May, 25 2016, 04:00pm EDT
![Earthjustice](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012672/origin.jpg)
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Chris Eaton, Earthjustice associate attorney, 303-996-9616
Robin Silver, Center for Biological Diversity Co-Founder & Board Member, (602) 799-3275
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, Grand Canyon (Arizona) Chapter director, (602) 999-5790
Karen Fogas, Tucson Audubon Society Executive Director, (605) 728-5589
Lawsuit Filed to Protect Wildlife and San Pedro River from Sprawling Development
Conservation groups cite violations of Endangered Species Act
WASHINGTON
A lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was filed today in federal court in Arizona to protect the San Pedro River, and the wildlife and millions of migratory birds that depend on it.
The suit, filed by six conservation groups, challenges an Army Corps permit, approving destruction of desert washes for development of the Villages at Vigneto, a 12,324-acre residential and commercial community planned in the desert landscape near the town of Benson along the San Pedro River in southeastern Arizona.
The washes, protected by the Clean Water Act, safeguard flows to the San Pedro. The San Pedro River is the last major free-flowing river in the Southwest and provides vital habitat to nearly 45 percent of the 900 species of migratory birds in North America.
The massive development--which will include 28,000 homes, golf courses, vineyards, resorts, and commercial buildings--will hugely increase Benson's population from 5,000 to as many as 75,000. Doing so is forecast to increase groundwater pumping from approximately 800 acre-feet to as high as 13,000 acre-feet per year, sucking water from aquifers that maintain the San Pedro's streamflows. It also would increase stormwater runoff, flooding, and destructive sediment accumulation in the river.
"The Villages at Vigneto will be stealing federally reserved water from the adjacent San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, degrading habitat for hundreds of migratory bird species. It will be contributing to more unmitigated sprawl in a watershed with some of the most impressive species diversity in the United States," said Robin Silver, co-founder and board member of the Center for Biological Diversity.
The lawsuit alleges that the Corps failed to consider the impacts of Vigneto's development and groundwater pumping on endangered wildlife that rely on the San Pedro to survive.
The Corps' permit approval has sparked controversy within the federal government. EPA initially opposed the Corps granting the permit to bulldoze desert washes because doing so would damage important aquatic resources. Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote the Corps warning of project's impacts to imperiled wildlife, a warning the Corps ignored.
The San Pedro River watershed is one of the most biodiverse areas in the arid Southwest. This watershed sustains intact stands of cottonwood/willow riparian forest and is home to more than 80 species of mammals and 40 species of reptiles and amphibians.
Recognizing the river's importance, Congress designated 36 miles of the river as the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area in 1988.
Among the San Pedro River species threatened by the development are the western yellow-billed cuckoo, northern Mexican gartersnake, and southwestern willow flycatcher.
"Development and other diversions have dried up and destroyed other important Arizona rivers and the habitat they provided. We cannot and must not allow that to happen to the San Pedro," said Sandy Bahr, director for Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter. "The San Pedro River provides important habit for a diversity of plants and animals, a flyway for migratory birds, and recreational opportunities--birding, wildlife viewing, hiking--for people from around the world. The proposed Vigneto development is a real and significant threat to the river, and the plants, animals, and activities the river supports."
Numerous conservation easements--including mitigation land for the proposed development--are located downstream and would be affected by the depletion of stream flows. Many of the easements were specifically established to offset impacts to endangered and threatened species from other developments in Arizona.
"The lower San Pedro watershed supports the last intact desert river ecosystem in the Southwest," said Peter Else, chair of the Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance, a landowner-based conservation association. "Our members are aware of the rapid loss of water resources and habitat that has taken place in every river valley of Arizona's growth corridor. Preserving this critical resource as required under the Endangered Species Act will protect wildlife habitat and migration corridors, sustainable rural lifestyles and valuable recreation opportunities."
"What is most alarming about this proposal for those along the Lower San Pedro River is that a new upstream city of 70,000 people will be pulling water from the ground in an unsustainable way. Most of that water will never be replaced. This is not merely a Benson issue. It potentially affects everyone living along the river and what they value," said Mick Meader, co-president of the Cascabel Conservation Association.
The San Pedro watershed also provides habitat for endangered and threatened species, such as the jaguar, ocelot, and lesser long-nosed bat, which could be adversely affected by construction of a massive development.
"The San Pedro River Valley supports two Globally Important Bird Areas. The valley is a critical migratory corridor for millions of birds, including the threatened western yellow-billed cuckoo. Despite prodding by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and numerous conservation organizations, the Army Corps has failed in its duty to formally consult on the potential impacts the Villages at Vigneto mega-development could have on numerous threatened and endangered species. Apparently litigation is required for the Corps to meet its obligation to fully gauge and minimize the impacts of this development," said Karen Fogas, executive director of the Tucson Audubon Society.
The developer, El Dorado Benson, LLC, is relying on a Clean Water Act permit issued by the Corps of Engineers in 2006. Since then, the plans have been altered to make the development 50 percent larger, and new information has surfaced on the impacts to endangered and threatened species that inhabit the watershed. Under the Endangered Species Act, these new scientific data trigger mandatory consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service before any development can proceed.
"Allowing such a massive development to proceed without first considering whether it might harm these sensitive species and their habitats is completely irresponsible and places the entire middle San Pedro ecosystem at risk," said Chris Eaton, an attorney with Earthjustice representing the groups. "We are simply asking the court to require the Corps and FWS to address these risks before they allow El Dorado to start bulldozing habitat."
Earthjustice filed this lawsuit on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Maricopa Audubon Society, Tucson Audubon, Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance, and Cascabel Conservation Association to force the federal agencies to complete the required consultation before the development may proceed.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
JD Vance Doubles Down on Attack on 'Childless Cat Ladies'
Vance "meant no disrespect to cats, but he did mean to demean women and still holds the view in 2024 that they should be punished for not having children."
Jul 26, 2024
After days of condemnation from critics including actress Jennifer Aniston and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, U.S. Sen. JD Vance was given the opportunity on Thursday to clarify his remarks from 2021 in which he said the Democratic Party was run by "childless cat ladies."
Instead, the Ohio Republican and running mate of former President Donald Trump assured SiriusXM host Megyn Kelly on "The Megyn Kelly Show" that while he has "nothing against cats," he meant what he said in terms of "the substance" of his argument.
Vance made it clear, said Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), "that he meant no disrespect to cats, but he did mean to demean women and still holds the view in 2024 that they should be punished for not having children."
The comments in question were made by Vance to then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson when Vance was running for the Senate.
Calling out Buttigieg—who, the secretary disclosed this week, was struggling at the time to adopt a child with his husband—and Vice President Kamala Harris, a stepmother of two and the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee, Vance said people without biological children "don't really have a direct stake in" the future of the country and therefore shouldn't hold higher office.
In separate remarks that same year, Vance said parents should "have more power" at the voting booth and that "if you don't have as much of an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn't get nearly the same voice."
He also specifically categorized people who don't have children as "bad" in an interview in 2021, saying the government should "reward the things that we think are good" and "punish the things that we think are bad," with people taxed at a lower rate if they have children.
While a spokesperson for Vance told ABC News that the senator's taxation proposal was "basically no different" than the child tax credit supported by the Democratic Party, Democrats who have pushed for the credit have heralded its proven ability to slash child poverty rates and help families afford groceries, childcare, and other essentials, rather than viewing the tax savings as a way to reward people for procreating.
In his interview with Kelly on Thursday, Vance attempted to pivot away from his own comments, saying his point was to criticize "the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-child" and claiming without evidence that the Harris campaign had "come out against the child tax credit"—a signature policy of the Biden-Harris administration.
"I'm proud to stand for parents and I hope that parents out there recognize that I'm a guy who wants to fight for you," said Vance. "The Democrats, in the past five, 10 years, Megyn, they have become anti-family. It's built into their policy, it's built into the way they talk about parents and children. I don't think we should back down from it, I think we should be honest about the problem."
Vance and Kelly went on to lament the anxiety "hardcore environmentalists" and progressive lawmakers such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have expressed about the damage fossil fuel extraction is doing the planet, accusing them of pushing people to forgo having families—but said nothing about Republican policies that have made child-rearing less accessible.
In recent years, the entire Republican caucus in Congress was joined by conservative then-Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia in blocking the extension of the enhanced child tax credit, which had been credited with cutting the national child poverty rate in half. Republicans also allowed a pandemic-era universal school meal program to expire, while several Democratic-led states have passed state-level programs to ensure all children can have meals at school, regardless of their family's income.
Under Republican abortion bans, numerous stories have cropped up of pregnant people who have been forced to carry pregnancies to term despite finding out that their fetuses had fatal abnormalities and would die soon after birth—as have stories of children who were forced to give birth or had to cross state lines in order to get abortion care.
As with his position that nonparents should be "punished" for not having children, "who else does 'pro-child/family' Vance think should 'face consequences and reality' by way of curtailing choices, rights, and freedoms?" asked writer Alheli Picazo. "Women and girls who become pregnant through rape/incest."
University of North Carolina law professor Carissa Byrne Hessick said that one could test "empirically" Vance's claim that Democratic policies are anti-family.
"But I haven't heard the GOP talk much about things that would help my family and my kids," she said, "like reducing childcare and tuition costs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Unveil Sweeping Bill to Protect Worker Rights and Safety
"This bill will help level the playing field and, once again, restore the balance of power between workers and their employers," said Rep. Bobby Scott.
Jul 26, 2024
A group of Democratic U.S. House members on Friday unveiled legislation "aimed at bolstering protections for America's workers and ensuring accountability for employers who flout labor and employment laws."
The Labor Enforcement to Securely (LET'S) Protect Workers Act was introduced by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.)—the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce—and House Labor Caucus Co-Chairs Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), and Steven Horsford (D-Nev.).
The bill's sponsors said their legislation is based on the premise that "employment laws are a promise to our nation's workers" meant to "secure the most basic rights of work."
"That promise is broken," they contended. "Recent shocking revelations about massive increases in the number of children illegally overworked and trafficked into dangerous jobs—just over 85 years since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was enacted to eliminate that very problem—is the latest example of the ways that this promise to America's workers is broken."
Across the U.S., Republican state lawmakers have been advancing legislation to remove restrictions on child labor, despite several high-profile workplace deaths of minors. At the federal level, Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) last year introduced a bill that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to work in the logging industry.
The LET'S Protect Workers Act sponsors highlighted rampant wage theft and overtime violations, workplace injuries, and union-busting by employers who "know that even if a resource-starved Department of Labor catches a violation, the penalties are a mere slap on the wrist."
"People should be able to come home at the end of the day—alive, well, in one piece, and with all the wages they worked hard to earn," the lawmakers asserted. "Children should be in schools, not dangerous workplaces, and workers should be able to organize a union without interference or the threat of retaliation from their employers."
According to House Education and Workforce Committee Democrats, if passed, the LET'S Protect Workers Act would:
- Increase civil monetary penalties for violations of child labor, minimum wage and overtime, worker health and safety, and farmworker protection standards;
- Improve mine safety and reliable funding of black lung benefits through new and increased civil monetary penalties and the option to shut down scofflaw operators;
- Set new penalties for retaliation against workers who exercise their family and medical leave rights;
- Strengthen enforcement of mental health parity requirements for employer-sponsored health plans;
- Close a loophole that allows employers to escape penalties for failing to keep records of workplace injuries if [the Occupational Safety and Health Administration] does not detect the violation within six months; and
- Create new penalties for violations of the National Labor Relations Act, consistent with the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.
"Every American should be fairly compensated and be able to return home safely at the end of the day," Scott said in a statement Friday. "Unfortunately, shortcomings in our labor laws enable unethical employers to exploit workers, endanger children, and suppress the right to organize—with little accountability."
"That's why I'm proud to introduce the LET'S Protect Workers Act, which will hold bad actors accountable and strengthen penalties for labor law violations," he added. "This bill will help level the playing field and, once again, restore the balance of power between workers and their employers."
In a joint statement, Dingell, Horsford, Norcross, and Pocan said that "the lack of meaningful enforcement makes it all too easy for bad faith actors to get away with illegally violating workers' rights—from firing workers for organizing a union, to allowing children to work overnight shifts, or jeopardizing workers' safety by ignoring workplace regulations."
"We're proud to join Ranking Member Scott in introducing this bill to crack down on unscrupulous employers and to ensure that workers receive the protections they deserve," the lawmakers added.
Earlier this month, nearly 50 labor organizations led by the AFL-CIO and representing a wide range of U.S. workers urged congressional Democrats to resist Republican efforts to roll back rules enacted by the Biden administration to protect worker rights amid relentless attacks by abusive employers.
Specifically, the labor groups warned that Republicans are trying to use the Congressional Review Act—which was enacted to strengthen oversight of federal rulemaking—to overturn pro-worker rules enacted by the Department of Labor and other government bodies.
Meanwhile, Republicans including former President Donald Trump—the 2024 GOP nominee—have been trying to woo U.S. workers with proposals including a tax exemption for tipped employees panned as a "
hollow promise" by experts and by inviting Teamsters president Sean O'Brien to speak at the Republican National Convention last week.
In response to Republicans' dubious courting of U.S. labor, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas)—who is a co-sponsor of the LET'S Protect Workers Act—recently called for holding what would be a largely symbolic vote on the PRO Act. The bill was revived last year by Scott and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and, if passed, would expand labor protections including the right to organize and collectively bargain.
"If Republicans wanna talk like they're pro-worker, then let's have a vote on the PRO Act next week," Casar
said on social media last week. "Let's see which politicians are for unions and which ones are all talk. Dems are ready to vote, how about you guys?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amnesty Urges War Crimes Probe of Landmines in Russian-Occupied Ukraine
"In every region in Ukraine that was formerly occupied by Russia, we have seen evidence of civilians killed and injured by antipersonnel mines left behind by Russian forces," said one researcher.
Jul 26, 2024
Amnesty International on Friday demanded a "prompt, thorough, independent, and impartial investigation" into the use of antipersonnel landmines, "which litter territories in Ukraine formerly and currently occupied by Russian forces."
The Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor says that Ukraine is "severely contaminated" with antipersonnel landmines, which Russia's troops have used since 2014, but particularly since Russian President Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion in February 2022.
"Landmines have been documented in 11 of Ukraine's 27 regions: Chernihiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Kyiv, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Sumy, and Zaporizhzhia," according to the monitor's latest update, published in November. "Russian forces have used at least 13 types of antipersonnel mines in Ukraine since February 2022."
Ukraine is a state party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on Their Destruction of 1997 but lacks legislation to enforce its implementation. Human Rights Watch last summer gathered evidence of the Ukrainian military's use of the banned mines. Russia is not a party to the treaty.
Patrick Thompson, a Ukraine researcher at Amnesty, said Friday that "in every region in Ukraine that was formerly occupied by Russia, we have seen evidence of civilians killed and injured by antipersonnel mines left behind by Russian forces."
"They are a daily, deadly threat to civilians. Some have been deliberately placed in civilian homes where they maim and kill," Thompson highlighted. "There must be an effective investigation into all such incidents as possible war crimes."
The group shared just one survivor's story of encountering a mine:
In March 2022, Russian forces evicted Oleksandr* (not his real name) and his mother from their flat in Snihurivka, in the region of Mykolaiv. A Russian military unit took over the entire apartment block until it was forced to withdraw following fierce fighting around Snihurivka in November 2022.
After the Russian retreat, Oleksandr returned to the apartment block to assess how badly it had been damaged. Upon entering the basement, he stepped on a disguised PFM-1 antipersonnel mine that had been placed under wooden planks. The mine exploded, Oleksandr fell, and landed on other disguised mines that had apparently, had been deliberately placed to injure or kill anyone entering the building. He lost both his left leg and arm in the incident.
“The deminers working to clear Ukraine of this threat are carrying out painstaking, dangerous work every day," Thompson noted. "While the scale of the problem is undeniably huge, the biggest obstacle to clearing Ukraine of landmines is Russia's ongoing aggression."
Thompson called on the international community to "commit to sustained financial and technical assistance to help Ukraine get rid of a danger that continues to wreck lives and livelihoods," and to continue fighting for an end to the use of the weapons.
"Countries must uphold the ban on the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of antipersonnel mines worldwide," he said. "There must be an end to the use of such indiscriminate weapons."
The most recent report from the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine states that the war has killed at least 11,284 civilians there since 2022 and injured another 22,594—though the actual tallies are believed to be "considerably higher."
"The number of civilian casualties is likely particularly undercounted in cities such as Mariupol (Donetsk region), Lysychansk, Popasna, and Sievierodonetsk (Luhansk region), where there was protracted intensive fighting at the start of the armed attack in 2022," according to the report.
While most of the deaths and injuries in Ukraine are attributed to "explosive weapons with wide area effects," the U.N. report accounts for at least 373 deaths and 855 injuries from "mines and explosive remnants of war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular