January 23-25, 2011
Jan 23 02:24 Permitting Fight Taking Shape Jan 24 01:08 MEP Getting Defensive About Aasen Pick Jan 24 14:36 Bipartisanship or Gamesmanship Jan 24 13:36 The Mantra's Slaves Jan 24 14:14 Will Dayton's PR Stunt Backfire? Jan 25 10:40 You Know It's Bad When... Jan 25 16:25 Government-Sponsored Corruption?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Permitting Fight Taking Shape
The fight over permitting reform is taking shape, with the MCEA and their allies taking the worst of it, with the DFL taking a hit, too. This article outlines the problem:
U.S. Steel Corp. announced plans to expand its Keetac iron ore production facility three years ago so it could produce more taconite pellets.
But it still awaits needed government permits, delaying hiring hundreds of workers.
U.S. Steel estimates construction would create 500 temporary jobs and provide 120 permanent jobs on the Iron Range. Despite spending $20 million so far to provide information, update plans and go through the permitting process, the Pittsburgh-based company said its $300 million project near Keewatin, Minn., is on hold indefinitely as it waits for the end of a state environmental review.
'This is a huge project for us and a huge commitment from U.S. Steel to the state of Minnesota,' said David Smiga, the company's assistant general counsel for environmental issues.
Essentially, this fight is about streamlining the permitting process so projects can quickly turn into jobs. As might be expected, MCEA is in the middle of the fight:
David Strand, executive director of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said his organization believes permitting and reviews should be as efficient as possible. He added that truly long reviews are rare.
'It's the toughest, most complicated cases where this happens,' he said. 'I think that's time well spent.'
Strand's quotes are spin. MCEA sues people for the flimsiest reasons. Strand's predecessor, Paul Aasen, didn't put alot of restrictions on the litigation team.
Sometimes, they didn't even get the basic facts right :
'The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, a St. Paul-based nonprofit environmental advocacy organization, is suing Kittson County, its board of commissioners and Glenn Anderson Construction for excavating, deepening and widening ditches, an act Kittson County Commission Chair Dr. Joe Bouvette says never happened. The MCEA alleges that in the act in question, the environment of rare and threatened plant species in area wetlands was disrupted. The lawsuit alleges the county applied for permits from the state in 2004 to build an off-road vehicle trail through the Beaches Lake Wildlife Management Area. The permits were denied, according to the MCEA, on the grounds of the high diversity and habitat quality of the area. The county did not apply for the permits, however. The ATV club applied for them, according to Kittson County Engineer Kelly Bengtson.
The permits mentioned in the lawsuit have nothing to do with the four ditches in question, he said. The MCEA says the county went ahead and excavated, deepened and widened the ditches in 2006, causing some wetlands to fill with dirt and rocks and drained surrounding wetlands. Bouvette, however, said the ditches were not excavated and widened to his knowledge, as that would have required petitions and a public hearing. 'That is classified as an improvement and can't be done without a hearing. The ditches were cleaned,' he said. 'That is done all the time. They were made to function as they are supposed to.' (Lisa Gibson, 'Environmental Group Sues Kittson County,' Grand Forks Herald, July 17, 2007)
That MCEA didn't even get their basic facts straight when making allegations in a lawsuit says everything about their professionalism. MCEA's goal is obstructionism via litigation. That obstructionism results in jobs not getting created and Minnesota's economy suffering.
MCEA isn't about the environment. Their attrition litigation has prevented high-paying jobs from getting created. That's the verifiable fact. Their litigation prevented jobs from getting created when the Big Stone II project ended. There's no denying that the courts are their weapon of choice. Thankfully, changes are coming that will limit MCEA's ability to abuse the judicial system:
HF1 would set an 150 day goal for the completion of a permit application, require special justification for state regulations exceeding federal standards, allow companies to prepare their own environmental review documents, and move challenges to permit decisions directly to an Appeals Court.
