When the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed into law in 1973 by
President Nixon, he spoke about the importance of preserving “the rich
array of animal life with which our country has been blessed.” I believe
that goal is as important today as it was back then. However, after
nearly 40 years, it’s time to take a fresh, honest look at the law and
consider whether there are ways it could be improved to do a better job
of protecting and recovering species.
The House Natural Resources Committee, which I chair, has begun a series
of hearings to review the ESA. The purpose of these efforts is to look
for ways to update, improve and strengthen the law - not to turn back
the clock to 1973, before the law was passed. Congress last renewed the
ESA in 1988, which means it has been 24 years since any substantial
updates have been made. Clearly, Congress has failed to do its job.
Even the most ardent supporters of the ESA should be able to agree that
after two decades, there are ways to make the law more efficient and
effective. By listening to citizens both affected by and interested in
the ESA, the committee will conduct a fair and open assessment of both
the law’s strengths and its weaknesses.
There are five objectives that I think a review and update of the ESA should achieve.
One, focus on species recovery. There are 1,391 domestic animal and
plant species listed under the act. Of these, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) has declared just 20 species recovered. That represents
only a 1 percent recovery rate. The law is failing to achieve its
primary purpose of recovering endangered species. We must do better.
Two, reduce ESA-related litigation. One of the greatest obstacles to the
success of the ESA is the way in which it has become a tool for
excessive litigation. Instead of focusing on recovering endangered
species, there are groups that use the ESA as a way to bring hundreds of
lawsuits against the government. In response, agencies have to spend
time and resources addressing those lawsuits instead of focusing on
species recovery.
FWS Director Dan Ashe has testified that the agency spent more than 75
percent of its fiscal 2011 resource-management allocation on court
orders or settlement agreements resulting from litigation. He stated,”We
fully agree with the concern that our resources are better spent on
implementing the ESA than on litigation.”
Three, ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently.
Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are spent each year on
endangered-species protection. In the face of trillion-dollar budget
deficits, Congress has an obligation to ensure that money is spent
appropriately to achieve the law’s intent - the recovery of species.
Every dollar that is spent on court settlements and legal fees is a
dollar that is not going to directly help endangered species.
Four, base decisions on independently peer-reviewed science. Any
decisions made on whether to list or delist a species should be based on
sound science, not politics and not just because of lawsuits.
Unfortunately, this is not often the case. For example, FWS has decided
not to conduct a stock assessment for the Atlantic sturgeon before
moving forward with a listing. How can it determine whether a species is
endangered if federal bureaucrats don’t bother to count the size of the
current population? Without this information, how will they ever be
able to determine if the species is recovered?
Five, make the law work for both species and people. The implementation
of the ESA too often goes beyond the original intent of species recovery
and is instead used to block and delay job-creating economic projects
and activities. For example, a renewable-energy wind project in
Washington state was abandoned because of the ESA’s overly burdensome
regulatory process. The Radar Ridge project would have created up to 300
short-term jobs and provided a new source of renewable energy. But the
project never went forward because of lengthy, costly and questionable
restrictions under the ESA. We must be able to protect species without
creating a bureaucracy that is so burdensome that it destroys economic
activity and jobs.
Updating the 24-year-old Endangered Species Act will help ensure that
the law works better to recover endangered species. Congress can no
longer kick the can down the road while millions of dollars are wasted
on frivolous lawsuits, resources are diverted away from true species
recovery, and jobs are lost due to regulatory red tape that does little,
if anything, to protect species.
Rep. Doc Hastings, Washington Republican, is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Follow us on Facebook at
www.facebook.com/UTVGuide
Posts
