Posted: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:00 AM
Mark Rozin/Capital Press
A Wyoming lawyer has found the federal government in recent years has paid environmental law firms billions of dollars in attorney's fees.
Taxes fund environmental suits
Environmental law firms reap billions in fees to fund lawsuits
By MITCH LIES
Capital Press
The federal government has paid out billions of dollars to environmental groups for attorney fees and costs, according to data assembled by a Cheyenne, Wyo., lawyer.
Karen Budd-Falen of Budd-Falen Law Offices said the government between 2003 and 2007 paid more than $4.7 billion in taxpayer money to environmental law firms -- and that's just in the lawsuits she tracked.
The actual figure, she said, is far greater.
"I think we only found that the iceberg exists," she said. "I don't think we have any idea how much money is being spent. But I think it's huge."
In some cases, Budd-Falen said, intervening ranchers and farmers are paying for the defense of their farm and ranch practices and -- through their taxes -- paying for the opposing lawyers' attorney fees.
"That money is not going into programs to protect people, wildlife, plants and animals," Budd-Falen said, "but to fund more lawsuits."
Budd-Falen, whose firm regularly represents farms and ranches, for years was aware that nonprofit, tax-exempt environmental law firms were generating sizable revenue from attorney fees paid by the federal government. In June, she submitted a formal request asking the Department of Justice for information on just how much was being spent.
"They said they don't track that information," she said.
After the response, Budd-Falen sat down with a paralegal and started what she said was a time-consuming process of uncovering and compiling the data.
"The numbers were just shocking," she said.
"Somewhere this has to stop, and the government has to be held accountable for the money it's spending," she said.
Budd-Falen documented that between 2000 and 2009, three tax-exempt, non-profit environmental groups -- Western Watersheds Project, Forest Guardians and Center for Biological Diversity -- filed more than 700 cases against the federal government.
"Ranchers and other citizens are being forced to expend millions of their own money 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," Budd-Falen said.
Budd-Falen found in one 15-month-long case that Earthjustice Legal Foundation and the Western Environmental Law Center filed for $479,242 in attorneys' fees.
Brian Smith, a spokesman for Earthjustice, said the foundation counts on those fees in part because it represents groups free of charge. He said the foundation bases its fees on the going rates for attorneys.
Also, he said, if the government was doing its job, the foundation wouldn't be so active.
"If the government had been enforcing the laws during the Bush administration," he said, "there would be no jobs for nonprofit environmental lawyers.
"The environmental movement would love to retire and know that everything is safe, but that is not happening," he said.
Smith said he is confident President Barack Obama's administration will reduce the need for environmental lawsuits.
"The (Environmental Protection Agency) has been very active in the new administration," he said. "That has been encouraging to see how they are stepping in and enforcing the laws."
Budd-Falen, however, said she doubts the steady stream of lawsuits will stop, or even slow.
"Why would you stop filing litigation when you can get that kind of money?" she asked.
"They are not filing these suits to try and protect the environment," she said. "They are filing these suits to make money."
Environmental groups, she said, are eligible for government funds under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides for the award of attorney fees to "prevailing parties" in cases against the government.
In order to prevail, under the act, all a group has to do is show a government body changed some policy or program as a result of the suit.
The firms also are accessing government funds through the Judgment Fund, Budd-Falen said,. The fund is a line-item appropriation in the federal budget used for paying claims against the government.
Much of the funds to pay the attorney fees, she said, are being pulled from the budgets of cash-strapped regional offices of natural resource agencies.
"Those budget items ought to be used for range improvement projects, trails or campgrounds, whatever the agency is supposed to be doing," she said.
Budd-Falen in her research also documented salaries paid to top environmental executives. On top of that list was the $446,072 salary paid the president of the Environmental Defense Fund. Second was the $439,327 salary paid the president of the World Wildlife Fund.
Budd-Falen said it is important to bring to light the cost of environmental litigation in the hope Congress might scale it back.
Also, she said, it is important for the public to realize just how much taxpayer money is being spent on these cases.
"We are going to get back to this again and track some more of these dollars," she said, "because I think we ought to know (how much we're spending on this). And if Congress or the Justice Department won't do it, I think somebody has to."
Staff writer Mitch Lies is based in Salem. E-mail: mlies@capitalpress.com.
