Laserfiche WebLink
passage of the Endangered Species Act, transformed the USFWS into an agency that would <br />define itself by the number of dam projects blocked in the name of an alternative vision of social <br />progress centered on free flowing streams. In the 1960's, 70's, and 80's, the Bureau of Reclamation <br />would haltingly re-orient itself toward a revised mission, that of water service constrained by <br />environmental stewardship. Old constituencies of both agencies would feel that their 19' and <br />early 201h century compacts with the federal government had been betrayed. New urban, rural <br />ranchette, and environmental resource constituencies would push hard in Congress and the courts <br />for new visions. <br />The Endangered Species Act (ESA) <br />"I think the ESA is a remarlkable piece of legislation,...It's the one federal <br />environmental statute that cleals with scientific uncertainty and makes it <br />clear that the species will not bear the burden of scientific uncertainty" <br />Dan Luecke, <br />Environmental Defense <br />Colorado Water March/April, 2002, p. 9 <br />North America's freshwate:r habitats continue to support an extraordinary diversity of <br />biotic communities, particularly as compared to those found in what have been similar habitats <br />around the globe. But U.S. fresh,"rater habitats are also among the most threatened by flow <br />alterations, habitat degradation andl fragmentation, and introduction of non-native species. All <br />this has taken a heavy toll. In the IJ.S., only two percent of natural rivers and streams are free <br />flowing. Consequences of human disturbance has been staggering: 67% of freshwater mussels and <br />65% of crayfish species are rare or imperiled, 37% of freshwater species are at risk of extinction, <br />35% of amphibians that depend on aquatic habitats are rare or imperiled (Abell, Olson, <br />Dinerstein, Hurley, and et a12000). In the late 1960s the whooping crane, Bald Eagle, Peregrine <br />Falcon and Eskimo Curlew were a:ll considered endangered (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1997). <br />Early concerns about this habitat lc?ss and consequent threats to plant and animal species led to <br />calls for protective legislation, and those efforts resulted in the eventual passage of the <br />Endangered Species Act (1973). <br />Under ESA, existing federal projects are subject to review if any appear to affect wildlife <br />habitat (Echeverria 2001). Under,"5ection 7, any federal agency must ensure that activities that it <br />authorizes, funds, or implements do not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. <br />Nor may any federal actions adversely modify or destroy `critical habitat' of any species (Bean <br />1999). Federal agencies are mandated to coordinate their efforts with the Fish and Wildlife <br />Service to try and ensure that no sfiecies are adversely impacted by any agency action. Section 4 <br />of the ESA provides for designation of critical habitat, which provides a target of programs and <br />review, and consists of land, water, and airspace required for the normal needs and survival for the <br />designated species (Anderson 1998). The ESA has, therefore, changed water policy in the West, <br />by changing the mandates of the Fiish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation as they <br />have worked with state authorities and local water users. <br />Water users dependent upon federal government projects, or users planning to undertake <br />15