Reason #5945 That Trump Was Elected

Feds to begin distributing grant money to non-sanctuary cities

The Justice Department said Wednesday it has begun distributing hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money that had been tied up in a major court battle over sanctuary cities.
Byrne Justice Assistance Grants are used by localities and police departments across the nation to pay for equipment, training, personnel or other pressing needs.

The Trump administration last year said it would condition the money on localities’ willingness to cooperate in holding illegal immigrants for pickup by federal deportation officers. Chicago sued, saying the conditions weren’t part of federal law.

A federal district judge had ruled for Chicago, but issued a nationwide injunction saying the conditions couldn’t be applied to any Byrne grants.

The Justice Department put nearly $200 million in 2017 money on hold as the case proceeded.

But on Tuesday an appeals court narrowed the ruling, saying that while the district court could decide the fate of Chicago’s practices, it couldn’t tie the hands of the entire country.

While I approve of denying grants to cities who defy the federal government, in this case in regard to immigration policy, which the Federal government clearly has jurisdiction over, the whole question begs the question of equal treatment of rural and city people. Are there per capita, as much grant money available for rural law enforcement? I doubt it.

Linked at Pirate's Cove in the weekly "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup" and links.

Outgoing Obama Admin Flips the Bird to the West

BLM Pushes Sage Grouse Protection By Restricting Mining on 10 Million Acres in 6 States

 As the Obama Administration comes to a close, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is pushing ahead with its plan to restrict more federal land from future mining operations by putting 10 million acres in six states off limits.

“As part of its continuing efforts to conserve habitat vital to healthy populations of the Greater Sage-Grouse in the West, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) today announced the draft proposal to withdraw a subset of lands that are sage-grouse strongholds from future mining claims,” read a press release posted on the BLM website on Thursday.

The announcement about the restrictions on land in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming, which was published in the Federal Register on Friday, said a 90-day public comment period will take place until March 30, 2017 and that the agency will host eight public meetings in the West next month.

Needless to say, outside the environmental community, the action is not exactly popular.

 Luke Popovich, vice president for external communications at the National Mining Association, said the move by the agency is not only not necessary, but also is destructive to the mining industry and to the larger national economy.

“This massive land withdrawal, the largest in history, is a spiteful and wholly unnecessary measure for protecting wildlife habitat that isn’t jeopardized by mining and appears instead to be a parting gift to activists who care nothing for the economic consequences to either the impacted states or the economy,” Popovich told CNSNews.com.

Popovich said the sage-grouse population is not declining and that wildfire and invasive species pose a greater threat than mining to the birds. Popovich also said the states being targeted and private industry, including mining, have put plans in place to protect the sage-grouse habitat.

As reported earlier by CNSNews.com, in 2015 Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced that the sage-grouse would not be listed under the Endangered Species Act, which would have affected the birds’ habitats in 11 states.

Yet another last minute Obama legacy that Trump should revoke upon taking office.

States Pick Sides over "Bay Diet"

In Fight for Pollution Limits, The Lines are Drawn

The battle lines have been drawn in the fight to defend the Chesapeake Bay pollution limits set by the EPA and the states’ plans to meet them. Having lost in federal district court, the Farm Bureau and its allies have appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Attorneys general from 21 states — none of which touch the Bay — have joined the bureau and its allies by filing a friend of the court brief in support.

Their key argument is that the plan is an EPA over-reach, which they say allows the EPA control over land use. They claim the EPA can now tell farmers where to farm and builders where to build.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said in a statement, “The issue is whether EPA can reach beyond the plain language of the Clean Water Act and micromanage how states meet federal water-quality standards. We think the clear answer is ‘no,’ and we would prefer to get that answer while the question surrounds land use in the Chesapeake Bay instead of waiting for EPA to do the same thing along the Mississippi River basin.”

Sort of a "First they came for the communists . . ." argument.  But it seems to me that under the doctrine of federalism the various states should be entitled to pick and choose how to meet the water quality criteria standards.  In the "Bay Diet" approach, being imposed on the Chesapeake Bay States, the EPA is not only telling the states how much to cut, but, in at least general terms, how they have to do it. And, by and large, with lots of grumbling from the various interest groups affected, the Bay states are going along with EPA.  How did that happen?

A little background. After years of failed agreements and several lawsuits to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and the rivers and streams that feed it, the Bay states worked closely with the EPA to develop this plan, which many call the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint.
The pollution limits set the maximum pollution that rivers and the Bay can withstand and still be healthy. The states then worked with the EPA to assess how much pollution each state needs to reduce.

Knowing the numbers of pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution that needed to be reduced to meet the goal, each state developed its own plan for how it could achieve the reductions. The choices were made by the states, based on how each state thought the reductions could best be achieved. The pounds that each state must reduce were determined using sophisticated watershed models and information provided by the states. Because the states had attempted to meet similar reduction goals at least two different times and failed, the states and the EPA agreed that the states would need to provide reasonable assurances that they could succeed.

Virginia’s Attorney General Mark Herring has also weighed in with a friend of the court brief, called an amicus brief, supporting the EPA. He said, “When the most promising plan to protect and restore the Bay comes under attack, I am going to stand up for the health of Virginia’s families, for Virginia’s economic interests, for Virginia’s efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Each Bay state, including Virginia, voluntarily entered into the current Bay restoration plan because of the economic, recreational, environmental and intrinsic value of a healthy Chesapeake Bay.”

Is the failure of the Bay states to do it right the first two times justify doing it the wrong way (assuming it is a violation of the federalism and the text of the Clean Water Act), even if the states consent?

And would that set a bad precedent for the other states?  It's pretty clear that if they get their way in the Chesapeake, EPAs next target will be the Mississippi drainage, bread basket of the world. What if the state there aren't as friendly.  I doubt that Montana has any more emotional investment in the Gulf of Mexico than Pennsylvania has in Chesapeake Bay.