Comments made about this article
Posted By: Helen Nowlin On: 11/20/2009
Title: Mr. Zybach's story on authority & development of his perspective
Yes, Mr. Zybach, I read your original posting, which caused me to respond. I have heard your position(s) and their derivations in many different forums. As I mentioned in one of my postings, once the NW Forest Plan was implemented, drastically reducing the amount of timber being removed from public lands, it resulted in a mixed bad (not all negative). On one hand, greater unemployment occurred (also, due to automation that replaced people for machines) but the major timber companies found out they could make greater profits, too (cutting more timber on their private land / tree farms). The amount of timber being cut from public lands inevitably could not have been sustained at the previous high levels. More importantly, the checkerboards and clear cut patterns had serious impacts on our forests...reducing their functioning as forests (in terms of temperature, humidity, invasive disease / species and so forth). It is pretty clear we will not agree on major issues, however, there are convergences and shared concerns. My discussion of forest history comes from other authorities and experts...apparently, not the same ones you feel so well versed on or the ones you base your self-opinionates on. My points are with merit and equally as valid as yours. I guess what differs between the two perspectives is similar to what wedges differences between historians generally. It all depends on which authorities molded your education and now, influences your perspective. Oh, well, Mr. Zybach, we will have to agree to disagree. Where current and future policies take us in the 21st century is far from certain. Climate change adds another layer of complexity and yes, uncertainty. Your original posting misconstrued facts and cherry picked the ones that best substantiated your perspective. With that said, the issues are complex and broad enough that debating them is most important. I'm not implying your points have no merit, only that cherry picking made it clear you also have a "perspective". That also applies to the original article to which our discussion was derived. Happy Thanksgiving.
Posted By: Bob Zybach On: 11/19/2009
Title: Helen Nowlin & Catastrophic Assumptions
Jeez, Helen:
"Whining?" Something about "extraction industries" getting "tax dollars?" WTF? What does that have to do with anything I've written? It certainly has nothing to do with my experience, bias, or interests. I'm a forest scientist with 25 years actual experience working in the woods of the Pacific Northwest --as a reforestation contractor, which is hardly an "extraction industry," I personally planted more than 2,000,000 trees with my own hands, which may be more trees than you have actually ever seen. And your defensive discussion of forest fire history is precisely how I presented it -- misguided and false, based on assumptions that are highly inaccurate: in a nutshell, NO, the fires of today could NOT have been avoided with "let it burn" policies from the past. NO, suppression policies did not directly result in current conditions. Poor management based on poor science and misguided litigation -- in my estimation -- is largely responsible for current conditions. How is that "whining" or "not making a point?" Or even remotely misrepresenting your own words?
"Get to the point?" What do you think I was doing with my very first response to this article? Have you even read it? Read (and understood) the actual points I have been making?
Here's what you think you know about me and my viewpoint: "What your staunch republican view point fails to consider is that forests should act as forests. The point behind your message really is to advocate for tree farms...manage this and manage that. Your perspective places human entry at the top of the list, to glorify utilitarian management practices as a means to the end itself and then justifies it by concluding catastrophic fires are less likely to occur if active management practices are adopted."
Yes, I really do believe you have a B.S. in science. What a crock of erroneous assumptions! I am hardly an advocate of "tree farms!" I think that is your own bias and misplaced assumptions at play. I do believe, however, that catastrophic wildfires are far less likely with active management than with the passive practices and obstructionist litigation of the past several decades. But I vastly prefer the forests of the 1600s and 1700s over those of today, whatever you think you might know about my "perspective." I just think that American Indians really knew what they were doing, and the current crop of litigationists and their lawyers really don't -- except how to make money off the situation, of course, which is what the article is about. Not tree farming or republicans. That's your perspective.
Here seems to be a main difference in our respective perspectives (other than variations in actual experience and academic qualifications): You seem to think a "natural" forest is good, for some reason, and that people are essentially pathogens in such an environment. I think a forest has to have people present in order to be "healthy." For the past 10,000+ years in North America, people have shaped forests, and forests have shaped people: they are a "natural" part of the environment. People put fire in the forests on a daily basis, and have done so for thousands of years. I suggest you read some Omar Stewart, Kat Anderson, Henry Lewis, Bonnicksen, and Charles Kay. You seem to have a lot to learn about forests and fire history.
