Skip to comments.Klamath Falls Research Thread (Thread 3)
Posted on 09/04/2001 11:31:59 PM PDT by Bump in the night
I know a lot of us are doing a lot of research regarding Klamath Falls. So I'm starting this thread for posting any research data that we think is applicable to the crisis in Klamath Falls. I know there are bits and pieces all over FR and the various Klamath threads. But this will help get all the important info into one location.
I am still bothered by the fact that the ESA has expired, 1992, but is still being funded.
Goddess50: thought you might like to know this was here and available. ^5
Are non-profits allowed to have an influence on public policy decisions--legislative, administrative, legal, and electoral? Does this violate their non-profit status?
Justice Kennedy , with whom Justice Souter joins, I agree with the Court's conclusion in Part III A that, on the record before us, respondents have failed to demonstrate that they themselves are "among the injured." Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 735 (1972). This component of the standing inquiry is not satisfied unless
"[p]laintiffs . . . demonstrate a `personal stake in the outcome.' . . . Abstract injury is not enough. The plaintiff must show that he `has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury' as the result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both `real and immediate,' not `conjectural' or `hypothetical.' " Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102 (1983) (citations omitted). ...more at link
(b) The Court cannot consider the Sierra Clubs argument that the Plan will hurt it immediately in many ways not yet mentioned. That argument makes its first appearance in this Court in the briefs on the merits and is, therefore, not fairly presented. Pp. 1112.
... However, while those seeking stricter enforcement of the ESA, such as environmental groups have been given significant litigation rights, those whose economic and civil rights are impacted by actions taken by the Secretary or the courts have had their access to the courts severely restricted. In Bennett v. Plenert, 63 F. 3rd 915, decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on August 1995, the court held that a group of plaintiffs who had suffered economic damages as a result of the ESA, had no standing to challenge the actions of the Secretary. The plaintiffs were two Oregon ranch operators and 2 irrigation districts located in Oregon. They were challenging the government's preparation of a biological opinion which concluded that the water level in two reservoirs should be maintained at a particular minimum level in order to preserve two species of fish that were listed under the ESA. The plaintiffs were users of the water for both commercial and recreational purposes. The plaintiffs asserted that there was no evidence to support the biological opinion and that the Secretary failed to comply with procedures required by the ESA.
Attorneys representing Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, filed a motion to have the plaintiff's case dismissed on the ground that they lacked "standing to sue". The Court agreed with the Fish and Wildlife Service and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding that the plaintiffs' interest in utilizing the water "conflicts with the Lost River and shortnose suckers' interest in using water for habitat". The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were premised on "an interest which conflicts with the interests sought to be protected by the Act."
Inside The Hidden Empire --
By Charles A. Bedell
Trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute
In "The Hidden Empire -- Part One" published in the September, 1996, edition of The Address, we began to explore the nature of the environmental advocacy industry and its impact on America's individual rights. We discussed the history of a type of lawsuit called the "citizen suit" which was created by friends of the environmental advocacy industry in Congress and inserted in our federal environmental laws.
We also noted that evidence seems to be coming to light that this type of lawsuit has been widely used by the environmental advocacy industry to line their pockets rather than as Congress intended.
The case of Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Company has provided us with a shocking insight into what appears to be the dark side of the environmental movement. The Sierra Club's action against little Cedar Point Oil was the only one of several threatened suits which ever made it into court. The Sierra Club approached an unknown number of other oil companies with activities in Galveston Bay, Texas, and, incredibly, offered to let them continue to discharge produced water for 24 months if the companies would pay the Sierra Club a fee and also pay their related legal expenses. If the discharge didn't stop within the stipulated 24 months, the oil companies would have to pay the Sierra Club or their designee a certain sum per month!
Interesting if true, the Sierra Club is just like Jesse Jackson, blackmail them until your rich.
A brief summary of a reading of the above doocumments posted by me by Alamo-Girl.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) effectively bypasses the normal authority of the Executive and Legislative branches of federal government. It does this by allowing law to be made by the courts with reimbursements made to trial attorneys by the government. Of course, judicial rulings vary in different parts of the country, so the law has not been consistently developed or enforced.
Notably, in Bennet v. Plenert 63 F. 3rd 915 - which was decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in August of 1995 the court made it very clear that the law itself does not protect other parties, such as irrigators. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because of the zone of interest test. The plaintiff had to be within the zone of interest intended by Congress to be protected by the law. And the ESA is limited to protecting only plaintiffs who allege an interest in the preservation of an endangered species.
It therefore seems that a successful cause of action against environmentalists would have to be under some other provision of the law something like fraud for junk science or interference with contracts for irrigators, and so on. The successful plaintiff must show actual damages, so it appears the best lawsuit opportunity would follow a damaging green decision previously determined under the under the ESA. Klamath is a good case where actual damages can be shown.
I don't have a clue whether it is constitutional, but it sure strikes me as a breach of fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty is an obligation to act in the best interest of another party (i.e. we the people.)
By redefining Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, all globlists/environmentalists now have to do is ratify international treaties that subvert the Constitution and throw all power into their hands. As a consequence, Americans are systematically coming under the control of international law and the United Nations, and species have more legal rights than Americans.
Plaintiff has to be in the "zone of interest" - does this mean that a plaintiff would have to be an endangered species, experiencing harm to a different endangered species, or complaining of a conflict within ESA - such as complaining that the action taken to aid sucker fish was damaging bald eagles.
If this is what is meant - I see problems with that because that would mean citizens had no redress unless it involved another aspect of ESA. Therefore ESA rules and is unchallengable. Surely the court did not mean that.
If this is the case - I would think IMHO - that this is totally unconstitutional because you have in effect set one organization or Act above all others with no redress. On top of that - this Act is expired and is only in effect because they keep on funding it and the courts "act" as if it is in effect.
So, I see real problems for the ESA here:
Remember - I am not a student of constitutional law or any law - ignore if this is totally false.
That is exactly what was done by the people that allowed a law/Act to be written that is powered by treaties. These treaties were originally with foreign interests or after the Act was created, it made treaties with foreign interests.
Are other laws written like this so that foreign interests can pull the control of America into their hands?
(Coupled with this year's loss of water to the Klamath Basin community of Tulelake, this will just about complete the distruction of agriculture in the 6,600 sq. miles of Siskiyou County, California. The listing of the northern spotted owland marbled murrelet and federal coho listings have already curtailed most of the timber industry in the north 3/4 of the county.)
Here is some of the listings of EO's under "Environment".
Border Environment Cooperation Commission: EO 12904; EO 12916
Coral reef protection: EO 13089; EO 13178; EO 13196
Energy efficiency at Federal facilities: EO 12845; EO 12902
Environmental Cooperation, Commission for: EO 12904
Environmental Cooperation, North American Agreement on: EO 12915(NOTE: I think this is the ONE!!)
Environmental Justice, Interagency Working Group on: EO 12898
Environmental justice in minority and low-income populations: EO 12898(THIS would also be interesting!!)
Federal programs; adverse effects on minority and low-income populations: EO 12948(AND THIS!)
Heritage Rivers, American; initiative: EO 13093; EO 13061
Invasive species: EO 13112
Lake Tahoe ecosystem: EO 13057
Leadership in protection by Federal agencies: EO 13148
Marine protected areas: EO 13158
Migratory bird protection: EO 13186
Paper, recycled content; Federal standards: EO 12995
Plants; conservation and management: EO 12996
Protection through Government workplace practices: EO 13101; EO 13123 Recreational fisheries: EO 12962
Risks to children: EO 13045
Toxic chemical release; community right-to-know: EO 12969
Trade agreements; environmental review: EO 13141
Water conservation at Federal facilities: EO 12902
Wildlife Refuge System; management: EO 12996
Environmental Cooperation, Commission for: EO 12904
Environmental Cooperation, North American Agreement on: EO 12915(May be this one!!!)
Environmental Executive, Federal: EO 12873
Environmental Justice, Interagency Working Group on: EO 12898
Environmental Quality, President's Commission on: EO 12852
Environmental Risks and Safety Risks to Children, Task Force on: EO 13045
EXECUTIVE EO 12986 ORDER Effective Date January 11, 1996
_________________________________________________________________ Responsible Office: G Subject: INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
TEXT By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 1 and 14 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288 et seq., as amended by section 426 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal years 1994 and 1995, Public Law 103-236), I hereby extend to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural resources the privileges and immunities that provide or pertain to immunity from suit. To this effect, the following sections of the International Organizations Immunities Act shall not apply to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources:
--Section 2(b), 22 U.S.C. 288a(b), that provides international organizations and their property and assets with the same immunity from suit and judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments.
--Section 2(c), 22 U.S.C. 288a(c), that provides that the property and assets of international organizations shall be immune from search and confiscation and that their archives shall be inviolable.
--Section 7(b), 22 U.S.C. 288d(b), that provides the representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and the officers and employees of such organizations with immunity form suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions. /s/William J. Clinton THE WHITE HOUSE January 18, 1996.
Why is it necessary for me to pour over all the legal documents, learn all the EO's and find the secret answer to all our problems. That is the job of our elected officials who are getting paid to do so. They need to be hounded about these problems and we need to demand that we have fairer laws.
There should be no provision in place that allows any foreign entity to come in by one of our created Acts and usurp the power of American citizen rights and the constitution.
Self-government. Our representatives will either respond to a demand or, knowing that the request is ignoring the law, ignore the request. In either case, it is better to understand the law and the system. At least you should not spin your wheels inciting others to chase the wrong lead. In this case, such treaties are the source of nearly ALL environmental laws. In addition to that minor influence on your life, perhaps you might also realize that the UN is the source of the curriculum for your kids in school, "harmonized" rules of commerce (ever tried to export a product?), you pay a UN tax on airline tickets...
It ALL arises from treaties. Perhaps then it might be worth your valuable time to learn how it works. Other than that, I can't think of a reason for you to bother.
Also something else to consider is that as long as the USFWS is spending $506,288.11 as of August 31st (I don't know what the total budget figure is) that is money that could be spent preventing other communities from getting water. So maybe dragging out the stand at the headgates will deplete the enviro's researves and bring more attention to the ACT. You never know. Andy and Wendell's little hit and run is getting expensive.
I'll check back later.
URGENT ALERT: LAST CHANCE FOR ADEQUATE ESA FUNDING!
Both the House and Senate have passed their versions of the Interior Appropriations bill providing money to the USFWS for implementing the Endangered Species Act. The spending bill now awaits a House-Senate conference where the differences will be worked out and the final bill sent back to both chambers for final approval. The Senate has appointed its conferees but the House has delayed and it now looks like the Interior conference will not occur until September. This is a critical time for endangered species and our last best chance to get adequate funding for ESA programs.
Because of chronic underfunding of federal endangered species programs, 39 plant and animal species have already become extinct while waiting to be protected under the ESA. Unless we get significantly more money for these programs, more species will be lost forever.
Congress has so far failed to appropriate adequate funding for Endangered Species programs. The House bill currently allocates only $8.5 million to endangered species listing and critical habitat programs and the Senate bill increased that amount to $9 million. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says that it needs at least $24 million per year for the next five years to adequately protect imperiled species.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
If your Senator or Representative is on the Conference Committee (see list below) it is extremely important that they hear from you. You may even want to request a meeting with them over the month of August when they will be back home.
If your Rep. or Senators is not on the conference committee, they can still help by contacting the conferees by writing a letter. Please contact your Rep. and Senators who are not listed below (particularly if they are friendly) and ask them to write a letter to the conferees.
Your calls, faxes and letters to your legislators are needed to help maintain a strong ESA to secure the future of America's natural heritage. Thanks so much for your time and energy!
These next few weeks may be our last chance to get the increased funding desperately needed to list new species. Calls into your members of Congress and particularly key appropriators can be crucial in determining whether the USFWS receives the money needed to list the over 300 species desperately waiting for the Act's protection.
Calls 202-224-3121 and letters (see sample below) into any of these legislators urging them to increase funding for the USFWS listing and critical habitat line item to at least $24 million are desperately needed. The House-Senate conferees are likely to be:
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Rep. Joe Skeen (R-NM), chairs;
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC); Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV); Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA); Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND); Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT); Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS); Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK); Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM); Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT); Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH); Sen. Ben Campbell (R-CO).
Rep. David Obey (D-WI) ranking D; Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA); Rep. John Murtha (D-PA); Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA); Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY); Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN); Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH); Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ); Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC); Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA); Rep. Zack Wamp (R-TN); Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA); Rep. John Peterson (R-PA);.
If your Senator or Representative is on the list of potential conferees, please consider calling their office and asking for a meeting with them over August recess when they will be back at home in district. If you would like help doing this, please contact your regional organizer. http://www.stopextinction.org/org/staff.html
MESSAGE: Please support adequate funding for ESA listing and critical habitat programs at $24 million. Please oppose any efforts in conference to attach the Bush Administration's proposed "extinction rider" that prevents citizen enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and makes listing new species voluntary.
CONGRESSIONAL CONTACT INFORMATION:
You can contact any Congressperson through the Congressional Switchboard at: (202) 224-3121. Just ask for their office.
Contacting the Senate: http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm
Contacting the House: http://www.house.gov/Welcome.html
Link to members websites: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html
Don't know who your Representative is? Find out at
Direct phone numbers, fax, and district office numbers:
You can write your Congressperson at:
The Honorable _______________
U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20515 or Washington, DC 20510
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Senator _____ :
I am writing to urge you to support a major funding increases for programs in support of endangered and threatened species, particularly $24 million for the USFWS line item for listing new species and designating critical habitat. At a time of the greatest surpluses in our history, the administration is proposing a budget which maintains chronic under-funding for the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing program - - our nation's primary safeguard against extinction.
