Share This Page

GOP: Obama's blocking release of documents on environmental enforcement at wind farms

| Wednesday, March 26, 2014, 5:54 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is refusing to turn over documents related to enforcement of environmental laws at wind farms where dozens of eagles and other protected birds have been killed, House Republicans charged on Wednesday.

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said the Fish and Wildlife Service has engaged in a “deliberate slow rolling of documents and answers” for nearly a year. Hastings is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which has been seeking to compel the wildlife agency to turn over internal documents related to its enforcement of laws protecting eagles and other birds.

An Associated Press investigation last year revealed that the administration was not prosecuting wind energy companies for killing eagles and other protected birds.

Only one wind energy company has been prosecuted for killing eagles and other birds in violation of federal law. Duke Energy pleaded guilty in November to killing eagles and other birds at two Wyoming wind farms and will pay $1 million.

The government estimates that at least 85 eagles are killed each year by wind turbines.

The wildlife agency “dragged its feet for six months” before providing a two-page memo written the year before, Hastings said, and many of the documents that have been turned over so far are incomplete or have largely been blacked out.

“This is not compliance. This is deliberate slow rolling of documents and answers, and we've had enough,” Hastings said.

Committee members asked the agency's director, Dan Ashe, at a hearing about a new agency rule allowing energy companies to kill or injure eagles without fear of prosecution for up to 30 years.

The rule, announced in December, provides legal protection for the lifespan of wind farms and other projects if energy companies obtain permits and make efforts to avoid killing protected birds. The permits would be reviewed every five years, and companies would have to submit reports of how many eagles they killed. Until now, such reporting has been voluntary, and the Interior Department has refused to release the information.

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., called the 30-year permits “licenses to kill” and suggested that the Obama administration favored wind power over traditional energy sources such as oil. Ashe disputed that, saying the agency treats the wind industry the same way it deals with all energy producers.

An agency spokeswoman said after the hearing that the 30-year permit applies to any type of energy production that results in the death of a bald or golden eagle.

Ashe called the 30-year permit a technical change, noting that the permits will still be reviewed every five years. The prior rule called for permit renewal after five years.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., the panel's senior Democrat, accused the panel's Republicans of wasting time and money searching for “yet another conspiracy that doesn't exist.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.