Environmentalists and forest litigation

Recently, there has been much controversy about whether or not environmentalists are delaying forest management with litigation. Consider this comprehensive review:

The Breakthrough Institute partnered with the law firm Holland and Knight to conduct a systematic review of recent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) related appellate court cases in a report released in July. A NEPA review is required whenever agencies perform management activities, like removing dead trees, timber harvests, fuel management projects, or building roads.

The report tracked 387 lawsuits that reached appellate courts between 2013-2022, including 162 challenges to projects approved with time intensive and costly Environmental Impact Statements.

On average, 4.2 years elapsed between when an environmental review was published and a legal challenge at the appellate level was settled. Plaintiffs rarely succeed on the merits. Federal agencies enjoy a nearly 80% ultimate success rate at the appellate level, but plaintiffs’ goal is often to delay and obstruct.

A small number of anti-forestry groups dominate NEPA litigation. The report found that 10 organizations filed 67% of these cases, underscoring that NEPA litigation often originates from activism efforts advanced by a small number of NGOs. Collectively, this group of organizations won only 23% of their cases, while adding about 3.7 years on average to the process of implementing projects on cases they lost. Collectively, anti-forestry management organizations filed 76 appeals — four are based in the Pacific Northwest and were responsible for 45 of the 162 challenges.

Read the review for yourself at thebreakthrough.org.

Blair Moody, SAF Fellow, Presidential Field Forester / Medford

The choices on reproductive health care

The Supreme Court returned women’s reproductive health care decisions to the states. Republican state legislatures and courts have since restricted women’s rights to make their own reproductive decisions. As a result, Oregon’s state government will decide whether Oregonian women have the right to make their own decisions about their health care.

Currently we do! But, if Republicans control our House, Senate, and governorship, would that freedom continue?

We should know whether candidates for our Legislature support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive health care decisions, or would they curtail that right by passing restrictions on abortions.

Republican presidential nominee Trump stated, after a history of flip-flops, that he believes the states should decide on reproductive health care for women. Would Kim Wallan, if elected to a State House Republican majority, restrict abortion rights as her colleagues have done across the country, or would she maintain the current rules?

Trish Vigil / Medford