Allegations of political interference in the federal handling of a 28,000-home Benson development proposal are strong enough that they warrant release of a slew of heretofore confidential records, a judge has ruled.
Environmentalists say β but Interior Department officials deny β these documents will prove a federal whistleblowerβs allegations, first reported in the Arizona Daily Star, that politically motivated interference from Washington, D.C., higher-ups overrode a science-based decision about the Villages at Vigneto development.
U.S. District Judge Raner Collins of Tucson ruled Tuesday that Steve Spangleβs allegations βsupport a showing of bad faithβ by high-level federal officials.
That showing justifies making public internal documents laying out written communications among federal officials, Collins wrote.
He said comments by Spangle, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official, call into question the entire agencyβs decision-making on the development planned near the imperiled San Pedro River.
The Justice and Interior departments resisted releasing these documents during the protracted litigation over a federal Clean Water Act permit for the project.
Federal agencies typically argue the documents arenβt relevant to understanding an agency decision or that their release could chill officials from expressing candid views on controversies.
Collinsβ ruling gives federal officials 30 days to reveal the documents.
In reaction, an Interior Department spokesman said: βThe department always complies with court rulings β and will do so here, as well.β The spokesman, Ben Goldey, added that the documents, when released, will show that no political pressure on Spangle occurred.
Interior secretaryβs emails among records ordered released
Collinsβ eight-page ruling said: βThis Court cannot ignore the gravity of Director Spangleβs statements indicating political interference. Director Spangle plainly admitted that he was forced to concurβ on a decision that was his alone to make.
Spangle, as the wildlife serviceβs top official in Arizona, had originally ordered a detailed analysis of Vignetoβs environmental effects, particularly the effects on the nearby San Pedro of its planned groundwater pumping.
But Spangle told the Star, and later The Arizona Republic and CNN, that the pressure from above β which he suspected came from then-Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt β in August 2017 forced him to reverse his earlier decision.
Two weeks before that alleged interference, Bernhardt held a private meeting with the Vigneto developer, a court record from the Justice Department shows.
The developer, Mike Ingram, CEO of Phoenix-based El Dorado Holdings, had donated $50,900 to President Trumpβs political committees since 2015, CNN has reported.
U.S. Rep. RaΓΊl Grijalva, D-Tucson, and his House Natural Resources Committee are investigating the allegations of political interference.
Among the records that must be released under Collinsβ order are all emails about Vigneto by Bernhardt, who is now secretary of the interior.
Interior officials have strongly denied Spangleβs allegations, saying that nothing more occurred than an internal legal dispute over how best to enforce various Endangered Species Act requirements. They have said they simply got new information about the project, such as statements from the developer that Vigneto could be built even if the Clean Water Act permit were to be denied.
Environmentalists sued for βgovernment accountabilityβ
Interest in obtaining proof of Spangleβs charges prompted environmentalists to seek court-ordered release of these documents.
βWe want all communication within the agency regarding the decision, all the way up the chainβ to Bernhardt, because he was involved in the decision, said Stu Gillespie, the environmentalist attorney who sought the records.
Collinsβ ruling also clears the way for Spangle and another wildlife service biologist, Jason Douglas in Tucson, to give sworn testimony in the lawsuit, project opponents said Thursday.
Goldey, the Interior Department spokesman, referred questions about a potential appeal to the Justice Department. Justice Department spokeswoman Danielle Nichols said, βWe have no commentβ on last weekβs ruling.
The records were requested on behalf of a half-dozen environmental groups that have sued to overturn a 2019 decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reinstating a previously suspended Clean Water Act permit for Vigneto. The analysis Spangle originally ordered would have delayed that permit reinstatement.
βThis is a crucial step forward in safeguarding the Endangered Species Act and exposing the improper political interference that occurred at the Fish and Wildlife Service during the Trump administration,β said Gillespie, an attorney for the environmental law firm Earthjustice. βThe court not only underscored the gravity of Director Spangleβs statement, it also rejected the governmentβs attempt to cover up that interference and withhold critical evidence from the court and general public.β
While the judge and Gillespie referred to Spangle as director, his title was actually field supervisor for the wildlife serviceβs Arizona Ecological Services Office in Phoenix, making him the serviceβs top official in Arizona.
The Sierra Clubβs Sandy Bahr called Collinsβ ruling a major victory for government accountability.
βThe San Pedro River region is one of the most biologically diverse areas in the Southwest, and the public has the right to know why the Fish and Wildlife Service, after finding that the Army Corps failed to fully evaluate impacts of the Vigneto development on this fragile ecosystem, abruptly changed course to find that the Corpsβ extremely limited analysis was sufficient,β said Bahr, director of the clubβs Grand Canyon chapter.
βNo political Interferenceβ
But in an email Thursday, Goldey reiterated Bernhardtβs statement to the Star back in October, βthat the only direction that came from him was to follow the letter of the law.β
βThe Secretary has always been interested in having as many of these documents made available because they clearly demonstrate no political interference took place,β Goldey wrote.
When asked afterward why the Justice Department sought to block the documentsβ release if Bernhardt wanted them released, Goldey simply reiterated his above statement.
Goldey added that, βIn fact, these documents (which have already been shown to Congress) demonstrate that Mr. Spangle himself endorsed the process while employed at the department in emails to the Arizona Daily Star, High Country News, and other media outlets.β
He cited several articles from fall and winter 2017 in which Spangle gave various reporters such statements as βwe did not ignore any scienceβ and βthe legal situation required us to retract that position.β
Spangleβs allegations of political pressure came nearly 18 months after he made those comments, and about a year after he retired from the wildlife service in March 2018.
Decision reversal was boon to Vigneto
At issue in the court dispute is why Spangle decided in fall of 2017 to reverse his previous, longstanding position that federal law required a full-scale environmental analysis of Vignetoβs effects, including its potential impact on the San Pedro. It is the Southwestβs last major undammed river and a major flyway for hundreds of North American bird species.
In spring 2019, Spangle told the Star that he had been told in August 2017 by attorney Peg Romanik, in the Interiorβs Solicitorβs Office, that a βhigh-level politicalβ appointee at Interior had said Spangleβs position on Vigneto wasnβt the Trump administrationβs position.
That officialβs name was never disclosed, and Romanik has never publicly discussed the case. But over time, official calendars, investigative reporting and a federal court document have shown that Bernhardt played a key role in the outcome.
In addition to Bernhardtβs private meeting on the matter with Ingram, Bernhardt also met with Romanik twice on the day Spangle said he received the crucial phone call from her, Interior Department calendars show.
But while acknowledging Bernhardtβs involvement in the case, Interior officials have maintained that they wanted Spangleβs ruling changed because it was legally incorrect.
To get to facts, environmentalist attorney Gillespie requested such materials as draft reports, internal comments, emails and meeting notes from the Interior Department about its decision-making on Vigneto.
In opposing the request for these records, the Justice Department said: βThe bare fact that predecisional, deliberative materials were generated during the decision-making process does not transform these materials into documents that were βconsideredβ by the decision-makers in any relevant sense and therefore part of the record.β
But Collinsβ decision said that Spangle, as an executive and decision-maker for a federal agency, βsurely understood the importance of his public proclamations of political interference when he made them, on the record, to the media.β
Feels like vindication
Reacting to the ruling, Spangle said, βIt at least seems to put some credibility in what Iβm saying, which is just telling the truth. This whole thing should be as transparent as possible, so Iβd like to see anything thatβs relevant admitted to the record.β
But in the end, he said, the entire court case over the Vigneto permit will turn on whether his original interpretation of law β that the projectβs indirect impacts on species and the river must be considered β turns out to be legally correct, or if the current administrationβs position prevails, that they donβt have to be considered.
βThe long-term effect of groundwater withdrawal is of major concern,β he said.