WSP12533 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001 S'_; 6 962 ECOLOGY lA W QUARTERLY [Vol. 28:903 prime example, which has become the foundation for all ESA litigation, is the Tellico Dam case.355 While environmentalists blocked the dam construction for some time, the success of their efforts led Congress to eventually exempt the project from the ESA. 356 Similarly, if the Defenders of. Wildlife plaintiffs prevail, Congress might simply exempt the Lower Colorado from the ESA. The political and economic interests at stake on the Lower Colorado are very powerful. As we have noted, the Colorado supplies water to more than 30 million people, and irrigates millions of acres of productive farmland.357 The wars over its waters have raged for nearly a century, and involve some of the most politically powerful interests in the western United States. Billions, or perhaps trillions, of dollars are at stake any time the allocation of the river is put in controversy. While the ESA remains a powerful tool, it might be unable to handle this kind of political pressure. 358 355. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978). Another excellent example of this phenomenon was the infamous 1995 "Salvage Logging Bill," which allowed "emergency" salvage logging in fire-damaged forests and exempted those activities from the ESA. Congress passed the bill as a rider to the unrelated 1995 Rescissions Act, Pub. L. No. 104-19,109 Stat. 194 (1995). 356. See Comment. Supreme Court Protects Snail Darter from ?VA; Court Poised to Weaken Endangered Species Act, 8 ENVTL. L. REp. 10154 (1978). 357. See Pitt et al., supra note 2. 358. Indeed, despite the fact that we remain devoted fans of the Endangered Species Act, the authors believe that the continued and growing reliance on the ESA by certain environmental groups as the "workhorse" for litigating controversial issues is a potentially dangerous strategy, both politically and legally. In our view, not every case Is appropriate for the application of the ESA, which is undoubtedly the "biggest gun" in the environmental arsenal. At present. the ESA is frequently used not to protect listed species, but instead to block popular developments by "species shopping" in a particular area to find a listed species. The use of ESA in this manner has led - not unjustifiably - to a gro~g cynicism about the real motivations behind endangered species protection. See Robert A. Williams. Jr., Large Binocular Telescopes, Red Squirrel Pinatas, and Apar:he Sacred Mountains: Deoolonizing EnVironmental Law in a Multicultural World. 96 W. VA. L. REv. 1133 (1994) (discussing the use of an endangered squirrel to block a research telescope project). The often painful results. of these. lawsuitS - which are often brought by national groups but are opposed by local communities - have led to growing sympathy and political Influence for "Wise Use" groups and property rights advocates who would prefer to see the ESA limited or eliminated. See William Kevin Burke, The Wise Use Movement: Right-Wing Anti-Environmentalism, PuBLIC EYE MAG., June 1993, available at http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v07n2/wiseuse.html.Inturn.this has led to attempts in Congress to curtail application of the ESA. or altematively haS led to "tough case, bad law" court decisions that have limited the effectiveness of the ESA in other settings where it might have been more appropriately - and effectively - employed. A recent example is the devastating ESA loss in Alsea Valley AUiance v. Evans. 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001), which held that for purposes of the ESA, hatchery fish are identical to wild native salmon. The ruling came after years of contentious litigation in which the endangered coho salmon had been repeatedly