New West Feature
Rep. Lummis Lashes Out at Environmental Lawsuits
At a petroleum industry meeting, the Wyoming politician carpeted three groups she says file too many legal actions.By New West Editor, 8-25-11
 |
|
 | |
| Oil well near Buffalo, Wyo. Photo courtesy of Bureau of Land Management. | |
|
Sparks flew during last week’s annual convention of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, in Casper.
U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), chastized conservation groups WildEarth Guardians, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Western Watersheds for excessive recourse to lawsuits, which she claimed are giving the environmental movement “a black eye.”
“These are three organizations that are filing constant litigation, that have cottage industries built up to fund their lawyers and their lawsuits against federal agencies and the federal government to stop certain activities,” she said, according to a report in The Casper Star-Tribune.
“If the environmental movement is unified around any one concept, it’s that Cynthia Lummis is a disaster for the environment,” Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, told the newspaper. “The idea that she wants to speak on behalf of the environmental movement is ludicrous to an absurd degree.”
Last May, Lummis and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) jointly introduced the Government Litigation Savings Act, which would limit the fees recoverable by private citizens, small businesses and nonprofit organizations that win lawsuits against the federal government.
One of its provisions is that a party may not receive an award in fees and other expenses of more than $200,000 in a single adjudication, and for no more than three such cases in the same calendar year, unless an agency’s hearing officer determines that a higher amount is required “to avoid severe and unjust harm to the prevailing party.”
The bill has been referred to a committee for a report.
“When the government stopped tracking EAJA payments in 1995, it was a dream come true for radical environmental groups,” Lummis said last spring. “Lack of oversight has fueled the fire for these groups to grind the work of land management and other federal agencies to a halt, and it does so on the taxpayer’s dime.”
In turn, the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife released a statement that said, “We only recover those costs when we prevail in court, meaning a judge agrees that the law has been violated. Without the ability to recover those costs, the American people would lose their ability to challenge the federal government when it violates the law and fails to fulfill its duties.”
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead’s speech at last week’s convention was less inflammatory, although it came down strongly on the side of oil and gas development.
“Do we want mineral development or preservation of the environment?” the governor asked, according to Wyoming Business Report. “We need to reject that question,” he answered himself. “We need energy, but we also need conservation of our natural resources.”
He said delays in the issuance of permits while awaiting environmental impact studies on six oil and gas developments have cost the state $160 million in lost revenue.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Please remember, they do not have to reveal how much$$$$$$$$$ they get to take out of the pockets of working taxpayers. On the other hand all of us working folks have to report exactly how much we earned and account for anything we deduct to not pay taxes on. That may be one reason their net worth increases so fast. The fact that they do not have to itemize like working taxpayers do helps them increase fast too.
Whatever the case, however "noble" the cause, these lawsuits are brought with malice, period.
Is there another "environmental" group that has had to pay more than a half million for fraud (lying) that stood up under all appeals and despite all his lawyers?
I'm hoping he shows up in the comments as he's a ranter.
Why is it any more illegal for ranchers in the northern rockies to try to save their livestock than it is for ranchers or horse raisers in the east?
What makes it illegal about a family being able to drive to a fishing hole or picnic area, just because enviros want the land all to themselves.
What is legal about enviros filing lawsuit after lawsuit demanding that this that and the other receive protection, while it is up to the taxpayers to pay for all of the studies to try to find out the truth. If it goes against the groups, they merely file more lawsuits.
Evnironmental groups care about money, not animals, not air, not anything, just money and power. Can you name anything they actually do besides file lawsuits that taxpayer have to fund?
Getting back to our real discussion, one primary reason for a lawsuit being filed is to force the other "party" to honor something. So if the federal and state agencies were more diligent in their duties as they relate to environmental laws, knowing they would likely be carefully scrutinized, maybe there would be less wasted money on both sides. Certainly that isn't too much to ask?
Sorry money and power over other folks is what this is about, pure and simple. Legalized thievery if you will.
AS for the wolves, they wanted 300 in the 3 states, when we surpassed that so fast, the states agreed to 150 each. Of course these groups filed lawsuits, for more, I think it was up to 5000 at the time congress stepped in.
Earthjustice is the legal arm of the Sierra Club. It is unconscionable that the amount the various groups are awarded in each lawsuit is kept secret from those of us forced to provide the money. If I understand it, lots of groups can jump into the lawsuit and harvest the money, even if they do not have lawyers. We the taxpayers have a right to know where our money is going.
Groups like RMEF introduced Elk into certain areas of northern Wisconsin where they would fit in without impact on private land owners. They were not afraid to chip in a few bucks to do so! They also realize the limitations of the animal and its impact on land owners.
If a group like HSUS were to want an introduction of elk in Wisconsin..... it would have been a law suit to get it here...... ignore and downplay the true cost of the animal on society..... brag about what an environmental success it is when the animal starts impacting private land owners...... file more law suits to prohibit management of the animal.....and file some more law suits when senators and congressman don't see it your way. Then continually demonizing the private land owners and local people that turn against you!