Posted on: 4/25/2005 11:39:00 PM
Idaho Rancher's
Case Means Environmentalists Can No Longer Terrorize Property Owners with
Baseless Allegations
BOISE, ID; April 25, 2005: In an important victory
for western property owners, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
has ruled for Pacific Legal Foundation, and Idaho rancher Verl Jones' family,
in a closely watched case that addresses the standard by which injunctions can
be issued under the Endangered Species Act. The Ninth Circuit's ruling
clarifies for the first time that environmental plaintiffs must present actual
evidence that a species is likely to be harmed before an injunction can be
issued against a property owner, and that a lack of evidence of past harm is
indicative of the likelihood of future harm. For years, environmental
plaintiffs have been able to get injunctions ordering private property owners
to cease legal activity on their land on the basis of mere allegations alone.
PLF has long argued, as it did in the Joneses' case, that there must be an
evidentiary showing of real harm to a species before a court can issue an
injunction that would result in serious economic harm to the property owner.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. "The court said environmentalists
have to prove their case, not just allege it," said Russ Brooks, managing
attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation's Pacific Northwest Center. "The court's
decision means that environmental activists can no longer use the Endangered
Species Act as a weapon against property owners without a shred of evidence
that any species is actually being harmed." "For too long, environmentalists
have been able to easily obtain injunctions against property owners on the
basis that courts should give the benefit of the doubt to the species. The
Ninth Circuit has just put environmentalists on notice that now they are going
to have to give courts legitimate evidence of a likelihood of harm they can't
get away with destroying people's lives on baseless allegations anymore,"
Brooks said. The Jones family operates a small ranch near Challis, Idaho. Since
1961, they have diverted water from nearby Otter Creek in the summer months to
irrigate their alfalfa pastures for livestock. An antigrazing, environmental
activist group, the Idaho Watersheds Project, sued Verl Jones and his family in
2001, claiming the family was violating the ESA by diverting water from Otter
Creek and killing bull trout protected under the Act. The group presented no
evidence that bull trout were being harmed to support their claim. PLF says the
environmental groups' real aim was to shut off the Joneses' water use to force
the family into bankruptcy and off their land. PLF presented evidence to the
court, including testimony by the Jones family and a longtime ranch hand, that
no one has ever seen a bull trout injured in Otter Creek, let alone killed, in
the 40 years the family has operated their irrigation diversion. Nevertheless,
the federal District Court granted the environmentalists' request for summary
judgment and issued the injunction, ordering Jones to stop diverting water to
the family ranch. As a result, the Jones family has been forced to buy about
100 tons of hay per year to make up for the loss of irrigation water for the
past three years. The Ninth Circuit overturned the District Court's decision,
and ruled that courts cannot defer to environmentalists' mere assertion of harm
to a species. The court reversed and remanded the case to the lower court for
trial to consider the evidence and lack of evidence presented. The unpublished
decision is significant because it is the first time the Ninth Circuit has
clarified the type of evidence that must be demonstrated in order for an
environmental plaintiff to obtain an injunction under the ESA. "The Ninth
Circuit said that if the evidence shows a bull trout has not been harmed in 40
years, it isn't likely to be harmed in the next 40 years certainly not likely
enough to support an injunction shutting of the Joneses' water," PLF's Brooks
said. As Brooks explained, the Joneses' case has been widely watched by Idaho
property owners who have for years been terrorized by environmental activist
groups that have used the ESA as a means to shut down land use activity they
oppose. "For the Jones family, like other citizens in Idaho and across the
west, the Endangered Species Act has brought nothing but despair, hardship, and
lawsuits. Instead of restoring fish, the ESA has been used by environmental
groups to hurt people who work the land for a living," said Brooks. "This
decision should give a lot of property owners hope where they have felt
powerless against environmentalists' frivolous lawsuits for years," added
Brooks. "It's been a long time coming, but the tide is turning and it's turning
for the rights of property owners and reasonableness in environmental laws."
About Pacific Legal Foundation Founded in 1973, Pacific Legal
Foundation is a national leader in the effort to reform the Endangered Species
Act and raise awareness of the Act's impact on people. PLF's Pacific Northwest
Center is located in Bellevue, Washington. More information on the Foundation
can be found at www.pacificlegal.org. James Foley National Land Rights League,
Inc. Protecting Your Land Rights http://nlrl.org
[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further
information please refer to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |