SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 18 2008, 09:48am EDT
Contact:
Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337
California Desert's Six Million Acre Question Mark
Bill Establishing Landscape Conservation System Fudges on CDCA Inclusion
WASHINGTON
Legislation slated as the first order of business for the incoming
111th Session of Congress to codify the National Landscape Conservation
System inexplicably excludes most of what some call its crown jewel,
the California Desert Conservation Area. The real reasons behind this
exclusion are a mix of politics and plans for large-scale industrial
development of the California desert, according to documents released
today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
At issue is the level of protection accorded to more than six
millions acres - an area bigger than New Jersey - of the California
Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) which includes sections of three major
American deserts: the Sonoran, Mojave and Great Basin. Congress is
considering giving a statutory charter to the National Landscape
Conservation System (NLCS), a network of national monuments, historic
trails and conservation areas within the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) created by then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt late in the
Clinton administration.
CDCA was created by Congress before the advent of the NLCS and has
always been considered part of that system. In fact, BLM official maps
and fact sheets show CDCA as included within NLCS.
Overruling its California staff, BLM Headquarters quietly decided
that CDCA would not be included in the pending codification legislation
but has offered no public explanation. Documents obtained by PEER under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) contain this conclusion:
"No, CDCA would not be included in the NLCS under the
current pending legislation. BLM has reviewed the legislative
history...and found it inconclusive in regard to this question. Our
intent is to use this information only upon request."
PEER has asked for the underlying legal opinions leading to this
conclusion but the agency has not responded, and today PEER filed a
federal lawsuit to obtain the withheld documents. In the materials
released to PEER is this exchange between a BLM official and the head
of a multiple use group:
"You told me why the Cal. Desert was excluded from
the NLCS legislation...Part of the answer was the huge amount of solar
energy installations already in place and the potential for more.
Right?"
"Stunning and ecologically important places such as Big Morongo
Preserve and Afton Canyon will be left open to development if the
California Desert Conservation Area remains on the legislative cutting
room floor," stated California PEER Coordinator Karen Schambach. "The
unspoken plan is for corporate conversion of large parts of the CDCA
into giant energy farms and transmission corridor superhighways."
The local congressional representative, Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA),
reportedly wants to keep most of the CDCA out of the NLCS, while the
state's senior senator, Diane Feinstein, has pledged to have the entire
CDCA included. To paper over the difference, the bill managers for the
153-bill omnibus measure containing the NLCS authorization will add a
floor amendment stating that "public land within the CDCA is
administered by the BLM for conservation purposes" but that language
will leave to BLM discretion which lands will actually be included in
the NLCS.
"Why does the National Landscape Conservation System need to be
dismembered in order to become permanent?" asked PEER Executive
Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the Interior Inspector General is
currently investigating alleged collusion between BLM officials and
organizations sponsoring the NLCS bill. "The omission of the California
desert is no glitch; this is a hidden development agenda cloaked in
happy talk about conservation."
###
Read BLM conclusion that CDCA is outside the NLCS
Look at e-mail exchange citing massive solar installations as a reason
View the BLM official map showing CDCA as part of NLCS
Examine the BLM fact sheet including CDCA acreage within NLCS
See the PEER FOIA lawsuit
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals. PEER's environmental work is solely directed by the needs of its members. As a consequence, we have the distinct honor of serving resource professionals who daily cast profiles in courage in cubicles across the country.
LATEST NEWS
'Planet Wreckers': 4 Rich Nations Plotting Nearly 70% of New Oil and Gas Over Next Decade
"This is not just hypocrisy," said one climate campaigner. "It is a death sentence for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis."
Jun 16, 2025
Four wealthy nations—the United States, Canada, Norway, and Australia—account for the majority of planned oil and gas expansion over the next decade, according to new data published by Oil Change International on Monday, the first day of the Bonn Climate Change Conference in Germany.
Oil Change's analysis, titled Planet Wreckers, notes that if those four Global North nations stopped their planned new oil and gas extraction, 32 billion tons of carbon pollution would stay in the ground instead of being burned and released into the atmosphere, where they fuel planetary heating. That's the equivalent of three times the annual global emissions created by burning coal.
"A handful of the world's richest nations remain intent on leading us into disaster. This is not just hypocrisy. It is a death sentence for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis," Oil Change International global policy lead Romain Ioualalen said in a statement Monday.
