The WildLaw Letter

For Members and Friends July 1999

WildLaw's North Carolina office officially opened June 28. Offices are located at 20 Battery Park Avenue, Suite 405 in Asheville, 28801. Phone numbers are 828/232-1157 and 828/232-1162 (fax). E-mail address is not set yet.

In our Montgomery, Alabama office, Staff Attorney Teddi Carte-Turner has left due to her husband being transferred. Teddi did some great work for us on air and water pollution issues, and WildLaw appreciates her service. We hope to hire someone to replace her soon.

We must be doing lots of things right, because WildLaw has recently been attacked from several angles. One attack came from the U.S. Forest Service in the Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana. They canceled a motorcycle "enduro" race event three days before it was to happen in late June and blamed it on WildLaw; even though, we did not know about the event and had not commented on it. We had earlier questioned their process for approving such events without ever having done any environmental impacts analysis and told them we would eventually sue them if they did not comply with the law. Those comments were back in December and April. So, they waited until the last minute and canceled an event that we had not even opposed and blamed all on us. The result was scores of Internet e-mails and faxes sent to us by motorcycle riders threatening us in many ways, including death and bodily harm. However, we have opened a dialogue with a number of the people who sent us e-mails about the event and explained what happened, and many of these people see what really went on and agree with us that the logging of the National Forests is the main reason why all users are suffering.

The Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition had a "rally" on June 24 outside our Alabama office to protest our fight to get the Alabama Sturgeon protected under the Endangered Species Act. The Coalition is led by Alabama Power and every paper mill in the state (14), and they claimed they would have 400 people outside our offices to protest. The reality was 100, and all they did was eat catered Thai food, drink beer and scotch and socialize. Nothing ever happened. We had no problem snagging some of their t-shirts, food and beer for ourselves. The Coalition has been manufacturing total lies about what protecting the Sturgeon will do; they claim it will shut down the state, typical Chicken Little talk that we all hear. The difference here is that the Coalition appears to have poured in more than $1,000,000 into their anti-ESA, anti-Sturgeon campaign. Of course, they have virtually every politician in the state in their pockets. Anyway, at least as to "rallying" a "protest," the industry folks were comical and quite unsuccessful.

Tied into that "rally," Alabama Lt. Governor Steve Windom held a press conference and slandered WildLaw and our clients the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Ned Mudd. Lt. Gov. Windom stated about us that "these extremists figure that if they can get the sturgeon listed, they can stop suction dredging on the rivers, which is necessary to keep barges from running aground. If they can get rid of the dredging, they can get rid of the barges and the locks and dams which support commerce on our rivers. This is the extremists' hidden agenda.... The sturgeon is just a means to a bigger end." Not one word of his statement is true, and we have demanded a retraction and apology from him.

In early July, someone who currently remains anonymous filed a complaint with the Alabama State Bar over WildLaw's newsletter, claiming that we had violated ethical rules by saying harsh things about a judge. We did indeed say strong things about a judge who had grossly mishandled a major case, but stating the truth and opinions based on facts are not violations of the ethical code. Even attorneys keep their First Amendment rights to express themselves when they see judges doing things that hurt the public good. Even the ethical rules do not deify judges and make them beyond criticism; the rules only forbid false statements about judges. Still, someone (probably with big polluters) saw this as a chance to attack us. The Bar stated that they did not believe this was a violation, but the rules require them to investigate.

The Alabama Cattlemen's Association (ACA), an intervenor in our case to get stronger CAFO regulations in Alabama, launched a defamatory campaign against our client Wild Alabama. In newsletter articles and letters sent out to tens-of-thousands of people, the ACA claimed that Wild Alabama was "a well funded extremist environmental group" and that Wild Alabama had "one goal - to put you out of business." In fact, Wild Alabama's appeal of the CAFO regulations, even if completely successful, would have no impact on cattle ranchers who actually graze their cows on grass, which is virtually all of them in the state. The appeal could impact only industrial animal factories that concentrate animals into tight cages inside giant buildings. It is these animal factories, not Wild Alabama, that could put small ranchers out of business. Our appeal will help small ranchers and farmers by protecting their property from industrial operations and by giving them a level, free market.

