The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked the National Park Service from forcing an oyster farm out of Point Reyes National Seashore and scheduled a hearing on the dispute for May.
In a terse order filed Monday, the appellate court granted the request for an emergency injunction from the Drakes Bay Oyster Co., whose lease to operate in the national seashore's waters expired in November. The appellate court was asked to consider the motion after a lower court denied the same request.
"Appellants’ emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal is granted, because there are serious legal questions and the balance of hardships tips sharply in appellants’ favor," the order read.
On February 4, a U.S. District Court judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order that would have allowed the oyster farm to continue operations in Drakes Estero while its owner, Kevin Lunny, pursued a lawsuit against the federal government.
In seeking the TRO, the company's lawyers argued that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar broke the Administrative Procedures Act and violated the National Environmental Policy Act when he decided last November not to extend the lease for 10 years. In denying the lease extension, the Interior secretary cited the value of wilderness and congressional intent. On the very next day, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis declared the estero part of the Philip Burton Wilderness at the Seashore, effective December 4.
In her ruling, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers held that she had no jurisdiction to rule on whether the Interior secretary broke the APA, and even if she did, Mr. Lunny did not prove that Secretary Salazar acted arbitrary or capricious, or abused his discretion, in his decision.
Drakes Bay Oyster Co. also is facing a cease-and-desist order handed it by the California Coastal Commission last month. That order cited unpermitted operations in the seashore's waters by the oyster company, land alterations, debris from the farming operations, violations of previous cease-and-desist orders, and company boats operating in waters that were supposed to be closed to traffic due to harbor seal pupping.
Comments
The sequestration is hardly Congressional shenanigans. It's the latest manifestation of our government's inability to deal with it's excessive zeal for tax dollars. There is plenty of blame for the sequestration for both Congress and our President, who evidently proposed the strategy.
It would be a good thing for the nation if the NPS (and all the other agencies) were reduced in size as a result of government gaining control of itself, financially. Cuts are almost always made through attrition. Seasonal jobs aren't included because they are temporary. No one should expect a career from a temporary job. It's a stepping stone to something else
Of course, sequestration won't result in 3,000 parks employees losing their jobs. It's less than 5% remember.
The real threat of imminent job loss is for the Drakes Bay oystermen. There are actually two threats to their jobs. The NPS is one threat. The other is if they cannot make a profit farming oysters from the bay. They have no stream of tax dollars to support their activities. I bet they could get by on a 5% sequestration...
The bubble lives. Not long ago NPS got $700 Million in stimulous money. Those not in the stimulous/campaign contribution circle of life, where the majority of Americans work, didn't get a bump. If you don't have any consideration for those thirty why should you expect me to have any consideration for the 3,000 (if those are true numbers which is highly suspect). I may be one of those 3,000.
Drake's Bay Oyster should continue operating. I will then have consideration for the 3 or 3,000 whatever the true number may be.
That seems pretty capricious and arbitrary, Mike. It's widely acknowledged that the VA, for instance, is under-staffed and -resourced for the challenges it current faces with returning soldiers. I doubt reducing the VA is a good thing for the nation, but that may be a disagreement of simply having different values and beliefs about the role of gov't--a disagreement that probably doesn't admit to any right ot wrong answers. I don't believing reducing NPS is good for the nation, either.
The Federal government is simply too large. Current policies and practices are unsustainable. Things like Veterans Affairs, the NPS, NASA and likely most other aspects of government are going to have to change to different models that use fewer tax dollars simply because the free ice cream machine won't function forever. There are lots of ideas and entrepreneurs who are willing to take on this work. It's the intractable politicians and bureaucrats who impede progress. A number of state governments are setting the example. I suspect the requirement that they banance their budgets annually has something to do with it....
Ah, but there are right and wrong answers about the role of government - and they are defined by our Constitution. Unfortunately, the progressive want to ignore this document which has made us the greatest nation ever on this planet.
I too don't think that reducing funding for the parks is a good thing and I doubt that MikeG does either. But if taking actions that cuts parks are necessary to get the entire fiscal house in order (or at least to get the process started) then it is a sacrifice worth making. If we stay on our current course and our economy collapses, the parks will be the last thing on any funding list.
Take another look at my post. Everyone (or almost everyone) knows there can be disagreements about the role of gov't that nevertheless operate within the framework of the Constitution.
This is pretty much a right-wing caricature one would see on SNL.
I agree, Mike. But I would suggest that the gov't can be reckless, not just in spending, but in how it cuts as well.
But that is not the brunt of the current disagreement. There are those that believe the role is defined in the enumerated powers and then there are those that believe the role is far broader and will jump through every hoop, twist every word, redefine every meaning to get to their goal which is 180 degrees opposite of what our founders intended.
Hardly. Their trampling of the Constitution is apparent every day.