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.”