January, 10 2022, 05:10pm EDT
Lawsuit Challenges Point Reyes Ranching, Elk-Killing Plan
Three conservation groups today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the National Park Service's controversial management plan for expanding private agriculture at California's Point Reyes National Seashore, one of a handful of national parks that p
WASHINGTON
Three conservation groups today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the National Park Service's controversial management plan for expanding private agriculture at California's Point Reyes National Seashore, one of a handful of national parks that permits cattle grazing.
The Park Service plan paves the way for 20-year leases for beef and dairy ranchers in the park, enshrining and expanding commercial ranching on public lands at the expense of native wildlife and natural habitats. The plan would also allow harmful water pollution to continue, and permit the agency to kill native tule elk -- a unique subspecies found in no other national park -- that ranchers say interfere with cattle operations.
"This plan is a giveaway to the cattle industry," said Deborah Moskowitz, president of the Resource Renewal Institute. "It perpetuates decades of negligence by the very agency charged with protecting this national treasure. The Trump administration fast-tracked the plan without regard for the climate crisis or the hundred rare, threatened and endangered species that depend on this national park. One-third of the national seashore is fenced off from public use."
"The Park Service has long mismanaged Point Reyes by allowing ranchers to use and abuse the park for private profit," said Jeff Miller with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Now the agency wants to treat our beloved tule elk as expendable problem animals to be shot or removed. Point Reyes belongs to the public, not a handful of ranchers. It's time to manage the park the way Congress intended when it passed the Point Reyes Act -- for public benefit and protection of the natural environment."
"The Park Service needs to stop authorizing chronic water contamination, harassment and suppression of Tule elk, degradation of public recreation and destruction of native coastal prairies for the sake of a handful of unsustainable ranching operations," said Laura Cunningham, California director at Western Watersheds Project. "Having studied California's native grasslands for decades, I'm shocked at the destruction of native ecosystems and the epidemic of invasive weeds at the Point Reyes Seashore, and the agency's callous disregard of its mandate to protect and preserve the park's ecosystems and wildlife for the use and enjoyment of the people."
"The Park Service is unlawfully prioritizing the commercial needs of ranchers over the natural environment and the public's use and enjoyment of these majestic public lands," said Lizzy Potter, a staff attorney at Advocates for the West, which represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "The Park Service decided that ranching should continue in perpetuity without fully disclosing its plans or the environmental consequences."
The plan violates several federal environmental laws, including the Point Reyes Act, which established the Point Reyes National Seashore in 1962 for the purposes of "public recreation, benefit and inspiration;" the Organic Act, which requires the agency to leave natural resources "unimpaired" for the benefit of future generations; and the Clean Water Act by allowing ranches to circumvent water quality standards. The Park Service's inadequate environmental review for the plan violates the National Environmental Policy Act.
The plaintiffs -- the Resource Renewal Institute, Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project -- first sued the Park Service in 2016 for failing to update its antiquated General Management Plan and perpetuating commercial ranching in the park without adequate environmental review and public comment.
A settlement agreement required the Park Service to produce the first-ever Environmental Impact Statement for Point Reyes ranching. More than 90% of public comments opposed ranching and killing native tule elk. The Park Service adopted the plan in September 2021, ignoring tens of thousands of public comments and coalition letters from more than 100 environmental and social justice organizations representing millions of members calling on the agency to phase out ranching.
Background
For decades the National Park Service has leased about 28,000 acres of public lands within the Point Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for beef and dairy ranching, despite significant conflicts with natural resources, wildlife and public recreation. Ranching has led to overgrazing, soil erosion, degraded water quality, damaged vegetation and endangered species habitats, increased levels of invasive weeds and suppressed wildlife populations at these parks.
The plan expands the public lands zoned for ranching; quadruples the potential terms of existing grazing leases from five years to a maximum of 20 years; allows ranchers to pursue new commercial activities such as mobile slaughterhouses and row crop production; and provides for ranching to continue in perpetuity. The plan perpetuates overgrazing and does little to restore public lands and resources harmed by ongoing commercial cattle operations in the national park.
It also allows the Park Service to shoot native tule elk to appease ranchers and to harass elk away from leased ranch lands. It sets an arbitrary population cap of 140 elk for the Drakes Beach herd, currently estimated at 138 elk. The Park Service can also kill any free-roaming elk to prevent new herds from forming in the park.
Some 91.4% of public comments submitted on the plan opposed ranching on the Point Reyes National Seashore, while only 2.3 percent approved of allowing cattle ranching to continue.
The Park Service improperly rejected a "no ranching" alternative that would provide maximum protection for the environment -- as required under the Point Reyes Act -- along with reduced-ranching alternatives that would provide greater protection than the adopted plan.
The Park Service also refused to consider whether private ranching operations in the park damage Coast Miwok archeological sites. The Park Service discarded a proposal to protect those sites in 2015 and instead adopted a plan that protects "historic" ranches. The Coast Miwok Tribal Council, lineal descendants of the original inhabitants of Point Reyes, formally objected to the Point Reyes ranching and elk-killing plan.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. The attorneys for the plaintiffs are Lizzy Potter, Laird Lucas and Andrew Missel with the nonprofit, public-interest, environmental law firm Advocates for the West, and Michael Lozeau, of Lozeau Drury LLP.
Western Watersheds Project is an environmental conservation group working to protect and restore watersheds and wildlife through.
LATEST NEWS
CBO Provides 'Stark Preview of Healthcare Under Donald Trump'
Millions of Americans could lose coverage if the GOP allows the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits expire.
Dec 06, 2024
As Congress negotiates the extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits, a nonpartisan government analysis warned this week that letting the ACA subsidies expire next year would cause millions of Americans to lose health coverage in the years ahead.
The American Rescue Plan Act "reduced the maximum amount eligible enrollees must contribute toward premiums for health insurance purchased through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act, and it extended eligibility to people whose income is above 400% of the federal poverty level," wrote Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Phillip Swagel.
His Thursday letter came in response to an inquiry from U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) along with Reps. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) about "the effects on health insurance coverage and premiums that will result from not extending—either for one year or permanently—the expanded premium tax credit structure."
"Without an extension through 2026, CBO estimates, the number of people without insurance will rise by 2.2 million in that year," Swagel said. "Without a permanent extension, CBO estimates, the number of uninsured people will rise by 2.2 million in 2026, by 3.7 million in 2027, and by 3.8 million, on average, in each year over the 2026-2034 period."
"Without an extension through 2026, CBO estimates, gross benchmark premiums will increase by 4.3%, on average, for that year," the director continued. "Without a permanent extension, CBO estimates, gross benchmark premiums will increase by 4.3% in 2026, by 7.7% in 2027, and by 7.9%, on average, over the 2026-2034 period."
"If Congress fails to act, healthcare will become out of reach for millions of Americans, leaving middle-class families to struggle and choose between seeing a doctor or keeping a roof over their heads or groceries in the fridge."
The analysis comes as the world braces for GOP control of Congress and the White House, with President-elect Donald Trump set to be sworn in next month. Since President Barack Obama signed the ACA—also known as Obamacare—in 2010, elected Republicans including Trump have repeatedly tried to gut or fully repeal the law.
In response to the CBO report, Wyden said, "This is a stark preview of healthcare under Donald Trump: higher insurance premiums for families who buy health coverage on their own, and more uninsured Americans who can't afford health insurance at all."
"Republicans have an opportunity to end their ideological crusade against the Affordable Care Act and work in a bipartisan manner to make healthcare more affordable for working families, but instead they seem poised to hand another big tax break to corporations and the wealthy," warned Wyden, the outgoing Senate Finance Committee chair.
In September, Shaheen and Underwood introduced a bill to make the ACA's enhanced premium tax credits permanent. Shaheen said Thursday that the "new data from CBO confirms what we feared: if Congress fails to extend these tax credits, healthcare costs will skyrocket for millions of families and 3.8 million Americans will lose coverage entirely."
"At a time when Americans are already facing higher prices, we should do everything we can to lower costs when and where we can," she added. "It's time we pass my Health Care Affordability Act to permanently extend the tax credits so many families rely on."
Advocacy groups echoed demands for Congress to at least extend the subsidies following the CBO's findings.
"If Congress fails to act, healthcare will become out of reach for millions of Americans, leaving middle-class families to struggle and choose between seeing a doctor or keeping a roof over their heads or groceries in the fridge," said Protect Our Care executive director Brad Woodhouse in a statement.
"Instead of helping hardworking families, Republicans have opposed measures to lower healthcare costs and have instead focused on delivering tax breaks to big corporations and the wealthiest Americans," he continued. "Health coverage gives people peace of mind knowing they won't go bankrupt over an injury or illness. Democrats stand ready to extend the tax credits to ensure everyone has access to affordable healthcare. It's time for Republicans to get on board."
While the CBO found with the expiration of the credits, "on average, those with health insurance will see their unsubsidized gross monthly premiums increase by as much as 8% each year," Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, pointed out that "for people who now receive premium assistance, the increases will be far steeper."
"Taking into account the cuts in premium assistance, nonpartisan organizations, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, report that people will experience estimated premium increases ranging from 41% to 218%, with a median increase of 91%—a near doubling of their monthly costs," he explained.
"For nearly 20 million Americans, these enhanced tax credits have been the difference between getting access to the healthcare and coverage they need or going without it," Wright stressed. "At a time when so many families are struggling to pay for the basics, these tax credits have been a literal lifeline for millions of people to get healthcare they can afford."
