September, 07 2010, 12:42pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Matt Stoecker, Beyond Searsville Dam, (650) 380-2965
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 499-9185
Steve Rothert, American Rivers, (530) 277-0448
Public Tells Stanford University Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan Is Inadequate and Must Include Investigating Removal of Searsville Dam
The public has sent a powerful message to Stanford University and
government agencies that the university plan for protecting endangered
species on the 8,000-acre campus doesn't go far enough and must
consider removing Searsville Dam. The comment period closed last week
for a proposed Habitat Conservation Plan addressing endangered species
impacts over the next 50 years; public comments emphasized the need to
analyze the harmful effects of the 120-year-old dam on steelhead trout
and other imperiled species.
PALO ALTO, CA
The public has sent a powerful message to Stanford University and
government agencies that the university plan for protecting endangered
species on the 8,000-acre campus doesn't go far enough and must
consider removing Searsville Dam. The comment period closed last week
for a proposed Habitat Conservation Plan addressing endangered species
impacts over the next 50 years; public comments emphasized the need to
analyze the harmful effects of the 120-year-old dam on steelhead trout
and other imperiled species.
"Stanford's conservation plan inexplicably omits a
thorough analysis of the impacts of the diversion dam, which blocks and
significantly degrades habitat for endangered species in San
Francisquito Creek," said Matt Stoecker, chairman of the Beyond
Searsville Dam Coalition. "While we intend to ensure that public-trust
laws are adhered to, we are committed to working collaboratively with
Stanford and others to improve the conservation plan to benefit
endangered species and watershed health and improve flood protection."
"Sooner or later Searsville Dam must come down, and the
whole San Francisquito Creek watershed can be treated as the ecological
treasure that it is," said Pete McCloskey, former U.S. Congressman,
coauthor of the Endangered Species Act, San Francisquito Creek
watershed resident and Stanford University School of Law 1953 alumnus.
"Stanford has one of the most important dam-removal and
ecosystem-restoration opportunities in the country, and can position
itself as a leader in environmental stewardship and make huge progress
in achieving its stated goal of being a more sustainable campus," said
Yvon Chouinard, founder of the clothing company Patagonia and Beyond
Searsville Dam supporter. "Stanford has got to clean up their own
backyard before people will take their sustainability and environmental
message seriously. You are what you do, not what you say."
"The environmental analysis of Stanford's plan is
clearly legally inadequate; it should address and mitigate all of the
dam's ecological impacts to endangered species covered in the
conservation plan," said Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological
Diversity.
"What happens with Searsville Dam impacts all of us in
the San Francisquito Creek watershed, from the mountains to the Bay and
beyond," said long-time creek advocate Danna Breen. "Stanford must
collaborate with its neighbors on this dam issue to ensure community
safety and watershed health. This plan doesn't do that."
The Conservation Plan acknowledges that the dam is
antiquated, hurts San Francisquito Creek, and has not been modified to
provide fish passage or downstream flows for wildlife habitat. Top
university scientists have stated the need for watershed-wide
collaboration to address environmental issues with the dam, but the
Conservation Plan and a draft Environmental Impact Statement by federal
regulators fail to include analysis of the dam's impacts on endangered
species or public safety. The Conservation Plan has no commitment to
migratory fish passage at the dam, contains no downstream bypass water
flows, which have been required at their other water diversions, and
has not been coordinated with other watershed stakeholders affected by
any decision or indecision on the dam.
The Beyond Searsville Dam coalition, Center for
Ecosystem Management and Restoration, American Rivers, Center for
Biological Diversity and the law firm Shute, Mihaly, Weinberg, LLP
submitted 79 pages of formal comments this week on the legal and
biological inadequacies of the proposed Conservation Plan, and more
than 3,000 Bay Area residents, leading scientists and Stanford alumni
have sent comments to Stanford and regulatory agencies asking for
collaborative studies on dam removal.
Searsville Dam is an obsolete relic that has degraded
wildlife habitat and blocked steelhead migration in the San
Francisquito Creek watershed for more than a century and serves no
drinking-water supply, flood control or hydropower function. The
proposed Conservation Plan would include a 50-year federal permit under
the Endangered Species Act to be able to incidentally harm and kill
endangered species during future development plans and operations on the
Stanford campus. Stanford proposes to maintain the dam and reservoir
through an ill-defined dredging program. The Conservation Plan would
allow operations that continue to prevent steelhead from spawning
upstream of the dam and perpetuate the dam's damaging ecological
effects on downstream habitat and water quality in San Francisquito
Creek.
For more information and to read the comment letters go to: www.BeyondSearsvilleDam.org.
Background
Buried beneath the sediment behind Searsville Dam, built
120 years ago on the largest tributary to San Francisquito Creek, is a
unique valley where six streams once converged among wetland ponds and
riparian forests before squeezing through a small gorge where the dam
now stands. Dam removal would allow restoration of this amazing habitat
within Stanford's Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, improve water
quality and habitat downstream, potentially provide flood-protection
benefits, and restore steelhead to more than 18 miles of historic
spawning and rearing habitat above the dam, where ancestral rainbow
trout persist, now isolated by the dam.
The National Marine Fisheries Service advised Stanford
in 2008 to collaborate with interested parties in the watershed to
restore fish passage at Searsville Dam; but Stanford's Conservation
Plan has no such commitment. The federal government has ignored its own
recommendation and is considering granting a permit without requiring
adequate downstream flows for wildlife, as was required for Stanford's
other two water diversions that were also negatively affecting listed
species. Federal wildlife agencies are set to approve a severely flawed
plan that will prevent steelhead recovery and harm the watershed and
regional ecosystem. The plan would allow for the "incidental take"
(harming, degrading habitat and killing) of imperiled species such as
steelhead trout, California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter
snake, California tiger salamander and western pond turtle.
More than two dozen Bay Area conservation and fishing
groups have joined the Beyond Searsville Dam coalition and requested
that Stanford collaborate with its neighbors and evaluate and consider
removal of Searsville Dam. Conservation groups have asked Stanford to
ensure that any dam-removal plan includes flood protection benefits to
downstream communities.
Beyond Searsville Dam is a coalition of more than two dozen organizations and hundreds of individuals supporting
actions to evaluate and consider removal of Stanford University's
Searsville Dam in a manner that is beneficial to protecting creekside
communities and watershed health.
The Center for Biological Diversity
is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than
255,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of
endangered species and wild places.
American Rivers is a national conservation organization that protects and restores America's rivers for the benefit of people, wildlife and nature.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Privacy Defenders Decry 'Spy Draft' in Section 702 Renewal Advanced by Senate
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," explained one critic.
Apr 18, 2024
Civil liberties defenders on Thursday decried the U.S. Senate's advancement of the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, which critics say lawmakers are trying to ram through without protection against warrantless surveillance and with a provision that would effectively make every American a spy whether they like it or not.
Senators voted 67-32 in favor of a cloture motion to begin voting on RISAA, a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which expires on Friday. FISA—a highly controversial law that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times—allows warrantless surveillance of non-U.S. citizens but also often sweeps up Americans' communication data in the process.
In a 273-147 vote last week, House lawmakers passed RISAA, including an amendment critics say dramatically expands the government's unchecked surveillance authority by compelling a wide range of individuals and organizations—including businesses and the media—to cooperate in government spying operations.
This so-called "Make Everyone a Spy" clause would allow the attorney general or director of national intelligence to force electronic communication service providers to "immediately provide... all information, facilities, or assistance" the government deems necessary.
"This bill would basically allow the government to institute a spy draft," Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, warned Thursday. "It will lead to significant distrust between journalists and sources, not to mention everyone else."
"It's not about who RISAA allows the government to spy on, it's about who RISAA allows the government to force to spy," he added. "Regardless of whether the end target of the surveillance is a foreigner, it's indisputable that the people the government can enlist to conduct the surveillance are Americans. And what's more, these civilians ordered to spy would be gagged and sworn to secrecy under the law."
