Green Profiteers

Pages: 1 2

This article originally appeared in the Daily Caller. 

While the economy limps along, one industry is thriving: Environmental lawsuits against the federal government are moving ahead at a steady pace — and taxpayers are picking up the tab for the expensive litigation.

Fox News reported last week that left-wing environmental groups are using a little-known 1980 law called the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) to sue the federal government on a wide range of fronts and then collect millions of dollars in legal fees from the very federal agencies they are suing. Not only that but, according to a recent study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the government is not even tracking in any organized fashion how much it’s paying out to these groups. For example, only 10 of 75 agencies with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior could provide the GAO with data on attorney fee reimbursements. The government agencies that do keep track of their attorney fee reimbursements signed some $44.4 million worth of checks between 2001 and 2010.

Still, we have some clues about the amounts at stake. In an August 2011 study, the GAO reported that between 2003 and 2010, the Treasury Department paid $14.2 million in attorneys’ fees just to those plaintiffs suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That means that the total for all federal agencies is in the tens of millions of dollars every year. EAJA thus serves as a hugely expensive vehicle of collusion between the government and environmental groups to advance the environmental movement’s political agenda on the taxpayer’s dime.

Ironically, the legislation that is now being exploited by powerful environmental groups seeking government payouts was initially intended to help small businesses fend off the burden of big government. In 1980, facing a chorus of complaints from the business community that government regulations were squeezing their profits, as well as an opponent in Ronald Reagan who promised to dramatically cut the government’s role in the economy, Jimmy Carter launched a panicked effort to reduce the regulatory imposition on small firms. Parallel to that effort, Congress passed several pieces of legislation designed to make it easier for small businesses to challenge the government. One was the EAJA, which ordered federal agencies to pay the legal costs of firms that successfully challenged their rulings.

The act’s original purpose was sound and indeed admirable. Small businesses and private citizens that might be deterred from bringing suit by the prospect of facing off against a phalanx of government lawyers would now have a legal incentive to forge ahead with their challenges. But the EAJA’s provisions were also extended to cover 501(c)(3) nonprofits, including environmental groups. Before long, some of the country’s most powerful environmental law firms were availing themselves of the EAJA to force the government to bend to their political agenda and pay their legal fees — sometimes as much as $750 an hour — in the process. The result was a gross perversion of the political process, paid for by the unknowing American public.

Consider one group that has sued the government under the aegis of the EAJA, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). With $88 million in annual revenue and $181 million in net assets, the NRDC can hardly be seen as a stand-in for the little guy. In fact, the group is so politically powerful that it styles itself as the “shadow EPA.” But that hasn’t stopped the NRDC from collecting government reimbursement for its litigious activities. In 2008, for instance, the NRDC filed suit to get the U.S. Navy to suspend use of mid-frequency active sonar during its training exercises, which the group claimed had a possible, if unproven, deafening effect on whales. The suit reached as high as the Supreme Court, which rejected the NRDC’s arguments in the case of Winter vs. NRDC, ruling that the evidence of environmental damage was dubious at best and that the nation’s security outweighs the need to protect whales from high-powered sonar.

That wasn’t the end of the matter, however. Notwithstanding that it is not at all the kind of small plaintiff that the act was originally intended to protect, the NRDC appealed to a district court under the EAJA for fees and costs for the work done by its outside attorneys. Claiming that its lawyers had specialized knowledge and had worked under time pressure to file their suit, the group also demanded a higher rate of compensation than the standard hourly fees provided by the EAJA. In other words, the NRDC contended that the government was not paying its lawyers enough to file suit against it. The NRDC was eventually awarded most of the reimbursement it sought.

Pages: 1 2

  • davarino

    Thanks Jacob. Its funny how stuff like this registers with me but a lot of people I know just shrug it off as not a big deal cause their to busy to give a sh!t. We have to stop this and all the other games that are being played in Washington

  • John C. Davidson

    Dems like to keep our eyes off this activety by the litigators, but just by watching TV, we should note all the legal ads promoting lawsuits. It is nothing more than an extortion racket that adds costs to those paying taxes and buying products.

    • Rifleman

      Loser pays would do the most to end the racket.

  • mrbean

    In Western Europe, in the preindustrial Middle Ages, man’s life expectancy was 30 years. In the nineteenth century, Europe’s population grew by 300 percent—which is the best proof of the fact that for the first time in human history, industry gave the great masses of people a chance to survive. If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily in the industrialized countries. Modern societies have life expectancies from the upper 60s to low 80's where in all counties in primitive Africa it is from the low 30's to barely 40 on average.

  • Rifleman

    They can't be profiteers, solyndra didn't turn one and went out of business. They’re just green con artists.

    Profiteering isn't immoral or otherwise wrong. It insures resources quickly get to where they are most needed. If a profit can be made doing something, it will get done. The higher the profit, the quicker it will happen.

    • mlcblog

      good point

  • Bamaguje

    It's more like the Green shakedown.

    • http://www.shehulegal.com attorney

      Right.

      • http://www.furnq.com bedroom

        Yeah

  • http://ballandbuck.com/ bonjones

    We have to think this economically. Economical crisis is raising gradually.Bioreclamation

  • http://www.operis.ca/ philipmorish

    I’ve been following your blog for a while now, and I must admit that you’re putting great effort into your posts. These posts are tremendous sources of information. Your blog is a great resource, keep up the good work!

    job search in canada