"Voters just made it clear in the 2024 election that they want action to lower costs—and so it would be cruel to have the result be inaction that allows these tax credits to expire, and monthly healthcare costs to jump," he added. "For many millions of working Americans, premiums will double. For some, the spike will be not just hundreds but thousands of dollars of additional costs, leading many millions to lose coverage altogether. Congress must protect the health and financial security of our nation's families right now by extending these critical tax credits."
Citing several unnamed sources, The Washington Postreported Friday afternoon that Democrats on Capitol Hill privately proposed a deal to extend the ACA subsidies by a year, which "accompanied a broader package of healthcare proposals submitted to Republicans on Thursday night ahead of year-end spending negotiations."
"It is not yet clear whether Republican leaders, who control the House, will agree to any of the proposals," the Post noted. "Spokespeople for Republicans on the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance committees declined to comment."
Despite efforts to salvage the ACA subsidies due to the pain and economic suffering that would follow if they are not extended, progressives across the board continue to argue that Obamacare—which sends billions of federal dollars to the private insurance industry—is a far inferior solution compared with Medicare for All, which would cover everyone in the United States at a lower overall cost than the current system.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wealth of World's Richest Has Doubled Over Past Decade
The total wealth of billionaires increased by 121% from 2015-24.
Dec 06, 2024
Driven largely by the accumulation of massive wealth by the richest people in the United States, the Swiss wealth manager UBS said Thursday the assets of billionaires around the world more than doubled over the past decade.
Between 2015-24, the total wealth of billionaires increased by 121%, from $6.3 trillion to $14 trillion.
Meanwhile, the MSCI AC World Index of global equities, which measures the performance of more than 3,000 stocks from both developed and emerging markets, rose by 73%.
The planet's total gross domestic product is about $105.4 trillion, with a population of just over 8 billion, underscoring the extreme concentration of wealth among the very richest people.
The number of billionaires rose from 1,757 to 2,682 over the past decade, while the wealthiest people in the world boasted significant gains over just the past year.
Billionaires' wealth jumped by about 17% in 2024, with the accumulation of wealth among the richest people in the U.S. offsetting a decline in China.
U.S. billionaires amassed wealth gains that were 27.6% higher than the previous year, accumulating a total of $5.8 trillion—more than 40% of international billionaire wealth.
The tax cuts pushed through by President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican Party in 2017 are still in effect in the U.S. Tax policy analysts have found that the law was skewed to the rich, with households in the top 1% of incomes expecting to receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025 compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for people in the bottom 60%.
As Common Dreams reported this week, the top 12 U.S. billionaires now control $2 trillion. The wealth of the four richest people in the U.S.—Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg—has hit $1 trillion.
"These four men were worth $74 billion 12 short years ago," said Americans for Tax Fairness. "Tax billionaires."
At the G20 Summit last month, world leaders agreed to "engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alarm Raised Over Wall Street Titan at SSA
"Nothing in Mr. Bisignano's career suggests that he understands the unique needs of older and disabled Americans," said the Alliance for Retired Americans' leader.
Dec 06, 2024
Critics of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's pick to run the Social Security Administration, Frank Bisignano, warned this week that the Wall Street veteran may not be the best choice to run an agency that provides one of America's most important social safety nets.
"President-elect Trump has nominated financial software CEO and GOP donor Frank Bisignano to head the agency that administers Social Security benefits for some 70 million Americans. If confirmed, Bisignano will be accountable—not to corporate boards or stockholders—but to the American people, who depend on their Social Security benefits and pay for them over a lifetime of work," said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, in a Thursday statement.
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said in a statement that "nothing in Mr. Bisignano's career suggests that he understands the unique needs of older and disabled Americans."
"We are also concerned that his decades on Wall Street will leave SSA with a cheerleader for risky schemes like allowing investment firms and crypto corporations to gamble with the trust funds and benefits that Americans paid for and earned through a lifetime of work," Fiesta added.
Bisignano was previously an executive at Shearson Lehman Brothers and also held positions at JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. During his tenure at the firm First Data Corp., he was listed as the second-highest paid CEO in the U.S. in 2017, per The New York Times. Bisignano is currently the president and CEO of Fiserv (which merged with First Data Corp. in 2019), a payments and financial technology firm.
"Frank is a business leader, with a tremendous track record of transforming large corporations. He will be responsible to deliver on the Agency's commitment to the American People for generations to come!" Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier this week.
If confirmed, Bisignano would oversee an agency with more than 1,200 field offices and almost 60,000 employees, according to the Times, and his nomination comes at a time when money in Social Security's trust funds, a reserve that is used to make sure recipients get their full payment, could be entirely depleted by 2035.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers on Thursday signaled a willingness to target Social Security and other mandatory programs after meeting with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the duo that President-elect Donald Trump has tapped to lead a new commission tasked with slashing federal spending and regulations.
In reaction to Bisignano's nomination, Wisconsin state Sen. Chris Larson (D-7) quipped on X: "Why leave a $28 million/yr gig to work in government? My prediction: to cut Social Security."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular