Our View - Tuesday

Playing with fire

Dalliance with greens may backfire on ranchers

Ranchers and environmentalists aren’t natural allies, given that the latter usually are plotting to run the former off the range, lest their livestock trample fragile riparian areas and overgraze “pristine” landscapes. But the antagonists may be teaming up in southeastern Colorado, according to a recent report in The Denver Post, in an alliance that could derail the proposed expansion of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site.

“For the first time, farmers and ranchers in southeastern Colorado have invited scientists . . . (from) the Colorado Natural Heritage Program to take an inventory of the rare plants, animals and fish there,” according to the story. “The invitation is not by coincidence. Landowners want others to know what could be lost ecologically if the Army executes its plan to expand the current 238,000-acre Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site by more than 400,000 acres in southern Colorado.”

Those conducting the surveys say the data will be helpful, should an expansion be considered and environmental impact studies be required. And a representative of CNHP, at Colorado State University, says the organization isn’t for or against expansion, but, as a group of naturalists and biologists, simply wants the land managed in a way that promotes biological diversity. But if ranchers didn’t think the research could be used as fodder and leverage in the expansion fight, they wouldn’t have invited biologists in.

None of the species being studied is on the endangered species list, the story indicates — not yet, at least. But the information being collected could help move plants and animals from Colorado’s “species of concern” list to a place on the federal endangered species list, inviting a wave of land use restrictions. Just file a petition and the regulatory wheels begin turning.

That could not only greatly inhibit the Army’s use of the land, as it has curtailed training activities at bases across the country, but it could derail expansion altogether, since the Army is less likely to go to the trouble of acquiring additional acreage if it’s encumbered by a critical habitat designation or other ESA-related regulations.

The story quoted Mary Barber, deputy director of environmental compliance and management at Fort Carson, saying that careful tabs are kept on protected species at Piñon Canyon and Fort Carson, so the Army “can continue our training mission without us impacting negatively wildlife and wildlife habitat.” Areas where rare species are found become off limits to training, she said.

It’s these land use restrictions, among other factors, that could be motivating Fort Carson and other military bases around the country to expand. Yet an expanded Piñon Canyon will be of considerably less use, and value, if this research succeeds in identifying a host of new plants or animals that warrant state or federal protection. Even if expansion one day moves forward — a slim chance at this point — use of the training site could be severely impaired as a result of this work.

It’s a shrewd move by expansion opponents, admittedly, but one that could backfire, on ranchers especially, since any endangered species listing that results could be used by green extremists not just to keep the military off the land, but to escalate their war against ranchers as well. By playing with fire, it’s the cowboys that might ultimately get burned.

Plaintive about plaintiffs

Washington, D.C., administrative law Judge Roy Pearson recently lost his $54 million case against a drycleaner for losing a pair of his pants. Fifty-four million dollars. Over a pair of pants. He lost the case, but why was such an absurd lawsuit even allowed to get that far? And it’s almost as shocking that a judge was involved.

The wrangling over Pearson’s pants is only the latest in a long line of silly lawsuits, as we all know. America’s “out-of-control legal system imposes a staggering economic cost of over $865 billion a year” on business and the economy, according to a study released in March by the Pacific Research Institute, a free-market think tank.

That figure includes all costs related to tort law, including administrative and legal fees as well as the cost of lost innovation for businesses. A “tort” is wrongful conduct or negligence by one person that results in injury to another.

One particularly striking consequence of our nation being sue-happy (remember the McDonald’s hot-coffee incident?) is that it’s hurting U.S. businesses’ ability to compete overseas because it unnecessarily raises costs. PRI found that the U.S. spends 2.2 percent of gross domestic product on direct tort costs, whereas other advanced countries spend an average 0.9 percent. That puts the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage.

Access to the courts is necessary for consumers and businesses as a system of checks and balances in the marketplace for serious misdeeds and product failures. However, lawsuits too often become the first response to even the smallest misfortune, and sympathetic juries too often order companies to pay large sums to individuals who see the court system as little more than an ATM.

What are the potential reforms? In the United Kingdom, as in many countries, losing plaintiffs are required to pay the court costs. This allows for serious allegations of business negligence and the like to surface, supported by strong evidence, while keeping citizens from taking advantage of the system to score a big payday. “If tort reforms that eliminate waste are enacted in the United States, the U.S. economy will approach its full productive potential,” PRI argues, adding that roughly $684 billion annually is lost to U.S. stockholders because of tort law abuse.