Battle looms over a Noah's Ark lawProposed reforms to Endangered Species Act becomes clash of jobs vs. biological diversityBy Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
ASHLAND, ORE. 2/20/02- Scientists, lawmakers, and advocates are set to
wrangle over the most profound and controversial federal environmental law
ever passed - the federal Endangered Species Act.
Lawsuits have been filed, and a slew of proposals on Capitol Hill could
significantly change what plants and animals qualify for protection. "You can expect some battles - time, place, and players to be
determined," says one congressional source. Enacted in 1973, the law was designed mainly to save animals such as
eagles, wolves, otters, and salmon - those noble, brave, and cute
"charismatic megafauna" that all Americans recognize and can
perhaps identify with. But over the years, the list of animals and plants threatened with
extinction has grown to more than 1,000, including such obscure species as
the Shivwits milk-vetch herb in Utah and the Tumbling Creek cavesnail in
Missouri. At last count, 1,244 plant and animal species had been listed as
endangered or threatened, and another 236 "candidate species"
awaited listing. The law is a kind of a modern-day Noah's Ark, designed to save the last
few individuals from being wiped out and then provide a way for them to
revive. Once an organism makes the list, federal officials must design and
implement a recovery plan - an expensive process that can impact private
property to devastating economic effect. It's also a drawn-out process
that has seen several dozen species go extinct while awaiting rescue. Aside from questions about balancing economic and biological values,
the law increasingly highlights the debate over what constitutes an
endangered species and whether or not some species are worth saving. Supporters of the act are on the defensive these days. A National
Academy of Sciences panel recently declared that federal officials may
have erred last summer in cutting off water to farmers in the Klamath
Basin of Oregon and California in order to protect three endangered fish
species. A federal judge has declared there's no difference between
endangered wild Pacific Coast salmon and hatchery fish. (A point many
biologists argue strongly against.) And opponents charge that government
scientists deliberately planted evidence in order to support the
contention that the Canadian lynx needs more habitat to prevent its
extinction. "The ESA has become a wrecking ball in this country, devastating
personal finances and regional economies," says US Rep. James Hansen
(R) of Utah, chairman of the House resources committee. "It's time we
reform this law, grounding it in sound science, not political
ideology." Along the Oregon-California border last summer, some 1,400 farms and
ranches had their federal water cut off when it was determined that two
species of lake fish and coho salmon in the Klamath River - all listed
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) - had first dibs on the water. The
basin's rural economy lost about $134 million as a result, while
protesting farmers broke open irrigation headgates and faced off against
federal law enforcement officers. But the issue there is far more complicated than fish versus farmers.
The area is also home to several large wildlife refuges, including the
wintering area for upwards of 1,000 bald eagles. At the same time, the
Klamath Indian Tribes have water rights dating back to 19th-century
treaties with Washington. Many experts say the water has simply been
over-allocated during the past century, leading to a steep decline in fish
and waterfowl. In the case involving endangered lynx in Rocky Mountain wilderness
areas, the scientists and their defenders say they were merely trying to
test the system used to distinguish similar species. But that has not
stopped longtime critics of the ESA from charging that "junk
science" was used to promote a proenvironment agenda by those who
sometimes call themselves "combat biologists." At the heart of the issue is the ESA's requirement to use the
"best available" science in determining listings and recovery
programs. This can present a moving target for biologists and other
experts, leading to findings that are not entirely satisfactory. In the
Klamath Basin case, for example, the panel of university experts gathered
by the National Academy of Sciences also determined that significantly
lowering lake water levels to benefit farmers as the US Bureau of
Reclamation (and the Bush administration) wants to do would pose an
"unknown risk" to protected fish. The panel's final report won't
be released until next year. Meanwhile, the legal and political maneuvering continues. Conservative
groups and developers are preparing lawsuits challenging other endangered
species listings. Environmentalists are suing federal agencies for failure
to sufficiently protect "rare and sensitive" plant and animal
species in Pacific Northwest old-growth forests. Bush administration
officials are reevaluating the designation of "critical habitat"
in California and other parts of the West. Such designations can strictly
limit development, but can also be crucial to species survival. On Capitol Hill, several dozen bills deal with endangered species. Most
address what critics say is the need for "sound science" in
determining ESA listings, as well as a greater say for property owners,
developers, and other economic interests. A bill recently introduced by
Sen. Gordon Smith (R) of Oregon, for example, would give greater weight to
commercial or scientific empirical and field tested data. |
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml] |