California Judge Affirms Wildlife as Refuges First Priority
12/30/98
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: California Judge Affirms Wildlife as Refuges First Priority
Source: The Wilderness Society
Status: Distribute and reprint freely
Date: 12/30/98
For More Information on
Wendell Wood, ONRC
541-783-2206
Jim Waltman, TWS 301-649-6056
COURT RULING AFFIRMS "WILDLIFE" AS REFUGES' FIRST PRIORITY
Judge Dismisses Environmentalists Lawsuit But Supports Much of its
Underlying Premise
A District Court Judge in Sacramento has ruled in a lawsuit brought by a
dozen conservation groups concerning the management of the Klamath Basin
National Wildlife Refuges in southern Oregon and northern California.
Upheld in the court's ruling was conservationists' contention that
wildlife conservation must come first on these national wildlife refuges.
According to The Wilderness Society's Jim Waltman, Director, Refuges and
Wildlife: "Its very clear that the judge agreed with the environmental
plaintiffs that wildlife, not agriculture, must come first on these
refuges and that there is no 'right' to farm on the refuges. The judge
has granted the US Fish and Wildlife Service a certain amount of
discretion in determining what stipulations must be placed on farming in
order to allow it to occur on the refuges. However, the judge has not
allowed the agency off the hook in implementing such stipulations. We
continue to maintain that current farming practices on the refuges harm
wildlife by displacing native marshes, degrading water quality, and
diverting limited water supplies from marshes to farms. We will continue
to press forward for reforms of the habitat and water management on the
refuges."
Conservationists are pleased by a recent move by the Fish and Wildlife
Service to place additional stipulations on refuge farming. The agency
has indicated that, in order to comply with the various laws concerning
the National Wildlife Refuge System, farming on the refuges may have to be
suspended if refuge marshes don't receive adequate water supplies. The
agency has initiated a new review of the refuge farming program. "This
appears to be a step in the right direction. We argued in the lawsuit
that water consumption by refuge crops should be part of the consideration
on whether or not to allow this farming. This move by the agency is at
least partial vindication. We are still extremely concerned, however,
with the types and volume of pesticides allowed on the refuges as well as
sedimentation and other harmful effects of farming on the refuges," said
Waltman.
The court upheld citizen's rights to enforce federal wildlife refuge laws
which includes the 1964 Kuchel Act (specific to the Klamath Basin NWRs),
as well as the recently passed 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act. The government and intervenors representing local
irrigation districts, had argued that conservation groups had no such
right.
Additionally at issue was whether the Klamath Basin National Wildlife
Refuges were adhering to 1994 "compatibility determinations" to assure
that commercial farming and other secondary uses do not impede the
refuges' primary wildlife management purposes. Conservationists, for
example, had argued that refuge determinations such as "crops (such as
sugar beets and onions) not directly beneficial to waterfowl management be
restricted or eliminated," as the refuge had written in 1994.
Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. instead ruled that the "Service's 1998
determination that short-term continued use of (agriculture) lease lands
is consistent and compatible with the major purpose of waterfowl
management, does not foreclose its consideration of the possibility of
long-term problems from pesticides use; nor does it rule out forethought
in instituting programs designed in part to curb pesticide use." The
judge appeared open to additional evidence that pesticides are harming
refuge fish and wildlife.
Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges have been applying around 100,000
pounds of pesticide annually on commercial agricultural lands.
The Court stated "It is undisputed that the quality of water on the Lower
Klamath Refuge and the Tule Lake Refuge has declined in recent years, and
waterfowl use is significantly down on the Tule Lake Refuge." The Court
noted that in 1994 the US Fish and Wildlife Service had identified that
"stabilized sump (water) levels and sedimentation are the primary causes
of the decline in water quality on the (Klamath) Refuges."
Conservationists continue to maintain that these "primary causes" are
related to farming on and off the refuges.
"While the court did not order any specific remedies to the problems on
the Klamath Basin refuges, it did affirm that any farming permitted on the
refuges must be compatible with fish and wildlife. This important
principle was adopted by Congress when it passed the 1997 National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act to guide the management of the more
than 500 national wildlife refuges including 6 in the Klamath Basin," said
Wendell Wood, Southern Oregon Field Representative for the Oregon Natural
Resources Council. "This finding should once and for all end the bogus
claim from some that the 1964 Kuchel Act 'mandates' farming on the Klamath
Basin refuges," said Wood.
"Also significant, the Court has insured that citizens may enforce these
laws to try to ensure that our nation's refuges don't sanction management
practices that are inconsistent with the very wildlife that the refuges
were created to protect," Wood said.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit in addition to ONRC and TWS were Klamath Forest
Alliance, Golden Gate Audubon Society, Klamath Basin Audubon Society,
Mazamas, National Audubon Society, Northcoast Environmental Center,
Audubon Society of Portland, Rogue Valley Audubon Society, Umpqua Valley
Audubon Society and Sierra Club.