TUCSON, Ariz.— The Center for Biological Diversity and Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva, who serves as ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, today sued the Trump administration over the proposed border wall and other border security measures, calling on federal agencies to conduct an in-depth investigation of the proposal’s environmental impacts.
Today’s suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is the first targeting the Trump administration’s plan to vastly expand and militarize the U.S.-Mexico border, including construction of a “great wall.”
“Trump’s border wall will divide and destroy the incredible communities and wild landscapes along the border,” said Kierán Suckling, the Center’s executive director.
“Endangered species like jaguars and ocelots don’t observe international boundaries and should not be sacrificed for unnecessary border militarization. Their survival and recovery depends on being able to move long distances across the landscape and repopulate places on both sides of the border where they’ve lived for thousands of years.”
The lawsuit seeks to require the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to prepare a supplemental “programmatic environmental impact statement” for the U.S.-Mexico border enforcement program.
The program includes Trump’s proposed wall as well as road construction, off-road vehicle patrols, installation of high-intensity lighting, construction of base camps and checkpoints, and other activities. These actions significantly impact the borderlands environment stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, which is home to millions of people, endangered species like jaguars and Mexican gray wolves, and protected federal lands like Big Bend National Park and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.
“American environmental laws are some of the oldest and strongest in the world, and they should apply to the borderlands just as they do everywhere else,” Grijalva said. “These laws exist to protect the health and well-being of our people, our wildlife, and the places they live. Trump’s wall — and his fanatical approach to our southern border — will do little more than perpetuate human suffering while irrevocably damaging our public lands and the wildlife that depend on them.”
Congressman Grijalva’s district is the largest Congressional district in Arizona and includes approximately 300 miles of the U.S./Mexico border.
If successful, today’s lawsuit would require the Trump administration to undertake a comprehensive review of the social, economic and environmental costs of the border wall.
Background
The National Environmental Policy Act requires that federal agencies conduct environmental review of a major federal action or program that significantly affects the quality of the human environment.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service — the precursor to the Department of Homeland Security — last updated the “programmatic environmental impact statement” for the U.S.-Mexico border enforcement program in 2001. That review identified the potential impacts of border enforcement operations, including limited border wall construction, on wildlife and endangered species in particular as a significant issue. The 2001 analysis was intended to be effective for five years but has never been updated.
In the 16 years since, the U.S.-Mexico border enforcement program and associated environmental impacts have expanded well beyond the predictions of that document, with deployment of thousands of new border agents, construction of hundreds of miles of border walls and fences, construction and reconstruction of thousands of miles of roads, installation of base camps and other military and security infrastructure, among numerous other actions.
During that same time, scientific understanding of the impacts of border walls and other border enforcement activities on wildlife and endangered species including jaguars, ocelots, Mexican gray wolves and cactus ferruginous pygmy owls has advanced significantly. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also designated “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act within 50 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border for more than 25 species since the outdated 2001 analysis was prepared.
Meanwhile, the number of undocumented migrants moving through the southwestern borderlands is at a historic low, and the border is more secure than it’s ever been.
Today, Spokane activists, including several who were arrested for blocking fossil fuel trains in Spokane four months ago, filed suit against the federal government in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.
The lawsuit, known as Holmquist et. al. v. United States, asserts that the federal law preempting city health and safety laws over fossil fuel rail shipments violates residents’ constitutional right to a healthy climate and local self-government.
This is a first-of-its-kind case directly challenging federal preemption as an infringement of constitutional rights when that preemption operates to prohibit the passage of health and safety laws at the municipal level.
The lawsuit comes on the heels of a recent federal court decision in Oregon which recognized that people possess a fundamental constitutional “right to a liveable climate” pursuant to the due process clause of the United States Constitution.
In that case, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana v. United States, Civ. No. 6:15-cv-01517 (November 10, 2016), Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon wrote, “I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society. . . to hold otherwise would be to say that the Constitution affords no protection against a government’s knowing decision to poison the air its citizens breathe or the water its citizens drink.”
Plaintiffs in the Spokane lawsuit include Dr. Gunnar Holmquist, the primary sponsor of a City of Spokane citizen-sponsored initiative to ban coal and oil trains due to climate change. Additional plaintiffs are Rusty Nelson, Nancy Nelson, Margie Heller, Deena Romoff, George Taylor, and G. Maeve Aeolus, each of whom was arrested in August and September 2016 actions for blocking fossil fuel trains. The plaintiffs are being represented by Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin, a lawyer with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.
Dr. Holmquist, the lead plaintiff in the litigation, declared, “Now is the time to step forward to do everything possible to stem the global crisis of climate change. This lawsuit will inevitably be the first of many which seek to begin to align state and federal laws with the realities of global warming – liberating communities to begin to take the difficult steps necessary for our continued survival on this planet.”
The federal lawsuit coincides with the re-filing of an initiative within the City of Spokane to amend the City’s home rule charter. The initiative would recognize a “right to a healthy climate” and ban fossil fuel trains as a violation of that right. Supporters of that initiative are preparing to collect signatures to qualify the initiative for the November 2017 ballot.
About CELDF — Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is a non-profit, public interest law firm providing free and affordable legal services to communities facing threats to their local environment, local agriculture, local economy, and quality of life. Its mission is to build sustainable communities by assisting people to assert their right to local self-government and the rights of nature.
Featured image: Steve Tatum, Flickr Creative Commons – Coal Train. View from the footbridge on the Huckleberry Trail crossing the Norfolk Southern tracks.
NEW YORK, NY.: The Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) announced today that it will be partnering with the Christian group Family Policy Alliance (FPA) in submitting a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court challenging President Obama’s Title IX “bathroom mandate.”
The joint brief argues that allowing males who self-identify as women access to female-only spaces threatens the safety of women and girls and results in the effective erasure of women under Title IX – a civil rights law enacted specifically to benefit women, who have been excluded from formal education, or discriminated against within it, for centuries.
What prompted WoLF to forge such an unlikely partnership?
Kara Dansky, Chair of the WoLF Board, says the alliance with FPA just makes sense.
“WoLF fights to protect all women and girls, regardless of political affiliation,” said Dansky. “WoLF is the only feminist organization standing up for the right of women and girls to maintain female-only spaces. We are happy to work with other organizations that agree with us on this point.”
“How wrong does something have to be for a Christian family group, and a radical feminist group, to take their argument together to the Supreme Court?” said Autumn Leva, director of policy for Family Policy Alliance.
The brief will be submitted in the Gloucester School Board v. G.G. case before the high court. A female who identifies as male is seeking the “right” to use the boys’ facilities.
The court will hear the case this spring with a decision likely in the summer.
WoLF board member Kara Dansky sat down with Family Policy Alliance as unlikely allies for privacy and the safety of women and girls. Watch their conversation below.
On November 1, 2016, the Constitutional Chamber of Costa Rica’s Supreme Court provided some good news to a Terraba (Teribe) Indigenous territory when it stopped the state-run Costa Rica Electricity Institute (ICE by its Spanish acronym) from going forward with the Diquis hydroelectric project for failing to consult Indigenous communities who would see part of their lands flooded.
The permit, issued in 2007 under former President Oscar Arias, had declared the dam to be located at the mouth of the General River Valley in the southern Pacific and part of the country of “national interest.”
The court ruling did not question the “national interest” part of the permit, but said ICE had failed to comply with a previous high court order to adequately consult the Indigenous communities. The project has been stalled since 2011 over the Indigenous consultation issue.
The 650 megawatt hydroelectric project was to be the largest such project in Central America. The project’s reservoir would occupy 7363 hectares of land, 830 hectares of which are Indigenous territories, and displace over 1547 people.
The project would also flood 10 percent of the Terraba (also known as Teribe) China Kichá Indigenous territory (104 hectares) and 8 percent of another Terraba communities of Curré and Boruca (726 hectares). Officials estimate that 200 sacred Indigenous sites would be destroyed by the reservoir.
Some see the development as very positive. The $2.5 billion project would provide employment in the region to 3,500 people. The Diquis project would increase that renewable energy capacity and also allow Costa Rica to sell energy to neighboring Central American countries. Costa Ricans are proud of their electrical energy system which provides energy mostly from renewable resources. In 2016, the country went most of the year without resorting to using oil-fired thermal generators. But sometimes even renewable energy has high cost, especially when it comes to hydro-electric dams.
The high court ruling referred to Article 8 of the Arias Administration decree which would have allowed ICE to gather materials for the dam, power station, and connected works in locales in the areas of El General, Buenos Aires, Changuena and Cabagra, despite the fact that Indigenous people live in the areas.
According to the Constitutional Chamber’s press office, the annulled article was challenged previously in September of 2011, when the court determined that the decree was constitutional just as long as the Indigenous communities were consulted within a period of six months from the notification of the ruling.
However, early the next year, the court ruled that the six months established by the Court had passed and the consultation had not been made. “The Constitutional Chamber has demonstrated that, in fact, in the space of time established in the 2011-12975 ruling, the referred to consultation was not made nor did any party come to this Chamber request an extension of the time limit granted. Therefore, since the condition dictated in ruling 2011-12975 have not been met, the Article 8 of the No. 34312-MP-MINAE executive decree is unconstitutional because the consultation failed to occur,” said the press office.
The Terraba say they are not interested in the offers made so far to relocate their communities to other lands and provide them with well-paid jobs. “We don’t believe in the promises of employment for Indigenous Peoples, as up until today it had been demonstrated that all the qualified and best paid personnel have been brought from outside, Indigenous workers are used only to break rocks,” said community leader Jehry Rivera.
For Indigenous people, ICE offers are only opportunism. Indigenous Peoples want better lands and compensation in order to agree for the project to go forward.
The Court said that the consultation of Indigenous communities under Costa Rican law was necessary since the project is located in areas declared as an Indigenous reserve, “In fact, Costa Rica could be in violation of not complying with international conventions in relation to the autonomy of Indigenous Peoples over their territory. Costa Rica is a signatory of the International Labor Organization’s Convention on Indigenous and Tribal People.”
Indigenous Peoples are not the only ones opposed to the project. Environmentalists say that the dam’s reservoir would dry up the intensely green Térraba River Valley and would destroy irreplaceable habitats such as the Ramsar wetland and the river delta that drains into the Pacific. The wetlands and delta are the nesting grounds for many species including the endangered hump-back whale.
–John McPhaul is a Costa Rican-American freelance writer based in San Juan, Puerto Rico. During his many years in Costa Rica, the land of his birth, he wrote for the Miami Herald, Time Magazine and Costa Rica’s The Tico Times among other publications.
Cortlandt, NY — Four months after conclusion of the trial, today Judge Daniel McCarthy found the “Montrose 9” guilty of disorderly conduct for blocking traffic in Cortlandt Town Court. The “Montrose 9,” local residents and environmental advocates who were arrested for blocking access to a ware yard in Montrose to halt construction of Spectra Energy’s AIM pipeline on November 9, 2015, claimed that their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm.
At the Press Conference after Judge McCarthy’s verdict, Defense Counsel, Martin Stolar, a prominent social justice attorney, said “I am extremely disappointed with respect to the necessity defense, which seems so obviously true. We will take it up on appeal. They (the defendants) are heroes, not criminals.”
After months of delay, testimony from the defendants ended on July 22, 2016. Many of the defendants expressed their concerns about global climate change and environmental damage from the fracked methane gas the pipeline will carry, fear of pipeline explosions and the possibility of another “Fukushima on the Hudson.”
Their goal at trial was to prove that the violation they committed – blockading Spectra from constructing a fracked gas pipeline – was necessary to prevent a greater harm. They demonstrated that Spectra Energy’s AIM pipeline presents immediate risks from explosions and impacts the health and safety of the community. Additionally, they noted that the fossil fuel industry is locking our nation into an unsustainable future of fossil fuels at a time when the country has to move towards renewable energy resources. They made clear that although members of the community had been diligently working through regulatory channels, their efforts were stymied by interminable delays and legal maneuvers, leaving them no recourse but to pursue non-violent direct action.
Although today’s ruling was not the outcome that many present had hoped for, the Montrose 9 and their allies said that they plan to continue the fight.
Marty Stolar: “Judge McCarthy’s verdict is guilty. The Judge rejects the justification as being speculative and the harm is not imminent or about to occur. He then rejects our First Amendment defense, and that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The justification defense which he rejects, we all know, and you all know, the actions were justified, the harm is imminent, and the pipeline is extraordinarily dangerous, and constitutes a present harm and a present threat to every resident in this town, in this county and of the areas surrounding Indian Point. An appeal will be led after the sentence is imposed on January 6th.”
Susan Rutman: “It is absolutely staggering. This decision is disrespectful. But we will persevere. We cannot be thwarted by the limited scope of the legal system. He (the judge) wouldn’t even make a declaratory statement.”
Andrew Ryan: “This furthers my belief that we are run by a Corp-ocracy. They are people who care only about profits. They create and they interpret the law.”
For over three years, these concerned residents along with a number of groups in Westchester County, petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) asking for an independent and transparent study to be done before allowing Spectra’s dangerous Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) pipeline to be built. Their concerns, and those of elected officials at all levels of government, were ignored; FERC similarly dismissed the concerns of nuclear safety experts and pipeline experts. This refusal of FERC to acknowledge or address health and safety concerns meant that the local community had no legal or policy recourse, which supported their claim of necessity defense.
As of today’s date, Spectra still has not completed pipeline construction as the project has encountered environmental violations, noise complaints, and legal challenges. For months they have tried and failed to run the 42” pipeline under the Hudson River adjacent to Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, with another attempt slated for this month. As a stop gap measure to bypass their failed river section and salvage the project, FERC granted permission to Spectra Energy to run additional gas through existing pipelines under the Hudson and Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. This scenario, running additional gas through 50- and 60-year-old pipelines under the plant, was never examined by FERC or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for safety and was not a condition granted in the FERC permit.
It is the latest in a string of examples of FERC’s failure to address safety concerns or act in the best interests of public heath and safety. In fact, today, members of ResistSpectra, Safe Energy Rights Group (SEnRG), and Stop the Algonquin Pipeline Expansion (SAPE) are in Washington DC attending The Peoples’ Hearing, where representatives of impacted communities will provide testimony and evidence of FERC’s abuses of power and law across the country. Their evidence will demonstrate to Congress the need to reform this rogue agency and reexamine their authority under the Natural Gas Act.
Find out more information about the AIM Pipeline and ongoing resistance here:
