in those cases, the environmental plaintiffs' bar has great success used in injunctions absent civil penalty awards to change environmental law for the better. i'm a huge pro opponent of citizen suits. i think they're an important part of our tools in the tool box for enforcement you i am opposed to siferl penalties in this context. the defendant in these cases are attempting to exercise their political peach rights and it's a different context from the run-of-the-mill case. >> i'll suggest something mr. larry bush furnished us a month ago with a 2013 memorandum from the city attorney. about the number of ordinances in san francisco and there were then eight which allow a private the right of action. i recommend that you bring that up-to-date and i'd like a memorandum on that for all members of the commission. and then secondly, examine those with respect to whether there is a monetary award to the plaintiff or plaintiffs as the case may be. i've listened to these cries of unfairness about a private right of action and i am not at all persuaded and particularly when i note the number

agriculture where if the secretary of agriculture shares a view that is not sympathetic to environmental concerns, they can basically dismiss the lawsuits of numerous environmental plaintiffs, so i think this is really about the separation of powers. and if there is reform needed in the judiciary, those reforms should be in our courts, but shouldn't appropriate the power to the secretary of agriculture who may have his own or her own views and not give a fair hearing to environmental groups. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i recognize the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: forest management plans are not being implemented. region one of the forest , paying $1.3 million plaintiffs to sue the forest service rnings that is since january of 2016. this is an amendment with a pilot program to do arbitration modeled after baseball arbitration that keeps the ball moving forward. this results in some kind of action taking place. and if not the secretary of agriculture making the decision, but one of a team of arbitrateors that are professionals that come together to work f

the agency to take action by a new, often rushed, deadline. these plaintiff interest groups often share a common regulatory agenda with the agency they sue, such as when an environmental group sues the e.p.a. or the fish and wildlife service. instead of challenging the law, the agency and the interest group enter into negotiations behind closed doors to produce either a settlement agreement or a consent decree committing the agency to take regulatory action. no transparency, no accountability that you get through normal regulation writing. knotsably absent from -- noticeably absent from these negotiations are the very parties that will be impacted, such as farmers, manufacturers, or even our 50 states themselves that will be charged with enforcing some of these regulations. in 2010, for example, an environmental interest group sued the obama administration e.p.a. to force the agency to revise certain wastewater regulations. wouldn't it be nice to have the people that are affected by those regulations to be involved in the process in an open way the way the administration procedures act is designed for? oddly enough the same day that the lawsuit was filed the plaintiff