Posted By: Helen Nowlin On: 11/19/2009
Title:
Self correction on last line (sorry, it's getting late), which reads: "Is it possible that the whining I hear really is about the fact that other entities, besides private timber companies and other extraction industries are no longer receiving all the public tax payer dollars?" It should read: "Is it possible that the whining I hear really is about the fact that other entities, besides private timber companies and other extraction industries are now receiving a percentage of taxpayer dollars, too?" Despite what is going on in corporate America (a greater concentration of wealth and power), when it comes down to taxpayer monies, there is no such thing as a monopoly. To get back to taxpayer paid "lawsuits," the inflammatory topic of the original article, I still believe that democracy requires access. Winners win by the merits. Unlike the article, which narrowly looked at the issue and highlighted the most inflammatory aspect for the reader who may look at the article briefly, I will point out that the kind of environmental damage that would have occurred but for regulatory enforcement and third party lawsuits would have been much worse now.
Posted By: Helen Nowlin On: 11/19/2009
Title: Catastrophic fires
Excuse me but I think you are turning inside out my words. Alternatively, if my words leave room for interpretation then I will clarify. First, I have a Bachelor of Science in a forest related subject (conservation of wildland resources). I admit that isn't a Ph.D but I not only have background but I too have years of observation and interest in the subject matter. (Sometimes the best education is not learned in the class room but rather through experience) What I said was: the increased likelihood that catastrophic fires will occur today could have been minimized or possibly prevented if an overall preference for fire suppression had not come to dominate public policy. The Yellowstone fire in which you reference was intended to be a controlled burn (to burn off excess fuels built up over time). As we all know, what was intended to be a controlled burn quickly became out-of-control with the help of some wind. Catastrophic? Yes. However, Yellowstone is a preserve and intended to be NATURAL. What your staunch republican view point fails to consider is that forests should act as forests. The point behind your message really is to advocate for tree farms...manage this and manage that. Your perspective places human entry at the top of the list, to glorify utilitarian management practices as a means to the end itself and then justifies it by concluding catastrophic fires are less likely to occur if active management practices are adopted. Recently, justification has also been labelled as "salvage" operations under the stary eyed notion that forests need salvaging. For eons, certain forest types had a greater prevalence for fire regimes. For example, the jack pine forests of Yellowstone saw frequent, fast moving fires, which kept the fuel build up on the ground low. More importantly, those fires are necessary for the propagation of the Jack pine, which requires fire to release seed from its cone. Yes, a burn may result in a lot of little trees to germinate ("dog hair") but the process is itself natural. Forests have value to us beyond the number of board feet which can be extracted. Taken as a whole what I have written, the underlying rationale behind the years of fire suppression policy (except in designated wilderness areas) had alot to do with protecting private property, human life and of course, private gain. As I mentioned, cheap timber by the board feet and publicly paid and built road systems for extraction activities are also a subsidy. Is it possible that the whining I hear really is about the fact that other entities, besides private timber companies and other extraction industries are no longer receiving all the public tax payer dollars? Geez, get to the point then... :--)
Posted By: Bob Zybach On: 11/19/2009
Title: Green Pork & Fox
Mitch Lies:
Fox News picked up Budd-Falen's research today, over a month after you first reported this story:
http://tinyurl.com/Fox-and-Enviros
Congratulations!
Posted By: Kevin On: 11/19/2009
Title: Weighted Circuit Courts
Well you notice that Ms. Nowlin didn't address the government source of money issue, but thatis agiven. However she imlies that Dr. Zybachand I somehow have access to federal subsidies, I'll go on record as saying I have never been subsidized by anyone save my wife when I was ill. That said, She also thinks that I am of the fire suppression mentality. Actually I am a let i burn so we have healthy forests but only after we have adequately thinned the forest to prevent catastrophic wildfire and do healthy forest stuff. further if the fire does get out of hand I am all for salvaging the values left after the fire and then replant as we have always doen... not let the forest burn leave the dead snags, and creating a worse situation. I encourage anyone who has never been tothe Forests of Oregon, Washington, or Idaho/Montana and se the over growth and the effects of too many water pumps per acre, too many trees fighting for scarce minerals and nutrients. Interms of at least two liberal judges Malloy and Winmill are by far the most radical and environmentally destructive, Clinton era appointees that have done more to destroy forest dependent communities than any other in the history of this country. Further more now because of sage obligate species, hide and watch as Winmill stops ranchers from grazing cattle on public lands because they eat sagebrush.....
Ms. Nowlin, please go back to whatever urban (urbane) existaence you came from and fight for urban forestry and leave the natural world to those that have been taking care of it for generations, quite well thank you. If you do come to visit, leave your brain washed ideology and come with open eyes to see the truth, not the same old rhetoric and mantras
Posted By: Bob Zybach On: 11/18/2009
Title: Helen Nowlin & Catastrophic Wildfires
Helen, we've got to stop meeting like this -- although I do enjoy the discussion!
I won't bother to discuss the points you are making regarding the "liberal" bent (open to interpretation, of course) of judges, or whether that has been impacted by Bush appointments or not, or whether judges are influenced by their own biases or not. That's the legal stuff that is your bailiwick, of which I have opinions, but no real expertise. "Values" I understand (cultural anthropology background), but how they play out in courts of law, or are used to define differences in "liberal" agendas or Presidential appointments I'll leave to others, including you. That's the type of thing I assume (or trust) you know something about, and which I have little insight or experience.
My PhD (scientific credentials) is in the study of catastrophic wildfires, however, and in that area I have some actual expertise. So when you make statements such as: "catastrophic fires could have been prevented if forest fires had been allowed to burn in the last fifty years," I have to point out that you are just plain wrong. Way wrong. That's just the type of nonsense one might expect from a lawyer and not a forest historian, and an excellent example of why I think there are so many problems in the forests today -- too many self assured lawyers making too many binding decisions on matters of which they have no real understanding or ability. I think this may also be the type of thing Kevin was alluding to, too.
Helen, are you actually saying that catastrophic wildfires WEREN'T "allowed" to burn during the past 50 years? That's what your words say. Do you realize how silly that sounds? How "liberal" ("totally inexperienced, yet highly opinionated") that comes across as? Are you saying the Silver Complex (1987), Yellowstone (1988), B&B (2002), Biscuit (2003), San Diego (2000-2006), and Station (2009) catastrophic wildfires weren't ALLOWED to burn? And that's why we have so much trouble with wildfire NOW? Helen, that's just plain goofy. Please, you're a lawyer, for goodness sakes, NOT a forester by any stretch of the imagination. No one LETS these fires burn -- they can't be stopped! Same with the pre-Smokey Tillamook Fires of the 1930s, or the Great Fires of the 1840s and 1860s, or the 1902 and 1910 Fires. Seriously, you seem to have little or no idea of what you are saying when it comes to forest or wildfire history and that is exactly why people are so upset with many of the decisions being made by policymakers and lawyers these days.
Please read the article that started this discussion again. From my perspective (based on several decades of personal experience and scientific research), it is fuel build-ups caused by passive management practices (and complementary litigation) -- more than any other single cause -- that is causing today's rural poverty, uncontrollable wildfires, air pollution, wildlife mortality, soil erosion, habitat destruction, and aesthetic losses to our nation's forests. Not fire suppression policies and actions. Or Global Warming. Just bad management, based on bad policies, based on bad (however well-meaning) laws, enforced by wealthy opportunistic lawyers and litigants. That's my read.
Posted By: Helen Nowlin On: 11/17/2009
Title: Weighted US Circuit Court
According to Kevin, the US Circuits are weighted with environmentally sympathetic judges, which I respectfully disagree. G.W. Bush appointed more judges, especially at the appeals level or higher than other presidents of recent memory. Well, we all know that he didn't pick judges based on them having a pro-environmental position. I will also point out that Kevin's overall opinion is based on the premise that all judges must inject their own views with disregard for the regulatory body of law or precedence (prior decisions). I just don't think so. Lower court decisions would always be overturned on appeal based on error. That also doesn't happen.
Catastrophic fires could have been prevented if forest fires had been allowed to burn in the last fifty years. The intensity of the fires now is not a problem that happened overnight. Rather fire intensity has been exacerbated by things like catastrophic drought conditions (anticipated by climate change experts) and build up of fuel caused by fire suppression. It took years to get to this point and it may take years to get out of it, if reversal is even possible at this point. Fire suppression will probably continue to be the policy by land managers because human encroachment has made suppression necessary in order to protect private lands and human life. I think the Smokey the Bear campaign can be linked to the suppression friendly mentality that dominated modern public land management policy. This policy was intended to not just protect private land and human life but also to protect the trees on public land for private gain (cheap timber by the board feet and roads both in and out built with taxpayer dollars). Yep, now there is a subsidy for you but I didn't hear people like Kevin and Mr. Zybach complaining then.