"It is sickening that countries with the highest incomes and outsized historical responsibility for causing the climate crisis are planning massive oil and gas expansion with no regard for the lives and livelihoods at stake," Ioualalen added.
(Image: Oil Change International)
Nations that took part in the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP28, in Dubai committed to an equitable transition from fossil fuels. However, as Ioualalen noted, "this commitment is largely being ignored by some of the world's richest countries."
"Equity is not a buzzword. It is a foundational requirement to accelerate the transition," he asserted. "Until the richest countries commit to ending fossil fuel production and use and deliver adequate climate finance on fair terms, global calls for fossil fuel phaseout will ring hollow to developing countries that are struggling to meet development, energy access, and climate resilience needs."
The prospects of the U.S. making any meaningful near-term contribution to such a transition are dim given the Trump administration's "drill, baby, drill" energy policy.
The new report, and this year's Bonn conference, come between last year's COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan and the upcoming COP30 in Belém, Brazil. Oil Change noted that Brazil ranks among the 10 largest projected expanders of oil and gas over the next decade, with plans to surpass Saudi Arabia.
"Countries have an opportunity to course correct by working together," Ioualalen stressed. "COP30 must deliver a collective roadmap for equitable phaseout dates for fossil fuel production and use, to actually deliver on commitments all countries made at COP28."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gold Phone and Mobile Service Blasted as Latest 'Trump Family Profiteering'
"Good luck getting a federal agency to hold the company accountable if service fails or things go off the rails," said one critic.
Jun 16, 2025
The Trump Organization on Monday announced the creation of a new cellular phone service named after U.S. President Donald Trump and teased the upcoming release of a gold, $499 smartphone—news that elicited swift rebuke from two watchdog groups.
"The limit to Trump family profiteering does not exist," wrote the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in response to Eric Trump discussing the update on Fox Business Network on Monday.
The new wireless service, called "Trump Mobile," advertises a $47.45 a month plan, and will operate as a licensing agreement.
"Trump Mobile, its products and services are not designed, developed, manufactured, distributed, or sold by the Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals," according to a Monday statement from the Trump Organization, which is headed by the president's sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. "T1 Mobile LLC uses the 'Trump' name and trademark pursuant to the terms of a limited license agreement which may be terminated or revoked according to its terms."
According to that same statement, Trump Mobile will offer 5G service in partnership with existing major cellular carriers. It will also offer unlimited talk and text and other benefits, and subscribers to the plan will receive "telehealth services, including virtual medical care, mental health support, and easy ordering and delivery for prescription medications."
In addition to the new wireless service, a gold-colored "T1" smartphone will be available starting September, according to the Trump Mobile website.
"It seems utterly unfathomable that you could build a phone with this set of specs, at this price, to be delivered in September," remarked David Pierce, editor-at-large at The Verge.
The new wireless phone service is one of several products featuring the Trump name, including the $TRUMP meme coin.
Trump reported over $600 million in income stemming from a variety of ventures, including cryptocurrency, in a public financial disclosure report that appeared to cover the period of 2024 and which was released on Friday, according to Reuters. The report showed that Trump made millions in royalty payments for products that feature his name and likeness, according to NBC News. $TRUMP was released in January and not included in the filing, per NBC.
"The foray into phones raises new questions about conflicts of interest, with the president's family business entering a sector heavily regulated by federal agencies while Trump wields executive power over them," The Guardianreported on Monday. "It creates a particularly difficult situation for the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, who must now oversee regulatory matters affecting a network bearing his boss's name."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, wrote on Monday that "Americans should slam down the phone in response to the latest marketing ploy from the Trump family business. Everything about this plan should tell Americans to disconnect right away."
Weissman cast doubt on the plan for a number of reasons, including that the physical phone would be designed and built in the United States. While speaking on "The Benny Show," Eric Trump said Monday that "eventually all the phones can be built in the United States."
Separately, Weissman added, "Good luck getting a federal agency to hold the company accountable if service fails or things go off the rails."
"We'll need many more details to fully assess what's going on—including the worrisome claim of offering a pharmacy and telehealth benefit—but it's already clear this is a plan that should be canceled, immediately," Weissman concluded.
Keep ReadingShow Less
American Bar Association Sues to End Trump 'Law Firm Intimidation Policy'
"There has never been a more urgent time for the ABA to defend its members, our profession and the rule of law itself," said the group's president.
Jun 16, 2025
The American Bar Association sued U.S. President Donald Trump's administration in a Washington, D.C. federal court on Monday over what the ABA called his "law firm intimidation policy."
"Since taking office earlier this year, President Trump has used the vast powers of the executive branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the president does not like," states the ABA complaint, which names various entities and leaders in the administration as defendants.
The document lays out how the administration has carried out this policy using "executive orders designed to severely damage particular law firms and intimidate other firms and lawyers," as well as "'deals' or 'settlements' between the administration and certain law firms in order to avoid such orders or have them rescinded."
Trump's administration has also relied on "other related executive orders, letters, and memoranda," and "public statements by the president and his administration publicizing the objectives of the law firm intimidation policy," the complaint details. "The president's attacks on law firms through the faw firm orders are thus not isolated events, but one component of a broader, deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the president or his administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the president does not like."
The filing stresses that "without skilled lawyers to bring and argue cases—and to do so by advancing the interests of their clients without fear of reprisal from the government—the judiciary cannot function as a meaningful check on executive overreach."
Some firms are already fighting back against Trump's attacks, which the ABA called "unprecedented and uniquely dangerous to the rule of law." As Bloombergdetailed Monday:
Three firms hit with executive orders—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—later obtained permanent injunctions against the executive orders, with judges striking them down as unconstitutional. Susman has obtained a temporary injunction and is awaiting a ruling on a request for a final decision.
Nine other firms have pledged a total of nearly $1 billion in free legal services as part of deals to avoid similar orders. They committed to working on causes championed by Trump, including combating antisemitism, assisting veterans, and ensuring fairness" in the justice system.
After powerhouse firm Paul Weiss struck a deal with Trump, eight others—A&O Shearman, Cadwalader, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Milbank, Simpson Thacher, Skadden Arps, and Wilkie Farr—followed suit. The firms have faced intense criticism for the agreements.
Meanwhile, as the ABA filing points out, "public reporting demonstrates that the chill on the legal profession—and particularly on 'Big Law' firms—has not been relieved by these favorable rulings. 504 law firms filed an amicus brief in support of Perkins' motion for summary judgment. As was widely reported, though, none of the top 25 U.S. law firms by revenue signed the brief, and fewer than 10 of the top 100 firms (the AmLaw 100) signed."
"By the time Susman filed its motion for summary judgment, four different judges had enjoined executive orders targeting law firms as likely unconstitutional," the complaint adds. "Yet still, fewer than 10 of the AmLaw 100 firms signed the brief in support of Susman, and none of the top 25 firms did."
The complaint also highlights other impacts, including that "many attorneys are no longer willing to take on representations that would require suing the federal government," and "others have dropped ongoing representations; ended their participation in
contemplated cases; or declined representations—even of clients with whom they had longstanding prior attorney-client relationships—not because the merits of the case were weak or the attorney had some substantive objection to taking the case, but because the representation was deemed too likely to result in severe retaliation from the president."
"Public interest attorneys who rely on their partnership with and representation by law firms—particularly in time- and resource-intensive pro bono cases—have not brought cases that they otherwise would have because their choice of counsel has been compromised," the filing says. "Still others have abstained from expression related to their prior representations that they would otherwise have engaged in, or even removed existing writings related to past representations from the public sphere."
"And those attorneys who do intend to proceed with work disfavored by the president now do so under the objective threat of potentially devastating retaliation pursuant to the policy, with all the severe harm, expense, and distraction that accompany such threat," the document warns. "All such harms are already happening; are ongoing; and will continue in the absence of relief from the court."
While the White House hasn't yet commented on ABA v. Executive Office of the President et al., William R. Bay, president of the association, said in a Monday statement that "this is the time to stand up, speak out and seek relief from our courts... There has never been a more urgent time for the ABA to defend its members, our profession, and the rule of law itself."
This is not the legal group's only case against the administration. Bloomberg noted that "the ABA earlier this year laid off one-third of its workforce after the Trump administration cut $69 million of its grant funding. The organization is waging another suit against the Justice Department as it tries to cut another $3.2 million in federal grants."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular