May, 25 2016, 04:00pm EDT
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
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during
November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'One Step Closer': Arizona House Votes to Repeal 1864 Abortion Ban
"With a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever," one state campaigner said of a November ballot measure.
Apr 24, 2024
Three Republicans in the Arizona House of Representatives on Wednesday joined with Democrats to advance legislation that would repeal an 1864 ban on abortion—a development rights advocates welcomed while stressing that the fight is far from over.
The 32-28 vote on House Bill 2677—with GOP Reps. Tim Dunn (25), Matt Gress (4), and Justin Wilmeth (2) voting in favor—was the third attempt in as many weeks to pass repeal legislation since the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ban.
"The state Senate could vote on the repeal as early as next Wednesday, after the bill comes on the floor for a 'third reading,' as is required under chamber rules," according toNBC News. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs on Wednesday toldThe Washington Post that "I am hopeful the Senate does the right thing and sends it to my desk so I can sign it."
Applauding the House passage of H.B. 2677, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona president and CEO Angela Florez said that "today, Arizona is one step closer to repealing the state's Civil War-era total abortion ban. While the repeal still must pass the Senate, this is a major win for reproductive freedom."
"We must celebrate today's vote in support of abortion rights and harness our enthusiasm to spread the word and urge lawmakers in the Senate to support this necessary repeal bill," she continued. "Despite this step forward, Arizonans cannot stop fighting."
Florez noted that "even with the repeal of the Civil War-era ban, the state will still have a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that denies people access to critical care. And lawmakers continue to attack Arizonans' ability to access reproductive healthcare. Our right to control our bodies and lives is hanging on by a thread."
"Thankfully, voters will have the opportunity to take back control if the Arizona Abortion Access Act is on the ballot this November," she added. "Abortion bans are out-of-step with the will of Arizonans and will force pregnant people to leave their communities for essential healthcare. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona will continue fighting to ensure everyone has the right to make decisions about their health and futures."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient.
The coalition supporting the amendment, Arizona for Abortion Access, highlighted on social media that the House-approved bill "did not include the emergency clause required to stop the 1864 ban from taking effect on June 8," meaning H.B. 2677 wouldn't apply until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.
Coalition campaign manager Cheryl Bruce said that "with a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever. We remain committed to taking these decisions out of the hands of extremist politicians."
Arizona is one of multiple states where rights advocates are promoting abortion rights ballot measures this cycle. Reproductive freedom is also dominating political races at all levels, including the presidential contest. Democratic President Joe Biden is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump in November.
"Donald Trump is responsible for Arizona's abortion ban. Women in the state are still living under a ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and have been stripped of the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions," said Julie Chávez Rodriguez, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' reelection campaign manager.
While the presumptive GOP nominee has tried to distance himself from the Arizona Supreme Court's reinstatement of a 160-year-old abortion ban, he has also campaigned on his three appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court who helped reverse Roe v. Wade.
"Trump brags that he is 'proudly' the person responsible for these bans and if he retakes power, the chaos and cruelty he has created will only get worse in all 50 states," Chávez Rodriguez said. "President Biden and Vice President Harris are the only candidates who will stop him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular