May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates
 Bookstore:  The Sled:         
5/17/2018 - Phishing Alert: Suspicious Emails Targeting California Licensed Attorneys 8/30/2017 - Understand the First Amendment from Hate Speech to Violence to President Trump's Twitter Account 7/11/2017 - The Sled, our Christmas Book Written for our Grandchildren, Available for Pre-order Now 5/3/2016 - Different Rx Needed for Third Leading Cause of Death: Medical Errors more...
|
Quote of the Day - Fall is my favorite season in Los Angeles, watching the birds change color and fall from the trees.
PLF Drops the Gauntlet to Challenge Critical Habitat DesignationsHere's an interesting fact: over forty percent of California is designated as critical habitat for endangered species. That's according to the California State Association of Counties. Translated into acreage, that means that 42 million out of 100 million acres are set aside for plants, fish, birds, animals and insects.As you can imagine, there are a number of people and groups that are quite displeased with those figures. So displeased, in fact, that some have gotten together and announced that they're going to sue the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service over the designations. Specifically, for these agencies' failure to consider the economic impact of the critical habitat designations. The suit will be filed some two months from now by the Pacific Legal Foundation, who is supported in its efforts by the Home Builders Association of Northern California, the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California State Grange. Some 48 critical habitat designations will be the subject of the suit, from the charismatic Bighorn sheep to the zayante band winged grasshopper. This is at least the second time the PLF has challenged the Fish & Wildlife Service. The FWS lost this issue before, and likely will lose again. The question hinges on the FWS' ability to document the economic impact of the designation of large swaths of land that preclude development. Is it really just i dotting and t crossing or will the suit simply result in the de-designation of land, only to be re-designated by the FWS later? It depends on whether the FWS conducts a thorough review of the economics of the situation. So far, it hasn't done the best job. Ultimately, though, if PLF wants to stop the designation of land, it will need to find a permanent remedy rather than seeking to stop, undo and restart the designation process. That will take an act of Congress, not a lawsuit.
|
|||||
