preston39
Well-known member
Cow and Calf weekly 5/13/05
"Court Rules Environmentalists Must Prove Species Harm
Plaintiffs in environmental lawsuits must show actual evidence a species will be harmed before an injunction under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be issued against a property owner, and that a lack of evidence of past harm is indicative of the likelihood of future harm. That's the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) and Idaho rancher Verl Jones being heralded this week as a big victory for western property owners.
"The court said environmentalists have to prove their case, not just allege it," says Russ Brooks, PLF managing attorney. "The court's decision means environmental activists can no longer use the ESA as a weapon against property owners without a shred of evidence any species is actually being harmed."
The Jones family operates a small ranch near Challis, ID. Since 1961, they had diverted water from nearby Otter Creek to irrigate their alfalfa pastures for livestock. An anti-grazing activist group, the Idaho Watersheds Project (IWP), sued the family in 2001, claiming violation of the ESA because the diversion was killing protected bull trout.
But, PLF says, IWP presented no evidence the trout were being harmed. The activists' real aim was to shut off the Joneses' water and force the family into bankruptcy and off their land, PLF says. Yet, the federal District Court ordered the family to stop diverting water, which forced them to buy 100 tons of hay/year to make up for their forage shortfall.
The Ninth Circuit decision overturns the lower court's decision, ruling that courts can't defer to environmentalists' mere assertion of harm to a species. And the court remanded the case for trial to consider the evidence -- and lack of evidence -- presented.
PLF says the decision is the first time the Ninth Circuit clarified the type of evidence that must be demonstrated for an environmental plaintiff to obtain an injunction under the ESA.
"This decision should give a lot of property owners hope where they have felt powerless against environmentalists' frivolous lawsuits for years."
"Court Rules Environmentalists Must Prove Species Harm
Plaintiffs in environmental lawsuits must show actual evidence a species will be harmed before an injunction under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be issued against a property owner, and that a lack of evidence of past harm is indicative of the likelihood of future harm. That's the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) and Idaho rancher Verl Jones being heralded this week as a big victory for western property owners.
"The court said environmentalists have to prove their case, not just allege it," says Russ Brooks, PLF managing attorney. "The court's decision means environmental activists can no longer use the ESA as a weapon against property owners without a shred of evidence any species is actually being harmed."
The Jones family operates a small ranch near Challis, ID. Since 1961, they had diverted water from nearby Otter Creek to irrigate their alfalfa pastures for livestock. An anti-grazing activist group, the Idaho Watersheds Project (IWP), sued the family in 2001, claiming violation of the ESA because the diversion was killing protected bull trout.
But, PLF says, IWP presented no evidence the trout were being harmed. The activists' real aim was to shut off the Joneses' water and force the family into bankruptcy and off their land, PLF says. Yet, the federal District Court ordered the family to stop diverting water, which forced them to buy 100 tons of hay/year to make up for their forage shortfall.
The Ninth Circuit decision overturns the lower court's decision, ruling that courts can't defer to environmentalists' mere assertion of harm to a species. And the court remanded the case for trial to consider the evidence -- and lack of evidence -- presented.
PLF says the decision is the first time the Ninth Circuit clarified the type of evidence that must be demonstrated for an environmental plaintiff to obtain an injunction under the ESA.
"This decision should give a lot of property owners hope where they have felt powerless against environmentalists' frivolous lawsuits for years."
