by
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings
Washington Times May 18, 2012
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.
### |