In addition to the "Make Everyone a Spy" provision, civil libertarians have sounded the alarm over the House lawmakers' rejection of an amendment that would have added a warrant requirement to the legislation.
Critics accuse Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and colleagues including Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) of trying to rush a vote on RISAA while disingenuously claiming Section 702's powers will expire with the law on Friday. That's a misleading claim, as a national security court earlier this month approved the government's request to continue a disputed surveillance program even if Section 702 lapses.
"There is simply no defense of Majority Leader Schumer and Sen. Warner's duplicity," Sean Vitka, policy director at the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress, said in a statement. "House Intelligence Committee leaders poisoned this bill with one of the most repugnant surveillance expansions in history, and apparently the administration was too busy attacking commonsense privacy protections to notice. They know it, we know it, and now the American people know it."
"There can be no mistake: Sens. Schumer and Warner just helped hand the next president an unspeakably dangerous weapon that will be used against their own constituents," Vitka added. "And there is only one vote left to stop it."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—who
said earlier this week that the bill would dragoon the American people into becoming "an agent for Big Brother"—on Thursday argued that "this issue demands a debate about meaningful reforms, not a rushed vote to rubber-stamp more warrantless government surveillance powers."
In an attempt to tackle the warrantless surveillance issue, Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) on Thursday proposed a RISAA amendment that would require the government to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before accessing Americans' private communications.
However, the amendment contains exceptions to the warrant requirement in the event of unspecified emergencies and cyberattacks.
"If the government wants to spy on the private communications of Americans, they should be required to get approval from a judge—just as our Founders intended," Durbin said in a statement. "Congress has a responsibility to the American people to get this right."
The Biden administration and U.S. intelligence agencies vehemently oppose the Durbin-Cramer amendment. The White House called the measure "a reckless policy choice contrary to the key lessons of 9/11 and not grounded in any constitutional requirement or statute."
"The amendment outright bars the government from gaining access to lawfully collected information using terms associated with U.S. persons," the administration added. "Exceptions to that prohibition are narrow and unworkable. They are insufficient to protect our national security."
On Wednesday, the House also passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act, which would prohibit the government from buying Americans' information from data brokers if it would otherwise need a warrant to obtain the data, which includes location and internet records. The Senate will now take up FANFSA.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Opposite of Leadership': US Vetoes Palestine's UN Membership
Palestine's permanent observer at the United Nations said the resolution's failure "will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination."
Apr 18, 2024
U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Thursday used the country's veto power at the United Nations Security Council to block Palestine's bid to become a full member of the U.N.
While 12 nations voted in favor of Palestinian membership and two abstained, the United States is one of five countries—along with China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom—who have veto authority at the Security Council.
Since Israel launched what the International Court of Justice has said is a "plausibly" genocidal assault of the Gaza Strip in response to a Hamas-led October attack, the Biden administration has blocked three cease-fire resolutions at the Security Council. Under mounting global pressure, the U.S. finally abstained last month, allowing a cease-fire measure to pass.
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, the Biden administration was pressuring other countries to oppose the Palestinian Authority's renewed membership effort so it could possibly avoid a veto, according to leaked cables obtained by The Intercept.
"Take a moment to ponder how isolated Biden has made the U.S.," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, after the veto. "Biden lobbied Japan, South Korea, and Ecuador HARD to oppose the Palestine resolution so that the U.S. wouldn't have to veto. They refused. So Biden cast his fourth veto in seven months (!!) This is the opposite of leadership."
In addition to the nations Parsi highlighted, Algeria, China, France, Guyana, Malta, Mozambique, Russia, Sierra Leone, and Slovenia voted for giving Palestine full U.N. membership while Switzerland and the United Kingdom abstained.
After the vote, U.N. Newsreported on remarks from Riyad Mansour, a U.N. permanent observer for the state of Palestine:
"We came to the Security Council today as an important historic moment, regionally and internationally, so that we could salvage what can be saved. We place you before a historic responsibility to establish the foundations of a just and comprehensive peace in our region."
Council members were given the opportunity "to revive the hope that has been lost among our people" and to translate their commitment towards a two-state solution into firm action "that cannot be maneuvered or retracted," and the majority of council members "have risen to the level of this historic moment, and they have stood on the side of justice and freedom and hope, in line with the ethical and humanitarian and legal principles that must govern our world and in line with simple logic."
"The fact that this resolution did not pass will not break our will, and it will not defeat our determination," Mansour added. "We will not stop in our effort. The state of Palestine is inevitable. It is real. Perhaps they see it as far away, but we see it as near, and we are the faithful."
Parsi said that "a Western-friendly senior Global South diplomat" told him of Biden's veto: "Whatever agonizing claim the U.S. had to lead a self-appointed free world has died a very loud public death on the Security Council horseshoe tonight. YOU CAN'T LEAD IF YOU CAN'T LISTEN."
Biden, a Democrat seeking reelection in November, has faced fierce criticism in the United States and around the world for U.S. complicity in Israel's war on Gaza—which Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority, has controlled for nearly two decades. In under seven months, Israeli forces have killed 33,970 Palestinians, injured another 76,770, displaced most of the besieged enclave's 2.3 million population, devastated civilian infrastructure, and severely limited the flow of lifesaving humanitarian assistance.
Israel—which already got $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid before October 7—continues to receive weapons support from the Biden administration, even as a growing chorus of critics, including some Democrats in Congress, argues that the arms transfers violate U.S. and international law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shameful': Columbia Greenlights Police Crackdown on Anti-War Encampment
Even after dozens of students were arrested, hundreds "rushed to take the place of their classmates" and continued the protest.
Apr 18, 2024
The arrests of dozens of Columbia University and Barnard College students on Thursday "galvanized" other supporters of Palestinian rights on the campuses, as hundreds of students occupied the school's western lawn after New York City police filled at least two buses with protesters who had been detained for setting up an encampment.
"Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest," chanted hundreds of students as they marched around the area where organizers had set up a tent encampment early Wednesday morning.
Columbia President Minouche Shafik informed the campus community on Thursday that she had authorized the police to clear the encampment.
As it has been in the past, the school has become a center of anti-war protests—and crackdowns by school officials and the police—since Israel began its bombardment of Gaza in October.
Pro-Palestinian students and alumni have demanded that Columbia divest from companies that profit from Israel's apartheid policies in the occupied Palestinian territories and cancel its dual degree program with Tel Aviv University.
In response to pro-Palestinian demonstrations, Columbia in November suspended the campus chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine—an action that pushed the New York Civil Liberties Union and Palestine Legal to file a lawsuit on behalf of the students last month.
On Thursday, police and Columbia employees took down about 50 tents that had been up for more than a day and disposed of them in trash cans and alleyways—but The New York Times reported later that "demonstrators repitched a couple of tents, and ... recovered the main signage from the encampment as well," while hundreds of students were "still gathered and chanting on the south side of the grass."
The arrests came a day after Shafik testified before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce about antisemitism on campus.
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), whose daughter, Isra Hirsi, was among the Barnard students who were suspended on Thursday for participating in the encampment protest, questioned Shafik about whether antisemitic protests have actually taken place at Columbia, prompting the president to say there have not.
"There has been a rise in targeting and harassment against anti-war protesters, because it's been pro-war and anti-war protesters is what it seems, like, correct?" asked Omar.
"Correct," replied Shafik.
On Thursday, Omar posted on social media two images of protesters at Columbia: one from the encampment this week, and one from 1968, when students protested the U.S. war in Vietnam.
New York City Council member Tiffany Cabán was among those who condemned the university's crackdown on the protests on Thursday.
"Suspending and arresting Columbia/Barnard student activists and disbanding student organizations—including Jewish students and organizations—doesn't combat antisemitism or increase safety," said Cabán. "All it does is punish and intimidate those who believe in human rights for Palestinians. Shameful."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular