No Balancing of Hardship in ESA Cases
Note: the following article is from Ag Alert, a news service of the California Farm Bureau Federation. The article quotes a U.S. District Court judge from a speech he gave at a water conference. The judge says, in so many words, that there is no such thing as justice in the Endangered Species Act. The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, has been discarded, and there is nothing the judiciary can do about it.
Judge says water problems won’t be solved in court
By Steve Adler, Associate Editor, Ag Alert, February 24, 2010 [here]
His rulings play a crucial role in determining the operation of federal and state water projects in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, but Judge Oliver Wanger said last week that court rulings aren’t to blame for drastic reductions in water deliveries.
Wanger, a U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of California, gave the keynote address during the annual Madera County Farm Bureau Water Conference.
He has been instrumental in several recent court cases relating to Central Valley Project and State Water Project water deliveries that have been severely restricted by the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws. Most of those cases revolve around protected species such as the threatened delta smelt, as well as threatened and endangered species of salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and even killer whales — “because they feed on salmon,” Wanger said.
Wanger let it be known at the beginning of his talk that he was speaking as “a private citizen and not on behalf of the United States District Court where I serve,” and that his views were not intended to be a comment on any pending cases.
“I am going to touch on subjects that relate to these cases, but I am going to try to not comment on the cases themselves, because we have issues which have been submitted for a decision, or will be very soon,” he said.
The Fresno-based federal judge said he finds it remarkable that there is, what he called, so little accurate information about how the California “water wars” were created and whether there are any solutions to the dilemma.
“I will start by saying one thing: The one place where there can be no solution is in the courts. That is where these cases are, at present, but there is no question that the courts don’t have resources, the courts don’t have expertise, the courts don’t have political authority or executive authority to do anything to solve the issues that are presented,” he said.
Many of the current cases in court can be traced back to the passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) in 1992, which gave high priority to fisheries restoration and protection of the environment, he said.
“So that was the day the world changed: October 30, 1992, when the CVPIA took effect. Since that time, we have had what I am going to call the environmental lawsuits. One area of contention is the annual use of water and its effect on what are called “listed species” under the Endangered Species Act,” he said.
Three laws — the ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act — play pivotal roles in how all of these cases are being presented and are being decided, he said. Wanger added that as a judge, he is limited in what he is allowed to do in making rulings from the bench.
“One thing that is required for our system to work is that whether I have a personal opinion about what is right and what is wrong, my duty is to follow the law. I took an oath under the Constitution of the United States to apply the law to the best of my ability,” he said. “Judges don’t make the laws. Our elected representatives — the Legislature and the Congress of the United States — make the laws. Judges don’t have that right. Our job is to interpret and apply the law honestly, competently and to the best of our ability.”
Wanger said there are no court orders in effect that limit the amount of water being delivered through the Central Valley Project. What limits the deliveries, he said, are the biological opinions written by federal scientists relating to the potential harm that might befall the protected fish.
“Congress intended that endangered species are irreplaceable and their loss is irreparable. That issues an automatic ticket to an injunction if an endangered species is threatened,” he said.
“The second thing the Congress did is to remove the balance,” he said. “My inclination and my duty is to be impartial and to be fair. How are you fair? You are fair when you balance and consider each interest that is before you. That law says there is no balancing of hardship in Endangered Species Act cases.”
Adding to Wanger’s challenge as judge, he said, is that under the ESA, he is required to defer to the opinions of the scientists and not substitute his own judgment as to what is the best science or what is the best method to resolve the problem. Rather, he said, he must accept the agencies’ scientific views and their decisions, unless they are arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law.
In his 19 years on the federal bench, Wanger said he has heard more than 70 water cases, and there were several cases prior to that, he said.
“These cases were there 15 years before I got there, and unless something is done by the agencies and the institutions that are responsible, they are going to be there for the next 30 years,” he said.
“As a citizen, I can ask the rhetorical question: If there isn’t a way to apply balance under the ESA, would it be appropriate to find a way to balance? And I’m sure that there is an answer to that and it wouldn’t be too hard to find,” he said. “But it’s not for the courts to provide that answer. We can’t write the law. We can’t rewrite the law. We can only follow the law.”
Wanger said that in the final analysis, these problems are complex beyond belief, in terms of the harm that is being done.
“If this is your lifeblood, if this is your existence, how can a fish or an environmental interest receive higher priority than human health, safety or your economic interest? You have invested your life, you have invested your resources, you have invested everything that you have into your farms or the activities that are dependent on these projects,” he said.
“There is only one place the problem can be solved, and if Congress can’t even agree as to when they are in session and when they are not, what hope do we have for any action to address these problems?” Wanger asked. “It can be done, but whether or not we have reached the point of legislative gridlock that it is no longer possible, I can’t tell you, because, thank God, that is not my area of endeavor.”
Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item.
Copyright 2010, The California Farm Bureau Federation.
Note: thanks to Julie Kay Smithson of Property Rights Research [here, here] for the news tip.
by Bob Zybach
With the force of the ESA, the government may take your property, your right to use your property, your right to exclude others from your property, and force other exactions upon you. They may even jail you for alleged infringements. All these amount to abridgement of our basic human rights.
The Constitution allegedly guarantees our human rights. “The Congress shall make no law abridging …” is a phrase found in the Bill of Rights. But Congress has done that. The ESA abridges human rights. The cause may seem worthy, to prevent animal and plant extinctions, but it is not worth usurpation of our God-given, fundamental, inalienable human rights.
The Federal judge says his hands are tied, that he cannot do a thing to overturn the unconstitutional law. Yet in our tripartite system of government, the judiciary are the only branch that can uphold the Constitution. If they do not, then the Constitution is worthless.
You ask what can be done. That same question was asked roughly 230 years ago. The Founding Fathers attempted to procure and protect human rights through pleas and pleadings, and advised prudence in action, but were eventually forced to take up arms in defense of liberty.
I hope we could avoid such a terrible eventuality. The only other possible avenues are for Congress to come to their senses or the judiciary to assume their responsibilities. But they cannot or will not.
The impositions grow more onerous every day. In the name of the spotted owl, the economy of the Pacific Northwest has been crippled, and millions of acres of priceless forest destroyed. Yet the owl population has crashed anyway. In the name of allegedly endangered salmon, property rights have been trampled. In the name of the delta smelt, jumping mouse, snail darter, kangaroo rat, polar bear, you name it, terrible punishments, takings, and usurpations have been perpetrated on Americans by our own government.
We could petition Congress to cease and desist. I am in favor of that strategy. But I fear the inevitable should words fail to succeed in preserving rights and liberties.
THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. — Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Oliver Wanger is trying his best to be helpful.
What can we do to see that his advice is followed?