Posted By: Kevin On: 11/15/2009
Title: Mis-information attempts to paint a full picture
Again, Helen Nowlin attempts to mislead, misdirect and use typical slight of hand tactics most parlor magicians or snake charmers use and I am surprised that she throws her intelligence out the window. I will cite only one statement she made where this is true, "...the ultimate source of those funds is the government." The government has no money, it is our money, taxes we pay to support all of the feel good programs the left can think up and it is stolen from us. If you do not support a given program then they label you intolerant. Let me repeat myself, the government has no money, it never had, and by law it never will, any more than the government can legally own property except that which was set aside in the constitution for the governing and mainteneance of law. It is our money, we are supposed to have a say where it is spent, and it is our hard earned income that is taxed and taken from us. I never got a chance to vote on whether or not these enviro groups should be reimbursed for stopping industry for providing those things we as a society needs to maintain our lifestyle. If you don't like our lifestyle leave. Helen either is still 1) trying to pull the wool over your eyes by such stupid statements as quoted, 2) thinks your too ignorant to understand the truth, or 3) actually believes it herself which is very frightening since she has evidently passed a state bar somewhere. The law firm of Karen Budd-Falen is a very respected law firm and spent undoubtably a lot of their own money to track just those cases they are involved in. One other point that I want to make about Helen's comments, she basically said if these groups win and the attorneys are awarded fees is because somehow they had merit. WRONG.... the US Circuit court is over weighted with environmentally sympathetic judges who have been appointed for life. These Judges, force County Commissioners to violate law because they rule in favor of stopping a salvage sale, or timber harvest which leads to catastrophic wildfire that pollutes the air in violation of Clean Air Act, and further imperils the health and welfare of county citizens. This is an old story and Helen's ad hoc unintelligible statements show more intent that substance as reported by Dr. Zybach. In fact all she can do is try and attack his reputation with statements like it is the government's money that pays these attorneys anyway. GIVE ME A flippity break. Is she blonde or what?
Posted By: Bob Zybach On: 11/14/2009
Title: Forest History
Helen Nowlin has finally made a statement with which I can agree: "Forest history noticably is absent from current debate about the direction of future policy. Perhaps, the so-called experts represent only certain interests that discourage such discussion over fear the past failures will be remembered." As an historical ecologist with an academic focus on forest and fire history sciences, I could not agree more. Further, I would expand on Nowlin's statement to say that not only are "past failures" not remembered by this lack of meaningful context, but that massive "current failures" in forest policy aren't even being recognized as they take place! The recent 20 year spate of catastrophic wildfires in the western US, for example, were readily and accurately predicted by myself and others and were largely preventable -- if policy makers and resource managers had only listened. Nowlin goes further to say that the hundreds of billions of dollars of damages done by these events is not an entirely sufficient measure of their impact. Human health is an example she states, and I will agree that the resulting dozens of human deaths, millions of wildlife fatalities, and hundreds of millions of human lives negatively affected by needless wildfire smoke intrusions cannot adequately be measured in dollars alone. Where we differ is that Nowlin seems to ascribe these problems to some form of simplistic adherence to Smokey the Bear wildfire suppression policies, and I place them directly at the feet of incompetent legislators and opportunistic lawyers that have been manipulated and paid by some of the very organizations profiled in this article. It's a dollars and political power game, and science is being perverted in the process while US taxpayers pick up the tab. And I further think history will bear this out.
Posted By: Helen Nowlin On: 11/13/2009
Title: Forester policy
The Forest Service, as an entity most people have name recognition for, embodies the human impacts humans have had on forests with such things as its Smokey the Bear campaign. The simplistic approach that economics takes when attempting to itemize natural, open systems is recognized now by many experts in many different fields as limited. Economic theory has been used used by so called "experts" to justify human impacts but now, it is time to apply broader accounting methods. Forest history noticably is absent from current debate about the direction of future policy. Perhaps, the so-called experts represent only certain interests that discourage such discussion over fear the past failures will be remembered. I graduated with a science degree from a College of Forest Resources, too and have a strong interest in environmental health. The health and well being of all people represent my main concern.
Posted By: Bob Zybach On: 11/10/2009
Title: Lawyers & Forestry
As a forest historian, Helen Nowlin makes a fine lawyer. Her simplistic viewpoints of forest history and Global Warming probably sound authoritative and possibly even accurate in a courtroom setting, but pine beetles and forest fires precede Smokey the Bear and federal forest management policies by quite a few centuries. I'll promise not to take up legal practices if Helen Nowlin will promise to stop lecturing others on forest history. She's out of her element. (Same with speaking for the Navajos. Their President is a more credible source.)
Posted By: Helen Nowlin On: 11/4/2009
Title: Mis-information attempts to paint a full picture
Mr. Zybach once again attempts to fill in the blanks for the readers and at the same time, misses many of the dots. He says his conclusions, which happen to coincide with those of the narrowly sighted article are based on: 40 years of personal observations and 20 years of scientific research. Really? Much of the degradation he cites equally can be traced back to special interests, which have sought to strong arm the meaning behind "MUSY" to suit their needs. MUSY stands for multiple use sustained yield. This is a concept that is paradoxical and not coincidentally, difficult to implement. Afterall, the foundations of MUSY were born out of European forestry schools of the day that couldn't have conceived natural resources having any other purpose but to serve the follies of men and their value based only on utility. Let us take a look at a few of those issues mentioned by Mr. Zybach. Acres of dead or dying trees and now potential for catastrophic fires can be traced back to several things. Back in the 1950s and even before then, the Forest Service implemented the Smokey the Bear campaign ("only you can prevent forest fires"). The campaign was created to embody the idea that all forest fires should be stopped or prevented for two significant reasons, neither of which had anything to do with preserving the forest for wildlife or for preservation's sake. First, human inhabitation had encroached closer to national public lands , so private land ownership rights had to be protected. (This says nothing about the reverse...in those cases when fires started on private land and then impacted national forests). Second, up until 1980s, timber industry interests had garnished the public land debate and forests were primarily used to supply timber. (Ironically, when the hay day of the timber industry had passed and the amount of timber removed was no longer at its former scale, private companies like Boise Cascade and Weyerhauser actually welcomed the change. Those companies suddenly became more profitable, since timber cut from public lands, going at a cheaper unit price no longer competed for market share) These exacerbations were compounded in recent years as climate change has dried these forests out further, stressing the trees even more, creating a feast for bark beetles. However, bark beetles are unable to attack healthy trees. Bark beetles attack because the environmental stress further weaken the trees. This in turn has produced more fuel at a faster pace than merely the avoidance of fire produced in the last century. It precisely was the science which had changed the opinion of scientists and in turn, activated various watch dog groups to protest skewed public land management policies. It is always true that by following the money, the true intentions seem clearer. Regarding the Navajos and the few in leadership which have asked groups like Sierra to leave Navajo land, the sentiment is far from wide spread. Many Navajos have voiced opposition to Peabody Coal for polluting the water and air. In fact, it is documented that the pollution from the archaic Peabody Coal plant has sickened individuals and families near its operation. I have no doubt that the leadership of the Navajo people will change to reflect the overall concerns of their community. The benefits to having industry should not be at the expense of community health and well being. Once again, benefits should be shared across the board and balanced. If inspected closely, the impacts of policy reaches farther than at first glance.
Posted By: Mr. Ara Marderosian On: 10/28/2009
Title: Government agencies violating laws cause lawsuits
While the article by Karen Budd-Falen titled "Government spending on litigation needs to stop," published in the Southern Sierra Messenger, page 13 - 14, on September 25, 2009, contains great statistics about the out-of-pocket costs to the American tax payers of the lawbreaking government agencies, it is a very biased report against conservationists who are trying to defend the laws of the land. If the government agencies that are violating the laws would follow the laws, the government would not have to spend billion of dollars on losing lawsuits in court and conservation organizations would not have to waste their time defending the laws of the land and the environment.
