|
|
| |
| Thu, Nov. 20, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
High court rules against conservationists in water project case Friday, Apr 7, 2006 By Rob Moritz Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - The state Supreme Court on Thursday affirmed a circuit judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the $319 million Grand Prairie irrigation project. Last year, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Willard Proctor dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Arkansas Wildlife Federation and the National Wildlife Federation. The lawsuit challenged the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission's jurisdiction over the project, which the groups argued could harm the region's fish and wildlife. Proctor ruled that the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission worked with Soil and Water Conservation Commission on the project and asked that the soil and water board take the lead. If the commission had thought the project would affect wildlife resources, it would have taken a larger role, Proctor said. He concluded that the Soil and Water Conservation Commission did not exceed is authority. The commission would only be in charge of helping find money for the project and "will not do anything that controls wildlife," he said. The project calls for the construction of an intricate system of canals and piping to bring as much as 115 billion gallons of water a day from the White River to about 1,000 Grand Prairie farmers. Work has already begun on building a pumping station on the White River near DeValls Bluff. Supporters argue the project is needed to curtail use of an aquifer to irrigate farmland. Without the relief, the shallow Alluvial Aquifer could begin going dry in 10 years, supporters say. Opponents charge that the project will damage the ecology of the White River basin, including the habitat of the newly discovered ivory-billed woodpecker, by pulling water from the White River watershed to benefit a small group of farmers. In their appeal of Proctor's ruling, the conservation groups argued the judge erred because management of wildlife is the Game and Fish Commission's job under the Arkansas Constitution. In a unanimous decision Thursday, the state Supreme Court said nothing in the state constitution gives the Game and Fish Commission exclusive control over wildlife in Arkansas. "We agree ... that while (the state Game and Fish Commission) is vested with the direct control, management, restoration, conservation and regulation of wildlife, the (commission) does not have the exclusive authority asserted by Arkansas (Wildlife Federation)," Justice Robert Brown wrote. If the Game and Fish Commission did have unfettered authority over all wildlife in the state, then it, rather than the Arkansas Forestry Commission, would have authority over forests in the state, Brown wrote. In February, the state and national wildlife federations asked a federal judge to stop the irrigation project to protect the newly discovered woodpecker's habitat. No ruling has been made. The environmentalists argued that the project would irreversibly damage the habitat of the bird that was thought extent until it was sighted two years ago. |