Earlier in the week, the Committee heard from a number of industries who complained that the process of permitting and environmental review is too long and arduous. Representatives of the mining and ethanol industries described what they view as excessive, duplicative, and unnecessary regulation. Wednesday, David Smiga from US Steel testified that the expansion of their Keetac mine in northern Minnesota was delayed by a slow environmental review process. Rep. David Dill (DFL-Crane Lake) declared that this delay had cost the state 'north of $125 to $150 million' in revenue, though he wondered aloud if he was 'even close on that' and that he got the figure from 'the [Rep. Tom] Rukavina book of numbers.'
Republicans critical of environmental group lawsuits
Republican members of the committee used Thursday's hearing to pointedly criticize environmental groups for using the legal system to challenge permit decisions. Scott Strand, executive director of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA), took the brunt of this line of questioning. Calling MCEA 'notorious,' Rep. Michael Beard (R-Shakopee) accused Strand of 'coming in from the outside and gum[mming] up the works' with lawsuits. Later in the hearing, Beard characterized lawsuits as 'assaults' by 'Twin Cities type people.'
Strand defended his group's legal actions, saying that MCEA doesn't abuse the judicial process, and only employs lawsuits to ensure that government agencies act within the law.
Opponents of the bill argued that the committee was acting too hastily, since the Office of the Legislative Auditor is nearing the completion of a report on environmental permits. In a press release, Rep. Kate Knuth (DFL - New Brighton) stated 'passing legislation to dramatically alter the state's environmental review and permitting process without taking advantage of this report would be a huge missed opportunity.' DFL Environmental Lead Jean Wagenius (Minneapolis) added that weakening environmental regulations goes against the will of voters who approved the Legacy Amendment because it would clean up environmental messes.
What BS. It's worth highlighting this sentence:
Strand defended his group's legal actions, saying that MCEA doesn't abuse the judicial process, and only employs lawsuits to ensure that government agencies act within the law.
What Strand essentially just said is that their lawsuits prevent government from breaking the law. Does anyone think that's the truth? Let's get serious. Should we believe that MCEA sued Big Stone II year after year after year because the proper permits weren't drawn or that governments were attempting to shortcircuit regulations?
Does anyone think that the MPCA, the MnDNR and the EPA were likely to ignore the laws of Minnesota and the United States? That's what Strand is essentially saying.
Minnesotans are tired of the environmental litigation industry, led by MCEA. They're tired of seeing jobs getting lost while environmental extremists make unsubstantiated accusations in court and in legislative testimony.
Picking the former head of MCEA to be the next commissioner of the MPCA is a disaster waiting to happen. It isn't likely that Paul Aasen will be impartial. It's highly likely that he'll be the MCEA's activist with an official title.
Considering their history of attrition litigation, Minnesotans can't afford to have that type of extremist heading an important agency. We need someone who will enforce Minnesota's environmental laws, not someone who will pursue MCEA's extremist agenda.
Posted Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:24 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-Jan-11 02:45 PM
This is obvious question which should be asked of David Strand, but if three years isn't a long time what is a long time?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z. at 23-Jan-11 05:25 PM
You want sloppy permitting?
That's a bad idea.
It allows irreversible harm.
It puts those workers you care so much about, jobs you say, but at what workplace risks if you slack of in policing requirements.
It's bad short-sighted policy.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Jan-11 06:06 PM
First, I don't want "sloppy permitting." Where you got that notion, I'll never know.
Next, I'm tired of hearing all of the environmental extremists' sky-is-falling predictions. I've heard them since the early 70's when they said that the Alaska Pipeline would "destroy the migration routes of the Barrows caribou." I remember Outdoor Life letting someone from the Sierra Club publish what would be considered an op-ed in which he said that the pipeline would cause irreperable harm "for a few years worth of oil."
That prediction was made before the pipeline was built & finished. We're still getting oil from Prudhoe Bay 33 yrs. later.
BTW, the Sierra Club back then was talking about "the coming Ice Age." A decade later, they'd changed to talking about global warming, most likely to get the most lucrative grants for their studies.