Today, we are in the midst of an unprecedented extinction crisis, where the Nature Conservancy estimates that one-third of the nation's wildlife is imperiled and may need protection under the ESA. Currently some 319 species (235 candidate species, 37 listing proposals, plus 47 active listing petitions) continue to desperately wait protection. Decades of chronic under-funding have already resulted in the extinction of 39 ESA candidate species since the 1980s. Because of a lack of money and resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has stopped listing new species entirely, except under court order.
At recent Senate hearings, scientists and even the USFWS admitted that $120 million is needed just to begin dealing with the backlog of critically imperiled species which are being denied the Act's protection. Unfortunately, President Bush's budget asked for and the House Interior Appropriations Committee approved only $8.47 million, an amount that will do virtually nothing to effectively address the backlog. This current trend of under funding ESA implementation has forced concerned citizens to file suit against the FWS to ensure imperiled species get protection under the ESA - - a situation that will only get worse unless the Senate acts to solve the problem.
We, as a nation, have reached "rock bottom" in our commitment and funding for endangered species programs. A fully functioning, fully funded, and fully enforced Endangered Species Act is absolutely crucial to stop the pending extinction of our nation's unique and threatened plants and animals. Please oppose any efforts to include anti-environmental riders, especially the administration's proposed rider to impair citizen enforcement and give the Interior Secretary discretion over new listings. We strongly urge you to increase funding for the listing line item in the USFWS budget to at least $24 million for the next five years, the minimum necessary to get our most critically imperiled species ESA protection before they go extinct.
Your Phone Number
The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in 1973, has been our nation's most important and powerful tool to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the rich wildlife and biological heritage that we now cherish. Unfortunately, it lacks the funding to adequately protect and recover our nation's critically imperiled plant and animal species and the habitat they depend upon.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is so chronically underfunded that it recently announced a one year moratorium on the listing of endangered species and the designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. If upheld, hundreds of critically imperiled plant and animal species and millions of acres of forests, wetlands, grasslands, mountains and deserts will be denied desperately needed protection.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's own estimates say they need $24 million each year for the next five years to eliminate the backlog of species awaiting the Act's protections and prevent them from sliding further towards extinction. However, the Bush Administration proposes only $8.47 million.
To appease the timber, mining and livestock industries that have consistently objected to protecting species under the ESA, the Bush Administration is also seeking in its budget to prevent the government from spending any money to comply with court orders to protect imperiled species and their critical habitat under the ESA. President Bush also wants to give Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who has argued that the ESA is unconstitutional, sole authority to determine which species will receive the protections of the law and which will fade into the blackness of extinction. By seeking to drastically slash an already underfunded endangered species protection program and hand its implementation to one of its most vocal opponents, the Bush Administration has laid out a plan for extinction.
The Endangered Species Coalition, in conjunction with Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity recently released a report called Conservation in Action: Safeguarding Citizen Rights Under the Endangered Species Act, that details the need for increased ESA funding by highlighting the extent of the extinction crisis in the United States. The report is available at http://www.stopextinction.org
No itemized list?
/skeptically raised eyebrow
Unfortunately, salmon do travel in the oceans beyond state jurisdiction, between states and in "waters of the United States" - even legitimate ones where interstate commercial navigation takes place. A win by PLF might knock down the law a BIG peg, but they would still have their hooks in us concerning salmon.
From Thomas.loc.gov (search bin's don't save over time so no links available. You can see context of these by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and entering in the number you wish. I hope this helps.
1 . Compensation for Klamath Basin Government-Caused Disaster Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2389.IH]
2 . Klamath Basin Emergency Operation and Maintenance Refund Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2828.IH]
3 . Klamath Basin Economic Disaster Relief Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2827.IH]
4 . Chiloquin Dam Fish Passage Feasibility Study Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.2585.IH]
5 . To provide further protections for the watershed of the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes. (Engrossed in House )[H.R.427.EH]
6 . To provide further protections for the watershed of the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes. (Enrolled Bill)[H.R.427.ENR]
7 . To provide further protections for the watershed of the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes. (Introduced in the Senate)[S.254.IS]
8 . To provide further protections for the watershed of the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes. (Placed on the Calendar in the Senate)[H.R.427.PCS]
9 . To provide further protections for the watershed of the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes. (Introduced in the House)[H.R.427.IH]
10 . To provide further protections for the watershed of the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes. (Reported in the Senate)[S.254.RS]
11 . To provide further protections for the watershed of the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes. (Reported in the House)[H.R.427.RH]
12 . Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2001 (Engrossed Senate Amendment)[H.R.2216.EAS]
13 . Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2001 (Enrolled Bill)[H.R.2216.ENR]
14 . 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Print)[H.R.2216.PP]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.