Politics
How Environmental Lawyers Are Fleecing the Taxpayers and Why Nobody Notices
Around the State
Cooter turtles sunbathing on a log at Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park: Some 114 freshwater species in Florida are being reviewed to see if they deserve legal protection under Endangered Species Act | Credit: Denis Blofield - Shutterstock
Believe it or not, government officials don't know.
These environmental groups have collected millions of dollars from the federal agencies they regularly sue under a little-known federal law, and, according to a Government Accounting Office (GAO) study, the government isn't coming close to keeping track of the payouts.
The law is called the Equal Access to Justice Act, or EAJA. President Jimmy Carter signed it into law in 1980. The idea was to give the little guy some ammunition, help him stand up to federal agencies. It was meant for litigants of modest means to successfully show how government agencies wronged them -- and if they could, then they could get their legal fees back from the taxpayer.
But here's the glitch: The act also covers 501(c)(3) nonprofits, including environmental groups that aggressively sue the feds to enforce land-use laws, the Clean Water and Clean Air acts and laws protecting endangered species. These days, their lawyers get reimbursed at rates as high as $750 an hour.
Joan Rydell, who served as an aide in Florida U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez's office, told Sunshine State News that in 2007, Martinez's office was "inundated" with complaints from Floridians -- municipalities and ordinary citizens alike.
"They wanted Congress to do something about it," said Rydell, who still maintains her home in Jacksonville but works in Washington, D.C. "This was a very bad time, remember. The Florida economy was tanking at a rate of knots. And you had environmental lawyers piled up on top of one another in the Sunshine State, filling the courts with litigation.
"Small businesses and American taxpayers were left to foot the bill," she said.
U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., confirmed Rydell's sentiment and claims the lawyers haven't gone away. In an interview with FoxNews.com he said, "(EAJA) was intended for helping our nation's veterans, seniors and small business owners, but environmental groups have hijacked ... and abused it to fund their own agenda."
Environmental groups argue that litigation is not a moneymaker. What it is, though, is an important tool to help protect the public's interest in conservation, the war against pollution and just making the feds follow their own rules.
Certainly that is the focal point of the lawyer-rich environmental organization Center for Biological Diversity, which set up shop earlier in the week in St. Petersburg. Florida already has as many as two dozen such litigious organizations working within the state.
Tucson, Ariz.-based CBD employs a group of paid and pro bono attorneys to use litigation to effect change, and it claims a 93 percent success rate for its lawsuits. Filing lawsuits under the Endangered Species Act is a particular CBD specialty.
Asked if the Florida CBD office will be filing more litigation, CBD staff attorney Jaclyn Lopez said, "I think that is a safe conclusion."
Profit for lawyers, that's all it is, says Rydell. "You know yourself, all you have to do is say it's good for the environment, and your critics fall away. Especially in an election year. Who wants to be perceived as destroying paradise? That's how the lawyers get away with this."
According to FoxNews, the exact taxpayer cost of the Equal Access to Justice Act remains unclear. The GAO tracked 525 legal fee reimbursements that totaled $44.4 million from 2001 through 2010, but found that only 10 of 75 agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior could provide data on cases and attorney fee reimbursements.
So the $44.5 million figure is a gross underestimate. It's why nobody notices.
“... There was no way to readily determine who made claims, the total amount each department paid or awarded in attorney fees, who received the payments or statutes under which the cases were brought for the claims [for fiscal years 2000 through 2010],” the GAO report reads.
“You’re talking about millions and millions of dollars,” said Wyoming's Barrasso. “There is a pressing need for more accountability and transparency. Even the government doesn’t know how much it's paying out — it’s disturbing.”
Critics throughout the nation say the act needs to be reformed in order to serve its original purpose.
Barrasso and Rep. Cynthia Lummis, also a Wyoming Republican, jointly introduced the Government Litigation Savings Act. It's a bill meant to reform the Equal Access to Justice Act, and if passed, would cap reimbursements at $200 per hour.
The General Accounting Office has given the bill its blessing, saying that on examination, it looks as if it would limit repetitive lawsuits and require full accounting of payments authorized by the Equal Access law.
Remarked Rydell, "Obviously this reform bill has a long way to go. But, God bless it, the people and the small businesses of Florida in particular can't afford to keep sustaining lawsuit after environmental lawsuit."
Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at (850) 727-0859.
--
Comments (10)
I volunteer for Defenders of Wildlife by staffing an information booth at local events. Defenders is so generously funded that our displays are old and falling apart and we're cautioned about not handing out too many of the more expensive brochures.
What Florida really can't take any more of is frivolous SLAPP lawsuits that are destroying our freedom of speech.
When one acts illegally, expect more lawyers.
When one acts unconstitutionally, expect more lawyers.
When one acts arrogantly about the law, expect more lawyers.
When one tries to privatize all government, expect more lawyers.
When one demonizes water management districts, expect more lawyers.
When one removes needed environmental protections, expect more lawyers.
When one guts growth management, expect more lawyers.
When one ties the hands of local governments to act, expect more lawyers.
When one does all these things together, you get lawsuits by more lawyers.
And instead of 50% of men and 33% of women getting cancer in their lifetime, 99% of us could count on it.
All on the same amount of land and with the same amount of water- though more likely less of those due to people occupying more land and using more water, not to mention what impact climate change will have.
But let's keep our attention on more important matters, like our stock market returns- or gay marraige...
But in reality, worrying about our children's future would be worrying about whether we're taking actions today that are sustainable (i.e. being able to provide for ourselves today without compromising the ability of our childrens' future generations to meet their own needs).
However, such "sustainability" concepts have become a demonized word among the far right, who believe in non-existent conspiracy theories (e.g. "Agenda 21" political takeover of the U.S. by the UN) and the attacking of anything they don't take the time to understand, or that is attacked because it is different than their perceived past.
In that path lies true madness in an ever changing, challenging world.
Wait until we have gridlock on our roads and let the free market correct it by turning them all into toll roads or by appt. only? Or wait until we have to wait in food lines? Or wait until the day we wake up and find no water comes out of the tap and then wait some more for the free market to come to our rescue and charge us a premium price to drink and bathe in our neighbor's "processed" effluent?
Anyway, I do remain positive that when push comes to shove, we'll come around to sustainability. But too bad we'll come around to it in the most expensive way.
Try having growth actually pay for growth, rather than forcing everyone else to subsidize the infrastructure costs of for profit development.
It's always been puzzling to me why Tea Parties don't really understand that they're paying higher taxes than they need to be because they paying for new infrastructure needed only to support new private development (i.e. they're subsidizing those costs and they're often substantial).
Leave a Comment on This Story