GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE.
THE US SHOULD REVIEW THE CONEPT
OF FIRMS BRINGING SUIT AGAINST
NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS TO DETERMINE
A MORE RESTRICTIVE RATIONALE AND
PROCESS AS WELL AS THE
CONSTITIONALITY OF RISKING UNDE
GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY, AND PROPOSE
CHANGES TO ARTICLE 11 OF NAFTA TO
PRESERVE GOVERNMENTAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY AT ALL
LEVELS. IT SHOULD SHARE ITS FINDINGS
AND CONCERNS WITH THE PUBLIC AND
WITH INTERNATIONAL TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS.
Climate Coalition
Donna Ewing and Sue Minahan
during the board meeting at League convention in June. This coalition is the same group that
met in Portland, Oregon in December 2000, attended by Donna Ewing, co-chair, Global Climate
Change, as a representative of the League.
meeting as well as some additional concerned groups have formally joined the coalition. The
League of Women Voters of Washington was able to join thanks to the generous donation of the
initial membership fee by several League members. The coalition now has a formal name,
Northwest Climate Response, as well as a permanent project director. The coalition is still
under the fiscal sponsorship of the Northwest Energy Coalition with additional funds from the
Bullitt Foundation. One of the goals of the coalition is to obtain further fiscal support from
grants and membership fees.
Idaho and Montana. At the December meeting in Portland the attendees agreed that climate
change is:
•a key reason our region needs to respond to energy demands with a clean energy
strategy;
•a key reason why our region needs transportation and growth management strategies
which emphasize trip reduction, cleaner vehicles, efficient mass transit and efficient
goods transportation;
•a clear and present threat to the region's natural resources, including wild salmon, forest
ecosystems and our coastal environment
•a threat to public health; and
earth.
1)to persuade individuals and businesses as well as local, state and provincial governments and
others to take serious action to reduce ourregion's greenhouse gas emissions at least as
rapidly and to the degree called for in the Kyoto Protocol. Members of the coalition believe
that by doing this in a way that demonstrably does not damage our economy, we can most
effectively answer the critics of real action against climate change. We can also establish
our region as a national and international leader and model.
of our region's voice in national and international discussions of climate change. We will be
particularly determined to motivate our own region's members of Congress and Members of
Parliament to become leaders for solutions to climate change.
1)Conduct a region-wide education and outreach campaign on climate change.
coalition's members and others.
21-22 to discuss a strategic plan, coalition governance and operating guidelines and to nominate
and elect a steering committee. In addition, the presentation, discussion and adoption of a
platform for the coalition are planned. Donna Ewing and Sue Minahan, Portfolio co-chairs for
Global Climate Change will attend these meetings.
environmental, religious, energy, scientific, growth and transportation issues. A major goal of
the coalition is to broaden the membership to include more business, governmental and other
groups in order to represent all aspects of climate change and its impact on our world and our
society
By Ann Aagaard, Shorelines Chair
Washington Environmental Council and other
interveners with Department of Ecology in
defending the recently adopted Guidelines before
the Shoreline Hearings Board against the appeal
brought by Association of Washington Business, et
al.
entered a split decision putting on hold the
Shoreline Master Program guidelines (which
League and others worked for 5 years to get
adopted). Although the newspaper headlines
portray a pessimistic decision saying "Shoreline
Rule Tossed Out" – things are not as they might
appear and the following discussion should help
clarify what the State Board's decision actually
said, what it means for shorelines protection, and
what it means for future League participation in
appeals.
They made 9 decisions:five were in favor of the
interveners and four were against. The vast
majority of the substantive environmental
protections of the rule were upheld by the Board.
The aspects of the rule that were invalidated by the
Board were largely procedural – which requires that
the rule be rescinded for the time being while
Ecology (and interveners) decide to appeal and/or
re-file the rule.
understand (and one of the most import to defend)
is the inclusion of certain ESA compliance
standards in Path B of the rule.
decisions from the Shoreline Hearings Board, five
(#3, #4, #6, #8 and #9) were in our favor, and the
other four against. The votes are listed with the
majority opinion number first and the dissenting
number second. Tom Geiger of WEC and the
prepared the summary.
guidelines was beyond the Department of
Ecology's authority. (4-1)
The Board ruled that Ecology violated the
Administrative Procedures Act when they
decided after the close of the public comment
period to rely on ESA consultation. (4-1)
The Board upheld the Properly Functioning
Conditions policy (which we feel provides good
environmental protections). (3-2)
The Board upheld the Restoration policy. This
policy acknowledges the importance of
restoring degraded areas in addition to
preventing further destruction of places that
have already been damaged. (3-2)
The Board struck down the "Letter of
exemption". This letter from Ecology to local
governments who follow a more protective
aspect of the rule would have essentially assured
that they were in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act. (5-0)
The Board upheld the new gravel mining
regulations for mining near shorelines. (3-2)
The Board decided that Ecology violated several
requirements by not preparing a small business
economic impact statement and by not
submitting a cost-benefit analysis and
implementation plan for public comment. (4-1)
The Board found that the Shoreline Guidelines
should not be invalidated due to an alleged
unfounded mandate. (5-0)
The Board found that the Shoreline Guidelines
do not conflict with the state's Growth
Management Act. (5-0)
ruling has put on hold improved shoreline
protections, but we remain optimistic that the state
will move forward with these safeguards.
![[made with GoClick]](imgs/goclick.gif)
