Sunday, April 27, 2014

Oklahoma Attorney General sues EPA!

Well the full paper is 40 odd pages long but it appears Oklahoma is tired of the Federal governments heavy hand of land management. Especially when it effects the states economy.
BPB
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(1) THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
and

(2) DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCERS
ALLIANCE,

Plaintiffs,
v.

(1) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

(2) SALLY JEWELL, in her official capacity as


Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior,

(3) FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, a part of the


Department of the Interior,

(4) DANIEL M. ASHE, in his official capacity as
Director of the Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior,

(5) GARY FRAZER, in his official capacity as


Assistant Director for Endangered Species at the

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior, and

(6) DIXIE PORTER, in her official capacity as the


Field Supervisor, Oklahoma Ecological Services

Field Office, Fish & Wildlife Service, Tulsa, OK,
Defendants.

No. 14-CV-123-TCK-PJC

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
 
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
 
1. Plaintiff the State of Oklahoma (the “State”), and Plaintiff the Domestic Energy
Producers Alliance (“DEPA”) bring this action against the Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”)
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”),
the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs have
also submitted a Notice of Intent to Sue, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g), to FWS for violations
of the ESA. In the instant suit, Plaintiffs seek relief from FWS’s violations under the APA for
FWS’s actions that are contrary to the ESA and the APA, and for FWS’s violation of the
Constitution.
2. This action seeks to address an agency’s efforts to alter its legal obligations in the
absence of Congressional action or a public rulemaking. By entering into private settlements
with special interest litigants, FWS has attempted to circumvent the legislative and regulatory
process and make fundamental changes to its ESA-imposed obligations. Having been deprived
of an opportunity to participate in shaping the substantive policy choices embedded in FWS’s
settlements, the State and DEPA members suffer injury from FWS’s implementation of the
settlements’ provisions in Oklahoma.
3. Under the ESA, if a species “may” be warranted for listing as endangered or
threatened, FWS has the duty to consider classifying such a species as (i) not warranted, (ii)
warranted, or (iii) warranted but “precluded” by FWS’s obligation of its limited resources to
higher priorities. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B). A species receiving the “warranted but
 
precluded” classification is designated as a “candidate species.”

Post a Comment