By comparison, the Endangered Species Act has given us very little to cheer about on its 30th anniversary. Since its inception, nearly 1,300 species have been listed as threatened or endangered. Yet, not one single species has recovered as a result of the ESA alone. The bottom line: After 30 years, the ESA has a zero percent rate of success.

Sadly, that is the history of the Endangered Species Act. Born of the best intentions, it has failed to live up to its promise, and species are more threatened today because of its serious limitations. Thirty years of the same prescription has failed. Moreover, despite the evidence, some maintain that we can only use one treatment -- the one prescribed 30 years ago.

If these were the statistics of my daughter's pediatrician, I would consult another. If America's health-care system was in the same abysmal condition, there would be a nationwide outcry for reform. But for the last 30 years, the ESA has remained a law that checks species in, but never checks them out. It has been a failing form of managed care. As stewards of the species that inhabit our nation, we can -- we must - do better.

Specifically, the "diagnosis" and "treatment" aspects of the law are fatally flawed. They are ambiguous, open to arbitrary personal judgment and do not rely on sound science or peer-reviewed research. Known as "listing" and "critical habitat" respectively, these key elements of the act are responsible for the misdiagnosis of species as endangered or threatened and the application of a one-size-fits-all solution.

When a species is listed for protection, treatment comes in the form of critical habitat designations, which forbid the use of lands by or for anything but the species. Critical habitat is one of the most perverse shortcomings of the act. It has been interpreted to mean that if an animal is determined to be in trouble, there is only one viable option -- to designate critical habitat and "let nature take its course."

This "hands-off" approach fails to recognize the amazing strides in technology, biology and medicine that have lengthened and improved the quality of lives for countless humans. If the doctors told us that our children were in mortal danger from disease, and then recommended that we let "nature take its course," what would we do? What if they told us they had prescribed the same treatment for 1,300 patients over the last 30 years and none of them had recovered? We would certainly seek a second, third or fourth opinion until viable recovery options were found.

To make matters worse, rampant environmental litigation has undermined the already-broken system at the expense of species recovery. In fact, there have been so many lawsuits that the federal critical habitat program went bankrupt this year. The effect of the lawsuits filed by environmental extremists was aptly described by Craig Manson, the U.S. Interior Department's assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks. "Floods of litigation over critical habitat designations are preventing [us] from protecting new species and reducing [our] ability to recover plants and animals already listed," he said. "Imagine an emergency room where lawsuits force the doctors to treat sprained ankles while patients with heart attacks expire in the waiting room and you've got a good picture of our endangered species program right now. This flood of detrimental litigation also frustrated the Clinton administration, when then-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Jamie Rappaport Clark called it a "biological disaster" that had "turned our priorities upside-down. Species in need of protection are having to be ignored. "

The shortcomings and unintended consequences of the ESA have also led to decision-making that defies common sense. The inflexibility in the treatment of endangered species sometimes gives them priority over human beings, but does nothing that actually helps. In the recent case of the Klamath Basin and the endangered sucker fish, for example, it was determined that the sucker needed water more than the area's farmers needed it to irrigate their crops and feed their families. The result was a devastating loss of family farms, human life and economic vitality.

Or, consider the case of the endangered longhorn elderberry bark beetle and the Arboga levee in California. Weak levees were not able to be repaired because the work might have disturbed the habitat of the endangered beetle. The result: a huge flood broke the levee at the exact point where repairs were needed and three human beings lost their lives. The list of horror stories that defy logic goes on and on.

Celebrating these failures -- as many are doing on the 30th anniversary of the act -- is not how we should mark this occasion. Instead, we must begin to improve it for the 21st century. Congress must focus on legislative reforms that foster the science, technology and innovation that have made America successful in other endeavors. That is precisely what I hope Americans will be wishing for as they blow out the candles on the ESA's anniversary cake. The House Committee on Resources is going to start working on meaningful reforms shortly after the party is over.

Rep. Richard W. Pombo, R-Tracy, is chairman of the House Committee on Resources.