 |
 |
 |
 |
| Prescott and Prescott Valley Hire High-Powered Attorney from Phoenix |
|
|
|
| Written by Helen Stephenson | |
| Friday, 25 April 2008 | |
Environmental attorney Norman D. James from Phoenix has been hired to represent Prescott and Prescott Valley in the Big Chino Ranch issue.
Attorney Norman D. James addresses the Upper Verde River Watershed Protection Coalition.“It looks like the only people who are going to make anything from this are the attorneys,” Chino Valley Mayor Karen Fann said with a sigh as she spoke last Wednesday at the Upper Verde River Watershed Protection Coalition (UVRWPC) during their last meeting. She is the Chair of that coalition. The reason for her comments? The cities of Prescott and Prescott Valley have hired highly-regarded environmental attorney Norman D. James, who works for the firm Fennemore Craig, P.C. in Phoenix. Fennemore Craig was voted the number one most "Politically Powerful Law Firm" in the state last month by PolitickerAZ.com. The reason for hiring James in the battle over the Verde River and its habitat is laid out in a five-page letter James wrote to Steve Spangle, the Arizona Field Supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Phoenix. Representing the two cities, his letter states his objection to some of the points made at their presentation at a public meeting of the UVRWPC in February. James believes the employees for Fish and Wildlife who gave the presentation, Brenda Smith and John Nystedt, were “one-sided, and inaccurate in certain key respects.” It is James’s opinion that, as part of the Federal Government they should be “providing information about the laws it administers in an unbiased and objective fashion.” And, James continued, “That has not been the case in regard to the Big Chino Ranch Project.” James has asked Supervisor Spangle for “copies of all reports, studies and other documents and records on which Ms. Smith relied in expressing her opinion that the groundwater pumping in the Big Chino will “take” members of listed species she identified during the presentation.” After his presentation when James was asked if he thought this was the first step in a long and expensive litigation, he responded, no, he didn’t believe that would be the case. He said that while he wasn’t at the presentation in February, he had watched a video of the discussion and felt there were many inaccuracies in it. Though Supervisor Spangle was in Washington DC, he was able to send this comment in response to James’ letter via email: "I appreciate Mr. James bringing his concerns to my attention. The comments he believes were "inaccurate" are better characterized as perhaps a less-than-thorough discussion of the issues at hand, and I'm glad his clients have access to his extensive knowledge of the Endangered Species Act to elaborate on what they heard. It is in everyone's best interest that all parties have a thorough understanding of the available options, which was not possible for our folks to provide during their short presentation." "Mr. James also takes exception with what he characterizes as "advocacy" for fish and wildlife conservation," Spangle said. "Our very jobs are to advocate for these values on the behalf of the American people, and for that I won't apologize."Supervisor Spangle will have a full response to Mr. James’ letter soon after his return, which will be made available to Prescott eNews.
Trackback(0)
Comments (2)
 Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
 |
I appreciate coverage of Supervisor Spangle's response, since it can be difficult to find the "rest of the story".