In response to this intentional attack on Wild Alabama, WildLaw is demanding a full apology, circulated to everyone who received the defamatory remarks. If such an apology is not forthcoming soon, we intend to file a lawsuit against the ACA. Irresponsible industry groups need to learn that they cannot get away with lying about conservationists.

In what appears to be never ending efforts to prolong our appeal over ADEM's CAFO regulations, the lawyers for the intervenor FARM Coalition (which includes ALFA and the ACA) sought and received more delays in the case in order to argue that citizens cannot appeal ADEM regulations at all. Not content with being able to practically write the regulations themselves, the big agriculture factory businesses want to deny us the chance to challenge the fact that the regulations do not protect public health, the environment, private property rights and family farmers. The hearing had been scheduled for the week of August 9 but now cannot occur before December at the earliest. An interesting indication of why these delays may be occurring is that the ACA claims that the first month's legal bill for the intervention in our case was $16,000, and very little happened in that first month. The state's largest and apparently most expensive law firm, Balch & Bingham, is representing the FARM Coalition.

On June 22, WildLaw appealed the Bankhead National Forest's plans to salvage log along more than 32 miles of roads in the forest. Filed on behalf of Wild Alabama and Wild South, the appeal shows that the Forest Service refused to consider impacts to endangered species, known archeological and cultural sites and a roadless area when it made its decision.

Despite more than a year of recalcitrance on the part of the Forest Service, WildLaw successfully forced the agency to release more than 15,000 pages of documents on the sensitive species of the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests in North Carolina. Documenting the Forest Service's failure to comply with laws mandating inventories and monitoring of rare species in the Forests, the documents show a long pattern of mismanagement and intention ignorance on the part of the agency. These documents will be a basis for many challenges to the logging program in these forests in the next couple of years.

On behalf of Wild South, WildLaw has filed two appeals of massive timber sales in the National Forests in Mississippi. One sale we appealed was the Cricket's Jump Project, Compartments 208 and 218 on the De Soto. That proposal calls for 592 acres of logging, including 200 acres of clearcutting. Among the issues we raise are that the EA fails to contain site-specific information. Stand 8 of Compartment 218 has at least 29 gopher tortoise burrows on both sides of road 322A which is scheduled to be reconstructed and moved; we found those burrows and the Forest Service missed them. The Forest Service gives no assurance the threatened gopher tortoise will be protected. Clearcutting is not the optimal method to "create" a longleaf forest in these stands, because the longleaf are already there. Stand 25 is predominantly longleaf; Stand 11 is a longleaf/slash stand. The De Soto National Forest also did not provide baseline numbers on MIS and sensitive species as required by regulations and as recently interpreted in Sierra Club v. Martin, No. 98-8358 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 1999). The EA also contains a lack of alternatives.

In the Homochitto National Forest, WildLaw appealed the agency's second attempt at the First Thinning Sale, which we defeated in an appeal last year. That sale would thin 5,678 acres of pine. Despite covering that large an area, the EA involved has virtually no site-specific information whatsoever and does not even attempt to insure the viability of sensitive species as required by law.

One of Alabama's largest polluters, Alabama Power Company, has been revealed misleading the public in a recent ad campaign featuring Alabama "environmentalist" Doug Phillips. In the television and newspaper ads, Alabama Power claimed that it had reduced emissions of air pollutants by 37%. In fact, Alabama Power's emissions have been increasing since 1990; data shows Alabama Power's nitrogen oxide emissions increased 13 percent from 1990 to 1997, and their sulfur dioxide emissions rose 5 percent.

Alabama Power justified the claim of 37% reduction on the basis of computer "projections" of expected reduced emissions per unit of power produced for the next two years. But because units of power production are increasing, actual emissions are also increasing despite the claimed unit reduction.

Alabama Power has a long history of fighting vigorously against increased environmental protections. Their parent company Southern Company sued EPA over regulations designed to reduce the very air pollutants they falsely claimed in their ads to be reducing. Alabama Power fought against protections for Alabama's wildlife, like the Alabama Sturgeon and the Cahaba Shiner. They opposed protecting the Cahaba River as an outstanding natural resource water. They have fought in court against stronger water quality standards for all our rivers. They opposed protecting wilderness areas.

In essence, Alabama Power is the state's most powerful anti-environmental force. For anyone who claims to be an environmentalist to be part of a campaign for Alabama Power to bamboozle the public is outrageous. Doug Philips claims he did not know that the 37% reduction claim was incorrect, but even the simplest of basic inquiries would have shown it to be what it was.

On behalf of Ned Mudd, the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Wild Alabama, WildLaw sent two 60-day notice letters under the Clean Water Act telling the U.S. EPA and the Ala. Dept. of Environmental Management that we intend to sue them over the sewer facilities for the city of Hoover and for Jefferson County. Both systems are discharging sewage at levels that do not meet water quality standards into the Cahaba and are operating without permits under the Clean Water Act.

We at WildLaw wish to thank you for the generous donations from our many members. We want to give special recognition for grants from The Moriah Fund and the Environmental Support Center. Also, WildLaw has received a 1993 Jeep Cherokee as a donation from an individual donor who wishes to remain anonymous. That donation has already aided us in traveling to remote areas of the National Forests and National Parks to survey violations of law and proposed timber sales and land exchanges.

Thank you all.

We can use your help. With the rapid growth WildLaw has experienced in the last two years, we realized that it is time to get our bearings and plan strategically for the future. As part of that process, our Board and staff will be meeting with professional planner and environmental support person Sara O'Neal of Green Pursuits at the end of July to work on this planning.

You our members, clients, donors, friends and other interested folks can help, and we hope that you will take a few moments to let us know how WildLaw is doing, where you think we need improvement and what you think we should do in the future. If you could, please e-mail (WildLaw@aol.com) or mail your answers and thoughts on the following to us by July 23:

1. How successful has WildLaw been in the past two years?

2. What about WildLaw has made it successful? What about it has not?

3. In what areas does WildLaw excel?

4. In what areas is WildLaw lacking?

5. What areas of work of WildLaw are most important? National Forest protection? Endangered Species protection? Water quality? Air pollution reduction? Other?

6. What areas of environmental problems is WildLaw not addressing but should?

7. In 1998, WildLaw handled 180 cases with two full-time lawyers and one part-time attorney. Is that too many cases and spreading us too thin, or should we pick up the pace and do more? (Keep in mind we have just added two more in North Carolina, so our work will increase there regardless.)

8. Should WildLaw focus more on a few key areas of environmental work or expand to cover other areas that lack sufficient legal assistance in the South? If focus, on what areas? If expand, to what areas?

9. If WildLaw could hire additional attorneys and support staff to increase our case load abilities, what areas and issues should we get those people working in and why? What parts of the South could use WildLaw's help more? Would a WildLaw office in your area help your work and issues?

10. Our Executive Director Ray Vaughan will be completing the Univ. of Alabama Law School's LL.M. program in tax law in December. If WildLaw were to offer tax law advice and assistance to other non-profit organizations, would that be useful to you and your group?

11. Would it help you and your group if WildLaw could provide prospective individual donors estate planning advice on things like charitable lead trusts and charitable remainder trusts?

12. Do you think there is a need for environmental mediation services in the South, and if so, do you think WildLaw could provide such services? If there were a way to mediate between big polluters and insurance companies such that money for Superfund and other cleanups was spent on cleaning up rather than lawyers and lawsuits, should WildLaw attempt to fill that void and try to bring such parties together?

13. Since expensive lawsuits against small polluters are rarely effective, would it be a good idea for WildLaw to offer at-cost advice and assistance to small businesses that cannot afford a private law firm in order to help them solve their environmental problems and to prevent others in the future?

14. Since environmental laws affect everyone and every business yet so few people know anything about them, do you think WildLaw should begin an environmental law education campaign aimed at teaching children and adults the basics of these laws and what they can do about them? What kinds of educational services should we provide? Expanded Web site? An activist's guide? A children's guide? Materials for teachers and schools? Scholarships and essay contests for children? Small business outreach and assistance?

15. Any other thoughts, ideas or suggestions are welcome.

Many thanks!

www.wildlaw.org

300-B Water Street, Suite 214

Montgomery, Alabama 36104