Liberty
Matters News Service
February 12, 2004
Federal Judge Sets Aside Ban On Snowmobiling in Yellowstone
U. S. District Judge Clarence
Brimmer issued a temporary restraining order, Tuesday, setting aside a
Washington D. C. judge's re-implementation of the 2001 Clinton order that would
eventually ban the machines in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. The
Judge instructed the National Park Service to develop rules that would be fair
to snowmobilers, businesses and the environment. Wyoming Governor Dave
Freudenthal praised the judge's decision and remarked that; "[T]he people that
are suffering under the move toward banning snowmobiles are the small business
owners…they relied upon one rule only to find out the day before this
season opened that they would be forced to operate under a much stricter rule."
Judge Brimmer stated; "A single Eastern district judge shouldn't have the
unlimited power to impose the old 2001 rule on the public and the business
community, any more than a single Western district judge should have the power
to opt for a different rule. "Rather, these issues should be left in the care
of (National Park Service) the administrative agency into whose hands the
public has entrusted this matter."
Federal Judge Overturns Ban on
Snowmobiling in Yellowstone
California Farmers to Be Compensated for Water Construction
A
Federal Claims court judge in Washington, D. C. has ordered the federal
government to pay for water it took from farmers to protect endangered fish.
The government forced the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley
Project to sharply reduce the amount of water pumped from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta in 1992, 1993 and 1994 to prevent large numbers of Chinook salmon
and delta smelt from being sucked into the pumps. The Kern County Water Agency
sued the government for taking their water rights [property] without
compensation and Claims Court Judge John Wiese agreed. "The federal government
is certainly free to preserve the fish; it must simply pay for the water it
takes to do so," said the judge. At the time of Judge Wieses' final decision,
December 31, the 300,000 acre-feet lost by the farmers was worth nearly $14
million. When you add that to the accumulated interest the figure balloons to
$26 million. The decision may not bode well for environmentalists and federal
environmental agencies who argue that taxpayers should not have to pay water
users for environmental damage caused by their water diversions. A glaring
example is the Klamath Basin water grab in which water users were denied
critical irrigation water to protect Coho salmon and several sucker fish.
CA Farmers Win $26 Million Landmark
Water Suit
Enviros Lose Garter Snake Challenge
A district judge ruled
developers had their ducks in a row when they submitted a proposal to build a
business park near the Sacramento International Airport. U.S. District Judge
David F. Levi said the Metro Air Park Property Owners Association had developed
a plan that was more than adequate to protect endangered animal residents of
the area, the giant garter snake and Swainson's hawk. The judge wrote; "[T]he
Service could rationally conclude that the plan's acquisition criteria and
management scheme ensure that mitigation land will provide habitat superior to
that lost at the site, and that, far from jeopardizing the species, the plan
will enhance their prospects for survival." An Earthjustice! attorney expressed
sadness at the decision. "Another slice of California heritage will be lost.
What really upsets me is that this is one of the few areas close to an urban
region where people can view these creatures." Judge Levi emphasized that the
agency [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] made all the proper statutory findings
before issuing the…permit," and its decision "is not arbitrary and
capricious," as the environmentalists claimed.
Big Win for Proposed Business Park
Near Airport
Caution, Conservation Easement Altered
A recent decision by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should send up red flags for landowners before
they enter into any type of conservation easement agreement. The government
paid $1.9 million to Big Meadows Grazing Association for a permanent
conservation easement on 1,812 acres in Flathead County, Montana to "restore,
manage, maintain, and enhance" wetlands. Before the agreement was finalized,
the government informed Big Meadows that it would cost them $80,000 to
implement the conservation plan, but after the deal was done, the government
projected the plan would cost Big Meadows $486,000 to implement. Big Meadows
objected to the new plan saying it was "radically different" and refused to
agree to the changes. The government informed Big Meadows it didn't need their
approval and went ahead with the project. Big Meadows took their complaint to
District Court and lost. The Association appealed the decision and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently ruled for the government. In South
Dakota, legislators have recognized the problems attached to perpetual
conservation easements and have filed HB 1194, which limits conservation
easements to 30 years. It has been approved by the House Agriculture Committee
and is headed for the full House. State representative Jim Lintz said; "[M]any
people who give away those future property rights may not fully understand what
they're doing." In real estate law, you cannot prevent someone from conveying
their land if they desire to sometime in the future, except where a
conservation easement is attached. Environmentalists have done their homework.
Landowners need to do theirs.
US Need Not Get Approval from Landowner
for Conservation Easements
Bill Would Restrict Limits on Land Uses
Ninth Circuit Court Decision