

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Matt Stoecker, Beyond Searsville Dam, (650) 380-2965
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 499-9185
Steve Rothert, American Rivers, (530) 277-0448
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.
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) 623-5252"Those holding out in support of Trump’s war should be forced to answer how much pain will they ask their constituents to endure for a war that is wrong morally, strategically, and politically.”
Maine Democratic Congressman Jared Golden was the target of fresh ire late Thursday after casting his party's sole vote against a war powers resolution in the US House aimed at curbing President Donald Trump's disastrous war against Iran.
Though Golden, who is not seeking reelection this year, was an original cosponsor of the resolution (H.Con.Res.75) offered by fellow Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) back in March, he became the deciding vote in the 212-212 tie when it finally hit the floor—even as two Republicans broke with their party for the first time to support such a measure.
As The Washington Post notes, the resolution was "proposed early in the war by a faction of pro-Israel Democrats—Golden among them—as a compromise intended to win some Republican backing." While it did win three Republican votes in the end, it was Golden who helped sink it.
When first introduced in March, Gottheimer's resolution was seen as an effort by corporate-friendly Democrats to thwart a more aggressive version put forth by progressive members in the House just days after Trump launched the attack. The text of the resolution plainly "directs the President to remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, including potential ground forces in a combat role or used for occupation, by not later than the date that is 30 days after [February 28, 2026], unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran."
Enactment would have put Trump's ongoing military operations against Iran in direct violation of the resolution.
"Jared Golden was the only Democrat to vote NO. If he voted yes, it would have passed," said Jonathan Cohn, political director of Progressive Mass, an advocacy group based in New England. "He isn't even running again. He's just a bad person who wants more people to die and wants a job lobbying for defense contractors."
While Golden had announced ahead of the vote he would be a "no" on the resolution, there was a time during the vote that four Republicans had entered "Yes" votes in favor. That number later changed back to three as it became increasingly clear how tight the vote would be.
"There weren't enough Democratic votes to kill it, that was why they held the vote open past the deadline until they were able to pressure one republican to flip from 'yes' to 'no,'" said Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, who tracked the vote closely. "It's in the video."
Vulnerable GOP members of both chambers are starting to turn against Iran war
House joins Senate with narrowest defeat since war began (49-50, 212-212)
House WPR nearly passed but pro-war @HouseGOP pressured someone to change their vote last second to protect the war effort
⬇️ https://t.co/IW8AxPt8oM pic.twitter.com/87GGFAmr3i
— Erik Sperling (@ErikSperling) May 14, 2026
Golden defended his vote against the resolution by saying, "unfortunately its proposed 30-day deadline lacks any real meaning now that we are more than 70 days into this conflict," which is a stretch of logic—one critic called it "nonsensical rationale"—when the point of the War Powers Act is to put the president in violation—or alignment—of what Congress has authorized by law.
Ryan Costello, policy director for the National American Iranian Council (NIAC), noted that with Republican Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania voted with every Democrat except Golden to pass the resolution. GOP support for Trump's war of choice is beginning to crack under the pressure of soaring gasoline prices and the other economic pain the conflict has unleashed. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—who has been a leading and consistent voice against the war—was the third Republican "yes" vote
“Two more swing Republicans in toss-up districts moved in line with the vast majority of Americans who want this war to end, just as President Trump is considering authorizing another phase of the war that would fail to solve the standoff with Iran and deepen the financial insecurity facing ordinary Americans,” said Costello. "The House of Representatives is now split down the middle, with more Representatives who have voted for Iran war powers resolutions since the war began than haven’t."
Earlier this week, three Republicans in the Senate joined with every member of the Democratic caucus except Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) on a war powers resolution that failed in a razor-thin 49-50 vote.
“Just a single vote flipping in the House and two votes in the Senate changes a narrow defeat on war powers into a victory,” added Costello. “There are lots of vulnerable lawmakers who could flip with gas prices continuing to soar and the President’s Iran strategy floundering. Those holding out in support of Trump’s war should be forced to answer how much pain will they ask their constituents to endure for a war that is wrong morally, strategically, and politically.”
In his statement on Wednesday, Golden said he would support what he described as a "clean" war powers resolution introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), which is set to come to a vote as soon as next week.
“I have said since the start of this conflict that the War Powers Act of 1973 grants the president only 60 days to conduct military operations without an explicit authorization from Congress,” Golden said. “President Trump, like all his predecessors, has refused to recognize the limitations of the War Powers Act, but to me the law is clear. His window for unilateral military engagement has closed. Hostilities, including the use of the US fleet to impose a blockade of Iranian ports, cannot legally continue unless the president seeks, and wins, Congressional approval.”
The expected vote, which will be the next in a series of efforts to check Trump's war, will put to the test the "rotating villain" theory, which proffers that the powers that be coordinate behind the scenes to make sure there is always a lawmaker willing to throw themselves on a political grenade to make sure certain legislation opposed by leadership in either party does not pass.
"In this case, Golden isn't really a 'rotating' villain," said Just Foreign Policy's Nathan Thompson, "because he's voted against every single Iran War Powers Resolution that's been brought to the floor so far.
"This is a massive and unprecedented presidential plunder of the American people," said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday accused US President Donald Trump of "orchestrating a $1,700,000,000 fraud on the American taxpayer to line the pockets of his MAGA political allies" amid new reporting on the terms Trump is seeking in talks to settle his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
ABC News reported late Thursday that Trump is expected to drop his lawsuit in the coming days "in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration." The money would come from the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, which pays out court judgments and settlements against the federal government.
The president is also expected to receive a public apology from the IRS for the leak of his tax returns during his first White House term.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said in a statement that the reported settlement terms represent "another installment" in Trump's "ongoing effort to turn the federal government into a personal cash machine for his unpopular extremist movement."
"This is a massive and unprecedented presidential plunder of the American people," said Raskin. "Worse still, this is only the beginning—a declaration that the prior payouts were just a down payment, and that he now intends to earmark billions more in taxpayer dollars for his political allies, sycophants, and private militia of unemployed insurrectionists."
“The president has no authority to conjure up billion-dollar compensation schemes or raid the Judgment Fund, which exists to settle valid lawsuits. Trump is systematically converting neutral government mechanisms into a presidential slush fund to build his army of political dependents," Raskin continued. "Congress must act immediately to reassert the power of the purse and stop this brazen looting of taxpayer funds before this ‘pilot program’ for corruption becomes the permanent operating system of our government."
According to ABC, which cited unnamed sources who emphasized that the settlement's terms should not be considered final until officially announced, the deal is "expected to prohibit Trump from directly receiving payments related to those three legal claims; however, entities associated with Trump are not explicitly barred from filing additional claims."
"The arrangement would be an unprecedented use of taxpayer dollars with little oversight," ABC noted. "Under the terms of the potential settlement agreement, President Trump would have the authority to remove members of the commission running the fund without cause, and the commission would be under no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making process for awarding more than a billion dollars."
ABC's story came on the heels of reports earlier this week revealing internal Justice Department discussions on settling Trump's lawsuit, which he filed in late January. Last month, a federal judge questioned the constitutionality of Trump's suit, noting that "he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction."
"Real story: Judge was about to throw out the case because Trump controls both parties," Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) wrote late Thursday. "Before it’s dismissed, Trump tells both parties to reach a 'settlement.' Settlement shields Trump from any future audit and creates a secret slush fund that can dole out money to anyone with no transparency."
"Mind-boggling corruption," Goldman added.
"We are relieved that access to mifepristone remains protected for now, but this should never have been on the table in the first place," said one campaigner.
While welcoming that the US Supreme Court on Thursday blocked restrictions on dispensing mifepristone—a medication commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care—as a legal battle over it moves forward, rights advocates also continued to sound the alarm about attacks on reproductive freedom and argue that "temporary relief isn't enough."
At issue is the 2023 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decision to permanently lift mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement, which has enabled doctors to serve patients nationwide via telehealth and the mail, as forced pregnancy advocates have intensified the fight for state laws cutting off access to abortion care since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Louisiana sued over the FDA's move, and early this month, the notoriously right-wing US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit halted the agency's rule easing restrictions. Drugmakers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro appealed, and Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the high court's right-wing supermajority, issued a one-week stay, which he then extended to Thursday evening.
With that deadline looming, the court ultimately blocked the 5th Circuit's ruling. Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, another right-winger, dissented.
"While it is good news that, for now, patients can continue to get this safe medication by mail and at pharmacies as they have for more than five years, we all know abortion opponents are continuing their unpopular and baseless attacks," Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement.
"And let's be clear about the Trump administration's role here: When nationwide access to a critical abortion and miscarriage medication was on the line, the Trump administration refused to defend the FDA's action and threw patients under the bus," Kaye noted. "The American people have made clear time and again that they oppose political efforts to interfere with their ability to make their own healthcare decisions—and the ACLU will keep fighting with them every step of the way."
Advocates stressed that the fight is far from over. Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong: Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, said that her organization "is relieved that the Supreme Court granted the emergency appeal to keep mifepristone accessible through telehealth and mail nationwide."
"This decision ensures that people, especially Black, brown, queer, trans, immigrant, poor, and people living in rural communities who already face barriers to healthcare, can continue accessing essential reproductive care," she noted. "While today's decision prevents immediate harm, people's lives shouldn't hang in the balance between back-and-forth litigation."
"Attacks on mifepristone have never been about safety or medicine," Simpson added. "They are about power and control—about who gets to make decisions about their body, their family, and their future."
All* Above All president Nourbese Flint also welcomed the decision while arguing that "the fact that patients and providers were forced to endure the confusion and disruption of care because of yet another court ruling on whether basic healthcare would remain available is unacceptable."
"This legal whiplash is exhausting, dangerous, and completely disconnected from science," Flint continued. "We know that mifepristone is safe and effective, and has been for over 25 years. People should not have to navigate a week-to-week roller coaster just to find out if they can still access basic healthcare and medication they need."
Serra Sippel, executive director of the Brigid Alliance, which helps people forced to travel for abortion care, similarly said that "we are relieved that access to mifepristone remains protected for now, but this should never have been on the table in the first place. Patients and providers should not be forced to wait on court rulings to know whether people can access critical healthcare."
"The back-and-forth of this case does have a cost. Confusion and uncertainty can delay care, and every day makes a difference. When people are pushed later into pregnancy, care becomes harder to access, more expensive, and many more miles further from home," Sippel explained. "We're seeing this firsthand. Last year, the Brigid Alliance helped 1,879 people travel for abortion care—a 35% increase from the year before—and those numbers will continue to rise as state abortion restrictions force more people to cross state lines for care."