Jan 23, 2018 Roll Call by Todd
Ruger
(This is an update of an article
published in HD last year about the potential of the Supreme Court taking up
the case. Well here is answer. Yes. Will the frog win?)
The dusky gopher frog has emerged
as a touchstone for environmentalists and business groups feuding over property
rights and government power. (Courtesy The Wildlife Society)
The Supreme Court jumped into a
case about the government’s power to designate private land as critical
habitat for an endangered frog species, but is staying out of another case
seeking to protect the bearded seal from future threats of climate change.
The justices announced Monday
they will hear oral arguments about the dusky gopher frog and a 1,500-acre
tract of Louisiana forestry land that could lose $34 million in development
value because of the Fish and Wildlife Service designation under the 1973 endangered
species law. The arguments will likely be scheduled for the next Supreme Court
term that starts in October.
The challenge comes from
Weyerhaeuser Co., which owns the Louisiana timberland
and argues the law allows the critical habitat designation only if
the areas are “essential for the conservation of the species.” The company says
this land doesn’t fit that description.
The dusky gopher frog used to be
found in Louisiana and Alabama, according to Fish and Wildlife, but is now
found only in some parts of Mississippi. The government argues in its filing that
the Louisiana land contains rare ephemeral ponds associated with the frog’s
breeding habitat.
The case, touching on property
rights and government power, is closely watched by environmentalists, business
groups and 18 states, which filed a brief to urge the court to hear the case
and rein in overly broad critical habitat determinations that cost jobs and tax
revenue.
House Republicans last year moved to
overhaul parts of the Endangered Species Act, a statute that lawmakers from
both parties agree needs updating.
Separately, the Supreme Court
announced Monday it won’t hear Alaska’s challenge to the Commerce secretary’s
2012 decision to add the Beringia population of the Pacific bearded seal to the
list of threatened species because of global warming and “projected changes in
sea ice habitat.”
And the justices ruled
unanimously that challenges to EPA decisions on “waters of the United States,”
often called WOTUS, must be filed in federal district courts. The decision
means a slower path through the court system for land owners.
The frog case is Weyerhaeuser
Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Docket No. 17-71.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You only need to enter your comment once! Comments will appear once they have been moderated. This is so as to stop the would-be comedian who has been spamming the comments here with inane and often offensive remarks. You know who you are!