CA Sues to stop Bush's Butchering of Endagered Species Act

Environmental

California's Attorney General went into Federal Court Tuesday in an effort to stop a midnight regulation by the Bush Administration that would exempt federal agencies from a key requirement of the Endangered Species Act, saying the move in the waning days of Bush's presidency usurps the power of Congress and is the most significant change to the act in 20 years.
    "The Bush Administration is unlawfully trying to make major substantive and procedural revisions to the statute through the regulatory process. This is not something executive agencies are authorized to do. Only Congress can amend the statute" says Abraham Arredondo, a lawyer for the California Attorney General's Office.
    The ESA mandated that federal agencies seek independent reviews from scientists on projects that might negatively affect endangered or threatened species.     
    The Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, however, proposed to eliminate this provision and on December 16th it was removed.     
    Federal agencies now decide for themselves whether mining, logging, and other projects will negatively affect threatened or endangered species. Attorney General Edmund Brown claims these agencies generally lack biological expertise and that they usually have incentive to conclude their projects won't hurt listed species.
     Also, the Act no longer mandates that the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on listed species be considered in federal projects. Federal agencies no longer need to consider potential negative affects on species like the polar bear when approving coal-burning power plants or projects which contribute to greenhouse gasses.
    Of the 1,327 plant and animal species on the national endangered and threatened species list, 310 of them are in California. The federal government owns millions of acres of land in California in the form of military bases, public lands, and federal water projects, among other things.     
    California has its own list of endangered species and the federal government must still follow the California Endangered Species Act when operating on California land.     
    The lawsuit draws attention to the increasing stagnancy of the federal Endangered Species Act. Robert Wayne, a Biology professor at UCLA, explained that it is now very difficult to add species to the federal endangered species list, which results in many species becoming extinct while still being considered for listing.     
    In 2004, the Washington Post wrote an article detailing the influence of the Bush administration on the ESA. It reported that 9.5 species a year were added to the endangered list under President Bush, compared with 65 a year under President Bill Clinton and 59 a year under President George H.W. Bush. The Paper also reported that the administration recalculated the economic costs of protecting critical habitats and also noted increased difficulty in listing new species.     
    The Federal ESA understands endangered species to be in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species are animals and plants likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges.     
    Megan Acevedo is the Deputy Attorney General representing California.

Related listings

  • Navy, environmentalists settle sonar lawsuit

    Navy, environmentalists settle sonar lawsuit

    Environmental 12/28/2008

    The Navy has settled a lawsuit filed by environmentalists challenging its use of sonar in hundreds of submarine-hunting exercises around the world.The Navy said Saturday the deal reached with the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups req...

  • Court hears case Wednesday on Navy sonar, whales

    Court hears case Wednesday on Navy sonar, whales

    Environmental 10/08/2008

    The Supreme Court is weighing whether presidential power in wartime can override environmental concerns in a case that pits the Navy's submarine-hunting training against protection for whales.The Bush administration, in arguments Wednesday, is asking...

  • Court says EPA air pollution rule is illegal

    Court says EPA air pollution rule is illegal

    Environmental 08/20/2008

    A Bush administration rule barring states and local governments from requiring more air pollution monitoring is illegal, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read