A Remedy…OR a Trap? 1/3 of Arkansas private landowners face federal restrictions due to critical habitat designation

A REMEDY… OR A TRAP ?

IS the Association of Arkansas Counties’ (AAC) proposed resolution to “support the creation of critical habitat…” for muckets and mussels, etc. a remedy… or a trap that will lock Arkansas into an unwarranted and unnecessary federal process pertaining to the protection of endangered species?

Before our officials adopt a resolution of support for a questionably-arrived-at legal settlement (even if their support is for a limited version of that settlement), we believe they should absolutely ascertain whether that settlement has an actual basis of law or not.  Perhaps they should instead propose legislative measures that are in accordance with laws that require balanced approaches to environmentalism, thereby obtaining protection of people, property, custom, cultures, and economies as well as endangered species.

A Statement of Opinion by Secure Arkansas pertaining to AAC’s proposed resolution which addresses the “critical habitat of endangered species” settlement of CBD v. USFWS/USDOI (Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service/United States Department of Interior) is as follows:

In the opinion of Secure Arkansas, county resolutions against what we see as a contrived “sweetheart lawsuit” between USFWS/USDOI and CBD may be an exercise in futility that would only serve to distract or prevent counties from taking other effective action. (i.e. adoption of County Land Use and Management Plans, also known as Resource Plans, which obtain joint planning power, etc. for the counties with federal agencies pertaining to the balanced and lawful management of their local natural resources.)

We believe the proposed resolution by AAC is worded in a way that would further weaken the constitutional provision of Article 7 Section 28 because it would lump together counties as a unit of cooperation under the non-governmental umbrella of AAC – AND, in our estimation, the counties would then be cooperating mostly with outside stakeholders in a way that would insure the eventual (by 2018) success of this latest revealed environmental/bureaucratic scheme of federal land-grabbing.  Though on the surface, the proposed AAC resolution appears to oppose the wrongful ESA (Endangered Species Act) listings, in reality it would only serve to promote them in the long run.

Again, it is the opinion of Secure Arkansas that the proposed AAC resolution would be a forfeiture by the counties of their opportunity and responsibility to exercise distinct and individual authority of “exclusive original jurisdiction” in all matters pertaining to local concerns, including “endangered species critical habitat”.  (Loose knit cooperation among numerous counties exercising “exclusive original jurisdiction” could instead create powerful coalitions of constitutionally-empowered local county governments.)  So therefore, we recommend that the AAC resolution be scrapped BECAUSE, aside from the aforementioned reasons, a local legislative “resolve” is a meaningless token in the judicial arena anyway.

Instead of wasting county time passing a useless resolution, the only remedy Secure Arkansas can recommend against this and other forms of federal intrusion is for counties to make sure that the language of their county land use plans pertaining to ESA, etc. is up to date and strongly bolstered against this kind of federal or state bureaucratic intrusion through judicial abuse and overreach.  Counties must learn to exercise, execute, and enforce good law to protect themselves against bad law.  A County Land Use and Management Plan as allowed by and provided for in good state and federal laws, is the primary effective guardian of local control in all such related matters.

And whereas, the Secure Arkansas “Blueway resolution model” adopted by 17 counties in Arkansas and 17 counties in Missouri was extremely effective against the Blueway designation (which was a bureaucratic administrative action), however, this “critical habitat” hammer is coming at our counties via a “sweetheart lawsuit” (which is a judicial action), and against which resolutions would have little or no power.  Counties must protect themselves by properly adopting and using their County Land Use and Management Plans to protect themselves and their people against unwarranted judicial schemes of “sweetheart lawsuits”.

*(An example of a “sweetheart lawsuit” is when a radical environmentalist organization sues a government bureaucracy for a purpose that both parties desire to accomplish but that the bureaucracy is barred from so doing by law and/or science.  The tactic then is for the radical environmentalist organization to sue the bureaucratic agency for unwarranted stricter regulations or measures, BUT before they get to court, they agree to come to a “compromise” and settle out of court for an unwarranted regulation or other measure that is not quite as strict as the radical environmentalist initially sued for.  Therefore, both parties get what they wanted:  more and/or stricter regulation or measure – even though it is somewhat less than what the initial suit asked for.  Therefore, the agency gets the power to have a bigger stick with which to further appease the radical environmentalists, while the public is deluded into being glad that the original suit didn’t get fully accomplished when, in reality, there should never have been a “judicial settlement” at all for a matter for which there was no basis of law.)

Counties that are too apathetic or too ignorant to update or to adopt a county land use and management plan tailored to their specific needs will soon pay the price for their failure.  The People must rise up and insist that their county quorum courts focus on getting their Land Plans in order and/or adopted.  There is strength in numbers.  Secure Arkansas invites you to visit our website often to stay informed with instructions of how to be effectively involved.  COMING SOON:  Secure Arkansas plans to provide more information as to how counties may adopt and maintain their County Land Use and Management Plans, also known as Resource Plans, as the lawful barrier of protection against these unlawful attacks on our freedoms.  Meanwhile, Secure Arkansas recommends that our workers in all 75 counties effectively oppose the AAC resolution, which we believe is actually dangerous in the final outcome, and instead convince our county quorum courts to get their Land Use and Management Plans adopted and/or updated.

For more information, contact us at:  [email protected]

Other related links:

Federal Register Volume 78, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2013)

http://www.mitchellwilliamslaw.com/wp-content/files_mf/scan_attachment2338.pdf

Draft Environmental Assessment for Designation of Critical Habitat for Neosho mucked and Rabbitsfoot Mussels

Endangered Status for the Neosho Mucket, Threatened Status for the Rabbitsfoot 

Center for Biological Diversity comment in support of listing the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot. 

Lastly, here is a link to information about the Arkansas legislature engaging against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ critical habitat designation.  

Secure Arkansas would also like to send the message to our state and federal legislative delegations and to our governor, that we expect to see you take meaningful and effective action against these unlawful bureaucratic offenses, rather than just submitting your comments which, though they are well-worded comments, they are useless unless you exercise the power of the purse, etc. against these unlawful bureaucratic/judiciary procedures as you have been entrusted to do by the voters.

Securing the blessings of Liberty,

Secure Arkansas 
Arkansas.SecureTheRepublic.com 
[email protected]

P.S.  Arkansas General Assembly members:  please take note of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, Article 2, Section 12:  “Suspension of laws.  No power of suspending or setting aside the law or laws of the State, shall ever be exercised, except by the General Assembly.”