MEP Getting Defensive About Aasen Pick
Based on the tone in this LTE , it's safe to say that the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, aka MEP, is getting defensive about Gov. Dayton's pick of former MCEA chairman Paul Aasen to be the next commissioner of the MPCA:
Letter writer Terry Stone misses the point when it comes to jobs and environmental protection. Minnesotans want both. And that's what Paul Aasen, Gov. Dayton's choice for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency commissioner, will offer our state.
Our statewide polling shows that Minnesotans support conditions for sulfide mining that will protect our lakes, rivers, streams and public health, as well as jobs and taxpayers' wallets. All are possible. And Aasen is one who will see that all are protected.
Finally, writer Stone goes on to also mistakenly confuse my organization, Minnesota Environmental Partnership, with Aasen's former employer, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. They are separate organizations with separate boards and offices at separate locations.
Steve Morse
Executive Director
Minnesota Environmental Partnership
St. Paul
First, there's nothing that indicates that MCEA is interested in creating jobs. They've killed or delayed by years projects that would've created hundreds of permanent high-paying jobs, including several high profile industries.
Second, it's silly to think that anyone would argue with keeping our air and water clean while creating jobs. Why would anyone say no to that? The thing that's apparent is that Aasen doesn't have a sense of balance. Instead, he'll side with the environmental extremists over industry every time. If Gov. Dayton wants to truly be a jobs governor, he'll need a different MPCA candidate.
You can't be a jobs governor if your MPCA commissioner took an active part in killing jobs in Minnesota for several years. Dayton's picking Aasen says everything about who he'll fight for and who his administration will fight for.
MEP should be defensive, especially considering their position on HF1 vs. their position on setting firm deadlines on clean-up plans :
Making the Amendment Work for Clean Water: Money from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment must be targeted to where it will do the most good. Clean-up plans for polluted waters must include clear goals, firm timelines and benchmarks for measuring success.
Isn't it interesting that MEP says that reducing permitting times is wrong but it demands that clean-up plans must have "firm timelines"? Apparently, intellectual consistency isn't MEP's strength. I'm not surprised.
MEP didn't hesitate in supporting Aasen but it's attracting attention to itself by fighting in public for him. The longer they fight, the more they expose their radical agenda.
Posted Monday, January 24, 2011 1:08 AM
No comments.
Bipartisanship or Gamesmanship
Just like all the other Sundays, I watched Esme Murphy's show for the political interviews. This Sunday, Esme's first interview was Sen. Amy Klobuchar. As expected, the questions were predictable softballs.
For instance, Esme asked Sen. Klobuchar about her co-sponsoring a bill to eliminate the additional 1099 reporting requirement for businesses. Sen. Klobuchar says it's her attempt at bipartisanship to the House GOP. I question that that's her motivation.
Why didn't Sen. Klobuchar offer this amendment when they were debating O'Care in the first place. The Senate debated the bill twice. Sen. Klobuchar voted for the bill twice, most likely without reading the bill either time. (I don't put all the blame on her for that since Harry Reid dumped it in their laps at the last second.)
Simply put, Sen. Klobuchar's gesture is really her making up for her disastrous vote to pass O'Care. Even without considering her vote, this isn't a magnanimous gesture. The minute this provision was made public, the 1099 provision was history.
If Sen. Klobuchar wanted to act in a truly bipartisan way, she'd co-author a bill that'd repeal the $670,000,000,000 worth of tax increases included in O'Care. THAT would be a gesture of true bipartisanship.
Sen. Klobuchar is praying that nobody notices that she's voted in lockstep with radicals like Sen. Franken and Sen. Sanders on the biggest bills of the 111th Congress. She might've voted differently on lesser issues but when they needed her vote on President Obama's radical agenda, she voted with the radicals, not with Minnesotans.
Sen. Klobuchar also said that people are looking for legislators who are seeking "common ground." That's another myth that Democrats are peddling. When people swept the Republicans into a huge majority in the House, they weren't saying 'let's work together'. They said that the Democrats hadn't listened, that Democrats hadn't been fiscally responsible.
What the American people are expecting is Congress to stop spending like they've done the last 2 years, to stop piling up debt at record paces. They're tired of so-called moderates like Sen. Klobuchar saying all the right words, then voting with extremists like self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders and Al Franken.
The American people who walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Thus far, the only thing moderate about Sen. Klobuchar is her image. Her voting record tells a substantially different story.
In the weeks and months to come, I will dedicate my time contrasting the real Sen. Klobuchar with Sen. Klobuchar's image. Sen. Klobuchar's image is quite different from Sen. Klobuchar's reality. The difference isn't flattering to Sen. Klobuchar.
Posted Monday, January 24, 2011 2:36 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 24-Jan-11 05:56 PM
This is so obvious. A-Klo is jumping in front of the parade. A standalone bill to repeal the 1099 requirement would be unstoppable. Her support means nothing and costs her nothing. But liberals will say "see - she's a moderate!" and the press will believe it.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Jan-11 06:12 PM
That's my point, Rex.
The Mantra's Slaves
Dave Mindeman is the latest progressive to repeat the oft-repeated lie that Minnesota has "a $6.2B deficit." If I was paid $5 for each time I've destroyed this lie, I would've made enough money to live off of the first half of the year, maybe longer.
I won't repeat my explanation for why the $6.2B figure is fiction because people who haven't learned already won't learn from me repeating this information. They're too stubborn to admit that they're wrong or that they're playing political games.
I suspect more of the latter than the former. I suspect that because the DFL wants to convince Minnesotans that we REALLY NEED to spend $39,000,000,000 this biennium. (That's the only way Minnesota has that big of a deficit.)
Do thinking people think that Minnesota's general fund budget should top $35,000,000,000 this decade? If Minnesota shouldn't, and won't, spend $39,000,000,000, or $35,000,000,000 for that matter, this biennium, then that $6,200,000,000 deficit doesn't exist.
The age of autopilot budgeting is over. It never should've existed in the first place. The era of budgeting enough to pay off political allies is over, too. Families come first. Government doesn't. (This is where a parade of lefties will say that government needs to have a role. I agree with that. They just should learn that they won't get funded at the reckless rates that they have in the past.)
If the DFL wants to make the case that state government should get a 27 percent spending increase while Minnesotans are accepting wage cuts and cutting their budgets, OR WORSE, they're welcome to try making that case. Just don't expect it to be popular.
Posted Monday, January 24, 2011 1:36 PM
No comments.
Will Dayton's PR Stunt Backfire?
It's impossible to say that Mark Dayton's executive order regarding permitting doesn't make for nice PR. It's equally impossible to say that it's anything more than a nice first gesture.
Without legislation to streamline the litigation process, EO 11-04 is empty. Without eliminating the bites at the apple that MCEA gets, the improvements on the paperwork side will have minimal effect.
House Majority Leader Matt Dean noticed the same things I did. He issued this statement:
'Today's executive order is concerning. Just a week ago, Governor Dayton was asking us to slow down and allow more time for public hearings and input. The Minnesota House has held two public hearings on HF1 and are planning a third hearing on this important legislation. We are concerned that Governor Dayton selected components of HF1 for his Executive Order, watered down some provisions and ignored key areas of reform.
We find his actions today to be counterproductive to the legislative process and his stated commitment to work together on these common ground issues. House Republicans will continue with our previously-announced public process for HF1 and other initiatives designed to make Minnesota's business climate competitive. We hope Governor Dayton will join us in that endeavor.'
Gov. Dayton's showboating didn't change the need for litigation reform. It didn't change the need to make this a Minnesota statute. An executive order can be rescinded at any time.
This is also a bad faith gesture on Gov. Dayton's behalf. He said that he'd work with Republicans on permitting reform. That he acted unilaterally to pull a PR stunt like this is troubling. Rep. Dean's statement clearly indicates that Gov. Dayton didn't give the legislature a heads-up nor did he work with anyone on substantive reforms.
If Gov. Dayton wants to work with the legislature, he needs to stop with these PR stunts. If he's only interested in playing PR games, then he'll unilaterally kill any goodwill he has with the legislature. More importantly, he'll lose Minnesotans' trust. Once that's gone, he's really got nothing.