Posted By: Kevin On: 10/28/2009
Title: Mis-Information attempts to paint false picture
It seems Ms. Helen Nowlin is mis-informed or is trying to mis-lead, either way the truth, regardless of whose perspective it is, is still the truth. The truth is, the environmental groups and their attorneys have created an industry based on equal Access to Justice and can stop, or stall any activity on public lands if they think there is a snowballs chance of making money. It is not about the environment, it never has, it is all about making money for these trust fund babies and their attorneys, but more importantly it is about eliminating all commercial activity on public land. Period. How do I know this? Because I am a sworn employee of the federal government whose sole responsibility is to see to it that 1) the National Environmental Policy Act is followed to the letter so that the EPA can sign off on the proposed actions, that 2) complete analysis is conducted on every undertaking, and that analysis and the data that goes along with it is compiled by a interdisciplinary team of highly dedicated specialists whose agenda is protecting those very resources they were trained and educated about including all reasonably forseeable future actions (cummulative effects), and 3) the public has every opportunity to weigh in and voice their opinions, submit any refuting evidence, provide any testimony, and bring expert witness to the public scoping process. It is only after all of the exhaustive processes have been completed, and every opportunity afforded these groups and their attorneys, and the Record of Decision is made about which direction the action is going to take, do these groups and their attorneys stand up and file lawsuits stopping ranchers from earning a living, timber managers from doing responsible forest management, or energy industry's attempts to reduce dependency on foreign oil or resources. These groups or rather their attorneys have been asked, how do we reach middle ground? The reply is you can't. These groups do not want any one for any reason making a dime on public land even tough those leases, permits, fees, etc go to reduce your taxes for such things as SCHOOLS and ROADS. PILT (Payment in leiu of taxes) and 25% money is designed for counties that have federal lands within their jurisdictions and it is these funds that pay for much of the infrastructure in your community but when these trust fund babies who have nothing but illegitimate time on their hands go around filing frivilous lawsuits for the cost of a post card because they have been brain washed by some liberal college professor who has a hard on against the federal government for closing his or her commune illegally established on federal lands, do you get the collapse of rural resource dependent communities and the loss of revenue to support your community. It is no wonder your children have to go away to earn a living, these groups shut down any chance of economic development or growth where you live and after all, besides the growth of a legal industry, and the elimination of commercial activity on public land, you get the real intent, and that is forcing everyone into population centers like in communist controlled countries so there is more control of the masses. I am not paranoid but call me what you will, but make sure, you call me a realist. After all, I deal with this type of (sickening) ilk every day of the week answering these stupid protest letters.
Posted By: Bob Zybach On: 10/27/2009
Title: "Mis-information" is based on personal opinions & facts
I could not disagree with Ms. Nowlin more. I am hopeful that she is not one of the beneficiaries of this scam, as that would make her comments self-serving and suspect. Two examples: 1) She says, "3) Environmental groups are not just taking advantage of the system, as the person quoted in the article haphazardly suggests. Actions taken by environmental group impact a wider purvey of benefit to a wider swath of persons whether or not that benefit is acknowledged in this article." I just don't think that is true at all. In fact I would argue that a great amount of environmental degradation -- including wildfires, millions of acres of dead trees, mass soil erosion, air pollution, destroyed habitat and killed wildlife can be placed at the feet of these litigenous "environmental" actions. The effects are facts. The cause is my (and many others') opinion. This is hardly a "haphazard" suggestion. It is based on nearly 40 years of personal observations and more than 20 years of scientific research. 2) (I wish the blog allowed for paragraph breaks and/or used larger fonts in postings) Ms. Nowlin asserts "The two main questions that should be asked in light of this article are these: Who benefits? and how many people are recipients?" I agree. And I think the article answers those questions very well. It is only her (largely baseless, in my opinion) opinion that large sectors of the public benefit by these actions. I think just the opposite -- that large numbers are harmed. Look at the numbers of actions being filed, the outrageous sums being paid, and the nearly immeasurable damages being done to our common resources as a consequence. I'm guessing Ms. Nowlin has never actually worked in the natural resources field or lived in a ranching or timber dependent community for any length of time, and may even be involved in the environmental industry. Her responses seem either naive or self-serving.
