paid.

And with all this money - $116,790,000 for species listing;
$707,610,000 for critical habitat designation; $11,743,287 in
attorneys fees paid to some radical environmental groups because the
federal government simply missed deadlines - only 47 species have
been taken off the ESA list and of that 47 only 21 because they were
recovered. That is a 1.5% success rate! The other 26 species were
taken off the list because they either went extinct (9 species) or
should never have been put on the list in the first place (17
species). There is something wrong with this picture.

And while you are thinking about the ESA and its cost versus failure
rate, consider the additional individual costs to American taxpayers
and small businesses.

The California red and yellow-legged frogs have cost the taxpayers
$445,924 just in litigation attorneys fees. Part of the reason that
California farmers in the Central Valley have no water for their
crops is because of Natural Resources Defense Council litigation over
the delta smelt, a 2 to 3 inch long minnow. Wolf litigation has cost
American taxpayers $436,762 in attorney fees, all paid to
environmental groups who sue the federal government. Litigation over
the desert tortoise, (a total of 11 cases) - a species that only
spends 5% of its life above ground - has cost the American taxpayers
$702,519 just in payment of attorneys fees. In fact, in the last 10
years, the federal government has spent more than $93 million in
taxpayer money on the desert tortoise.

And that is not counting the costs to American business, even "green business."

In California, Brightsource Energy will have to spend $20 million
dollars to relocate 20 tortoises plus create a permanent tortoise
trust fund so it can build its solar power plant. That is 1 million
dollars plus per tortoise. Other businesses that have been impacted
or stopped by the desert tortoise include a wind farm that would
supply electricity to Las Vegas. Private landowners who wish to
develop their own property are required to pay "mitigation fees" of
between $370 and $550 per acre to develop private lands designated as
desert tortoise critical habitat. Once the money is paid, it does not
matter how many desert tortoises are killed. Hyundai car company had
to buy 3000 acres of additional land for $5 million so that it could
use its own private property for a car safety test track.

In addition to the $5 million, the company also agreed to pay $1.5
million into an endowment fund for the desert tortoise. The National
Military Training Center at Ft. Irwin has also been negatively
impacted, agreeing to pay $6.9 million to relocate desert tortoises
on the base so it can conduct its military training. None of this
counts the over 30 family ranches that were eliminated because they
used to graze their cattle on desert tortoise critical habitat.

It is clear that the American taxpayers have a tremendous problem.
This wouldn't be so hard to take if the ESA was successful or if the
radical environmental groups that are getting taxpayer money to
litigate over the ESA were spending money on species or their
habitats. However, there is no evidence that one single dime of the
money the federal government pays to environmental groups to litigate
over ESA species is spent on habitat or species research or
mitigation projects-the money is just spent to get more taxpayer
money and put more small businesses out of business or stop private
landowners from using their properties. Even those businesses that
supply "green jobs" and "green technology" suffer. This is a
maddening state of affairs for America - somewhere the madness must
stop!

If it is alright with you Mira, I am going to post this in another forum.

Mira,great article once again.We all know the end game is not saving these animals.

More Government money available to the people who have way to much time on their hands to care about whose lives they destroy in their court cases.


NOTE: To read the lawsuit, visit: http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/file-74-.pdf

Salt Lake City Weekly
Animal activists sue police--again
By: Jesse Fruhwirth
June 1, 2010
http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blog-3681-animal-activists-sue-police-again.html

Some say members of Salt Lake Animal Advocacy Movement often know as
much--if not more--about free speech laws and regulations than the
officers who shut down their protests. If that's true, SLAAM is
perhaps set to collect some legal fees from Salt Lake County--and
thus, taxpayers.

SLAAM has filed suit again for one of their protest rallies being shut
down, this time suing Unified Police Department, formerly known as the
Salt Lake County Sheriff's department.

As I previously reported, SLAAM settled with Morgan County, netting
$40,000 for the activists' and their attorney, Brian Barnard, for the
illegal interuption of a 2008 protest held there. Also as I previously
reported, some say SLAAM members knew more about Salt Lake City's
targeted residential picketing ordinance than did the officers who
shut-down a protest and used that ordinance to cite several of the
protesters. A few were convicted in that Salt Lake case--and are
appealing--but several were also acquitted by a jury. The fate of that
ordinance is still in question as those who are appealing plan to
challenge its constitutionality in district court.

They don't always win, but SLAAM and its predecessor animal-rights
groups here in Utah have scored numerous five-figure settlements from
cities and counties over the last decade regarding free speech
rights--and their settlements are only a portion of public money
spent. For those who don't know how civil rights lawsuits work: Police
use tax-payer funded authority to shut down protests, a tax-payer
funded federal judge reviews the complaint from the protesters,
tax-payer funded attorneys defend the police action, and if things go
sour for the cops, more tax money is paid to the civil rights attorney
who proves the police were the ones breaking the law--not the
protesters.

Remember, UPD is the same force that had so many of its residents
completely ticked at new "fees" for service.

Will SLAAM prove their protest was legal and thus UPD acted illegally?
Time will tell. To read the lawsuit, click here (pdf).

I called UPD last week requesting a comment and received no call in
return. If they call to comment, I'll update the post.