UPDATE: Gov. Dayton's PR stunt was just exposed :
Rep. Hilty motion to table HF 1 fails 10-6.
Apparently, this was Gov. Dayton's attempt to scuttle HF1. That didn't work :
House Civil Law passes HF 1 jobs bill on a voice vote.
Hilty's motion exposes the bad faith negotiations of Gov. Dayton. This was clearly orchestrated to short-circuit the legislative process to prevent the litgation reform provisions of HF1 from becoming law.
Posted Monday, January 24, 2011 2:48 PM
No comments.
You Know It's Bad When...
You know that something is bad when Scott Strand, the executive director of MCEA, thinks something is a positive development. Based on Strand's quote in the Strib's article , Strand thinks Dayton's EO is a positive development:
Scott Strand, executive director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said the move speeds review without hindering public input. "Where we have problems is when someone tries to short-circuit the process altogether," he said.
Strand knows that Dayton's EO does nothing to reform the litigation system. That's of great joy to Strand and the MCEA because they're essentially the litigation industry for environmental issues. A major portion of HF1 deals with limiting MCEA's ability to stretch things out through litigation.
Without litigation process reform, the other changes are worthless. They're nothing but show and tell. By keeping the litigation options open, MCEA stays satisfied and the campaign contributions rolling in. Yesterday's EO announcement is nothing more than a PR stunt that told the legislative leadership that Gov. Dayton will betray their cooperation if the choices are being a man of his word with the legislature or his helping a political ally.
When HF1 reaches his desk, expect Gov. Dayton to veto the bill. With Paul Aasen beng Gov. Dayton's pick to be the next commissioner of the MPCA, and considering Gov. Dayton's need for political allies, there's little chance he'll sign legislation that will stifle his political allies.
Gov. Dayton says he wants permitting to "move at the speed of business." I'll believe it when he signs true permitting reform. I'll reserve trusting him until he gives me proof that he's sincere.
Dayton's order differs in two big ways.
The Republicans' bill would bump decisions about environmental reviews directly to the Court of Appeals, bypassing district courts. It also would allow entities seeking permits to conduct their own environmental impact statements.
Dayton said he plans to consult with judges and other experts before deciding whether to support those provisions.
"These inefficiencies didn't develop overnight," Dayton said of the effort to streamline regulations. "This is going to be an ongoing commitment of my administration, to make state government as efficient and cost-effective as possible."
Gov. Dayton can't afford supporting HF1's provision of bumping lawsuits to the Court of Appeals because it'll cost him with his environmental extremist allies.
My point about why Dayton isn't supporting litigation reform is already being proven thanks to Jeff Rosenberg's post :
It's hard to see how Dayton's move could be 'counterproductive.' In fact, it implements rules the GOP supports, and which Dayton campaigned on. I suspect what Rep. Dean really meant was 'Hey! We wanted to do that so we could score points with our political donors!' He may also be upset because Republicans hoped to reduce the level of environmental protection in Minnesota.
This verifies what Mitch wrote this morning:
Yesterday, after asking the House to hold off on holding hearings on HF1 (Rep. Dan Fabian's bill to reform state permitting), Governor Dayton released an executive order that will do the same thing.
Well, that's what the DFL and media (pardon the redundancy) will want you to think.
Dayton's order will do a bunch of the streamlining that HF1 would do with one absolutely key exception.
It was utterly predictable that the DFL mantra repeaters would say that Gov. Dayton's executive order eliminated the need for HF1. Either Mr. Rosenberg is ill-informed or he's spinning like a top.
What's important for people to know is that what's wrong with Gov. Dayton's EO is what's missing from it: meaningful litigation reform. Until that's Minnesota law, HF1 won't have a meaningful impact.
Fortunately, Governor Dayton has handled the issue. Maybe now the Republicans would like to work on producing a complete plan to handle the deficit?
Or perhaps Gov. Dayton would like to sign meaningful permit reform legislation rather than showboating? If Gov. Dayton still allows environmental extremist organizations like MCEA to run roughshod through the courts, Minnesota's economy will continue to be damaged.
Rosenberg's snarky statements notwithstanding, what Gov. Dayton did yesterday was showboat. He signed an EO that does some of the things in HF1. That sounds nice until you realize that Gov. Dayton could undo that tomorrow if he wanted. Gov. Dayton's EO does nothing to change MCEA's destruction of Minnesota's economy. Thanks to what isn't in Gov. Dayton's EO, MCEA can still abuse the judicial system.
If Gov. Dayton wants to improve Minnesota's economy, he needs to sign onto the GOP's permitting reform legislation. If he doesn't, I'll know he's all about grandstanding, not improving Minnesotans' lives.
Posted Tuesday, January 25, 2011 10:54 AM
No comments.
Government-Sponsored Corruption?
By now, you're probably sick of me writing about Paul Aasen and the MCEA. I won't be quitting anytime soon, especially after reading this post about the Equal Access to Justice Act, aka the EAJA. I haven't found a connection yet but I'm investigating whether EAJA is possibly funding MCEA's litigation abuse. While this post doesn't involve MCEA, it's still important to the big picture:
During the Clinton Administration, there was a determination that snowmobiling should be substantially curbed (i.e. eliminated) in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. When the litigation dust settled, several facts became clear:
First, although numerous cases were filed in both the Federal District Courts for the District of Columbia and the District of Wyoming and in some cases the environmental groups won, and in some cases, Wyoming small business and the State of Wyoming won, only the environmental groups recovered attorneys fees. The total amount of attorneys' fees recovered by the environmental groups is AT LEAST $321,996.69. The court records do not indicate why Wyoming small businesses and organizations did not recover fees, although as a technical matter, it appears that they would also have been eligible for fee recovery.
Second, although the environmental groups, initiating this litigation did so over an alleged concern that snowmobile use in the Parks was harming wildlife and other National Park qualities, none of the litigation dealt with the science related to these claims. Every case filed by any party was over the procedures used by the National Park Service (NPS) to decide how many and under what conditions snowmobiles would be used in the Park, not with whether snowmobiles harmed the Parks' values.
In my opinion, the environmental groups were using procedural arguments as a guise to force changes in NPS substantive decisions. There is no indication that procedural statutes should be used for a substantive result (i.e. the significant limitation and elimination of snowmobiles in the Park and the related economic harm to winter use businesses in Wyoming and Montana.)
Taxpayers nationwide should be upset to the Nth degree over this information. It's one thing for government to provide for defense attorneys for criminal trials. That's needed to provide for a criminal's defense, which is required by law.
It's another thing when the federal government foots the bill so special interest groups can file civil lawsuits against the government. There's no constitutional right to federal subsidies to sue the federal government.
Notice the different treatment in these lawsuits:
A.Fund for Animals, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Predator Project, Ecology Center et al. v. Babbitt, 97-cv-1126. This case was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia and alleged that the NPS failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other federal laws and regulations in connection with winter use, predominately snowmobiling, in the National Parks. The NPS subsequently settled the suit, in part, by an agreement to prepare a comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS) addressing a full range of alternatives for all types of winter use in the Parks. The federal government paid attorney fees to the environmental groups in this case of $11,000.
B.International Snowmobile Manufacturers= Association (ISMA) et al. v. Norton, No. 00BcvB0229. This case was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming, challenging the decision to ban snowmobiles, as reflected in the NPS 2000 Record of Decision (ROD). The 2000 ROD was prepared pursuant to the settlement agreement in case 97-cv-1126 described above. The Department of the Interior settled with ISMA on June 29, 2001, with an agreement that the NPS would prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SEIS). No attorney fees were paid to the plaintiffs although there were small business and individuals who would have qualified.
C.Fund for Animals v. Norton, 02-cv-2367. This case was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the NPS March 25, 2003 ROD which was the result of the settlement agreement in 00-cv-0229. On December 16, 2003, five days after the Final Rule was promulgated, the D.C. Court vacated the new regulation and effectively reinstated the January 22, 2001 rule phasing out the recreational use of snowmobiles in the Parks. The federal government settled the attorney fees request and paid $160,000 in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs.
Small businesses didn't get reimbursed but special interest groups filed the lawsuits did. Why? In fact, why should taxpayers fund any of these attorneys' fees? What's worse is that some of the fees apparently are bogus :
Without any oversight, accounting, or transparency, environmental activist groups have surreptitiously received at least $37 million from the federal government for questionable 'attorney fees.' The lawsuits they received compensation for had nothing to do with environmental protection or improvement.
The activist groups have generated huge revenue streams via the obscure Equal Access to Justice Act. Congressional sources claim the groups are billing for 'cookie cutter' lawsuits; they file the same petitions to multiple agencies on procedural grounds, and under the Act, they file for attorney fees even if they do not win the case. Since 1995, the federal government has neither tracked nor accounted for any of these attorney fee payments.
Nine national environmental activist groups alone have filed more than 3,300 suits, every single one seeking attorney fees. The groups have also charged as much as $650 per hour (a federal statutory cap usually limits attorney fees to $125 per hour).
I know that eliminating this statute won't eliminate the deficits but it will eliminate a huge number of frivolous lawsuits and a substantial amount of attorney fees for attorneys filing civil suits. Similarly, I suspect that it'll eliminate alot of abusive lawsuits. If the attorneys aren't getting paid, I'd bet that the lawsuits would quickly dry up.
This week a bipartisan group of congressional members introduced legislation to end the secrecy of the payments and force the government to open up the records to show exactly how much has been paid to the groups and the questionable attorney fees. The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah).
Congressional sources have said the disclosure was necessary to determine the extent of fraud and abuse. The $37 million is considered only a fraction of what has been paid out to the activist groups.
"For too long, taxpayers have unwittingly served as the financiers of the environmental litigation industry," Rep. Bishop, who also is the chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, said.
Rep. Herseth Sandlin remarked: "Simply put, this legislation is about ensuring good and open government."
"It's time to shine some light [on the program]," explained Rep. Lummis, who said the groups have created an industry that 'supports their 'stop everything' agenda.'
Not that I don't appreciate this group's work but I think it'd be better to just repeal this law. We're running trillion dollar deficits. The last thing we should pay for are attorneys' fees representing environmental extremist organizations in civil lawsuits.
That's plain insane.
It's time legislators started setting intelligent priorities. We can't afford to subsidize attorneys filing frivolous civil lawsuits. Instead, we should implement a loser pays system.
Finally, it's clear in reading this post and other related posts that these groups are mildly interested in the environment but intensely interested in making a living off taxpayers' money.
Posted Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:25 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 26-Jan-11 09:24 AM
Opening sentence.
It is kind of a hobby horse.
What about things like the legislative auditor's report on transit?
What about the stadium effort, Ted Mondale?
Sure, your blog, your choice of topics. That's how it works.
But other things are passing you by while you rail against one thing where I am unclear how such railing will change a thing.
It will not get profligate irresponsible mining moving any faster than otherwise.
Diversify.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Jan-11 10:41 AM
Right now, the biggest thing we need to straighten out is the economy. These environmental extremist organizations are killing Minnesota's & the national economies. I'm highlighting them while the reform bill, HF1, & Aasen are on the front burner.
The subjects you mentioned, while important to varying degrees, simply pale in comparison. MCEA is EVIL. They've litigated companies into the ground. They've killed hundreds, if not thousands of jobs, in Minnesota.
Progressives keep hollaring about the middle class squeeze & how it's wrong to cut taxes on millionaires. Organizations like MCEA are killing the middle class but I don't hear a peep about them. WHY NOT??? They're playing a racket where the federal government subsidizes them to the point that they make a profit whether they win or lose. Does that sound right with you? It's time to cripple, if not kill, organizations like MCEA. There's no halfway point between them & doing what's right.
What should chill you is that I haven't even come close to using all the ammunition I've accumulated on MCEA & their allies. What should piss you off is that MCEA & their fringe allies don't really care about the environment. They're in it for the money. PERIOD.