Posted By: Helen Nowlin On: 10/20/2009
Title: Mis-information attempts to paint a full picture
Generally speaking, non-profit groups heavily rely on donations by private donors to pursue the stated mission of the group. If attorney's fees are awarded, again generally speaking it is because the party prevailed on the merits of the case and under federal law, attorneys' fees may be awarded. To prevail and then to be awarded those fees, means the party must prevail on the merits of the case, not merely show an obtuse impact from some government action. This article is misleading. But doesn't eligibility for fee reimbursement really depend on a couple of issues? 1) Environmental groups may be eligible for attorneys' fees based on such laws like Equal Access to Justice but such eligibility has a higher threshold than is suggested by the article's writer, the person quoted in the article and the post commentator. 2) When a party wins against the government, warranting action by the agency at issue and attorneys' fees to be awarded, the ultimate source of those funds is the government. Only Congress can award money directly from the Department of Treasury, thus some other way, an indirect way is required to have attorneys' fees awarded when the agency itself doesn't have those funds lying around in its budget, which almost never happens. Hence, the Equal Access to Justice Act was created to serve that purpose. 3) Environmental groups are not just taking advantage of the system, as the person quoted in the article haphazardly suggests. Actions taken by environmental group impact a wider purvey of benefit to a wider swath of persons whether or not that benefit is acknowledgedin this article. When water is kept clean and cool, a whole chain of benefit is created to people, fish and wildlife. If the government isn't doing its job then who benefits then? It is only when the government is threatened with legal action will it change aspects of the public land management policy. Undeniably, too much of our public lands have been negatively impacted by the use of a few groups and their impacts will last for generations. In some instances, the damage is so severe, the impact is a more a kin to a permanent scar. 4) To challenge agency regulations is no small undertaking - making preparation and the large amounts of time and money which are involved. Think back about the true story behind the movie and book, titled, A Civil Action. No one attorney, let alone a law firm could take on such extensive preparation for litigation and then litigate the merits of the matter without serious amounts of available money. However, if no one could afford to question an agency or its policy or for that matter, the actions of private businesses then democracy can't work. Without oversight from outside third parties, democratic principles will also begin to erode. If everyone else except the parties concerned are always looking in and never within the process, the process itself becomes diminished. Environmental groups vis-a-vis their role in environmental protection are important to democratic governance. 4) When tax payer dollars are applied to fund prevailing parties, the staunch government critics criticzie the expenditure as needless and a scam. However, when tax payer dollars are spent on subsidies, or relief of natural disasters or the building of public sidewalks associated with massive private housing developments, those same critics don't seem to complain. In fact, it is tough to find them around then. No, don't let your readers be fooled. The two main questions that should be asked in light of this article are these: Who benefits? and how many people are recipients? If the beneficiaries are few or limited to a specific group or industry then it is right to question the authenticity of the authority granting the benefit and to question the need to whom the benefit is aimed. Afterall, everyone has needs but not everyone gets them met. Even if some of the time, attorneys' fees are awarded to environmental groups, this fact alone should not diminish the value of the lesson learned. Environmental protection protects people living today and hopefully, in many cases as it does, it protects future generations of people to come. It seems to boil down to whose shoe is being worn. Sometimes, it is better to be thankful to have a shoe than to take it off and walk barefoot.
Posted By: Bob Zybach On: 10/16/2009
Title: Oregon's Rural Economy Crippled by "Environmental" Litigation Scam
Congratulations to Mitch Lies and to the Capital Press for drawing attention to this problem. We are one of only five states that are mostly managed by the federal government. Loggers and ranchers that work on public lands have been financially ruined by this scam for nearly 25 years, and the effects are felt throughout our rural communities, our roads, our schools, and libraries. Here is how the scam works: a logging sale (for example) is challenged in court on the basis of a new law or regulation, and tax-producing loggers, truck drivers, and sawmill workers are put out of work while a "decision" is made. The law is written by lawyers and then is challenged by lawyers, and because it is new, there is no precedent. So the lawyers prevail on some point or another, and are paid with tax money. Taxpayers support the out-of-work loggers and truckers, and pay for the lawyers that produce the law, and again for the ones that exploit the law. Rural counties do not receive the legal portions of timber sales and grazing fees that are disallowed by this process, and get no taxes because the land is government-owned, so have to ask the government for annual welfare payments to continue to provide government services. Unemployment caused by these actions is so high the counties also get "stimulus" funding, which is used to supplement the salaries of government workers and to pay unemployment benefits to idled workers. Taxpaying jobs are eliminated, taxes are paid to legal charlatans for putting the people out of work, taxes are used to compensate counties for lost revenues, taxes are paid to support government workers, and taxes are then paid to "stimulate" the economy. This, of course, is a recipe for economic disaster. It is also the history of Oregon's economy since the Environmental Industry became established here in the 1980s. This is exactly the same reason that the Navajo and Hopi Tribes have recently banned environmentalists from their lands. See: http://tinyurl.com/Navajos-and-Enviros These people are not "protecting the environment," they are leeching off the rest of us. The problem is not the goofy kids dressing up in owl costumes and climbing trees, and it's not the pseudo-science agency "ecologists" or their university counterparts that have created this mess -- it is the opportunistic lawyers and their political enablers that have been hiding behind the scenes and lining their pockets with taxpayer dollars that need to be stopped. The Navajos and Hopi have caught on to this scam, and put an end to it on their own lands. Maybe with the help of the Capital Press, reporters such as Mitch Lies, and ethical lawyers such as Karen Budd-Falen, Oregonians can do the same thing here. It's time for the full light of day to chase these parasites out of the shadows. They've done too much damage already, and it is time they were stopped.