9367 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

balance in nature is delicate and can be upset by the loss of an individual species. Nevertheless, the issue of excessive costs is one argument against the protection of endangered species accepted by most people. The Endangered Species Act. is scheduled for reauthorization this year. The major debate, however, is not expected until the next session of Congress because this is an election year. Congress will likely appropriate money for the continued operation of the current Endangered Species Act beyond the October 1992 reauthorization date. A number of groups are already participating in the debate over the reauthorization, including the Nationwide Public Projects Coalition, People for the West, National Public Lands Conference, the Endangered Species Coordinating Counsel, theESA Round Table, and the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition ("NESARC"). The environmental community has organized the Endangered Species Coalition, led by the World Wildlife Fund, and legislation supported by the environmental community was introduced by Congressman Jerry Studds. After reading the article, "The Butterfly Problem," in the Atlantic Monthly, I realize that balancing any type of economic development, including water development, with endangered species protection raises similar issues. I would like to note several principals for the reform of the Endangered Species Act proposed by the National Water Resources Association (lINWRA"). The first is that the implementation of the Endangered Species Act should not adversely affect the allocation of water among states pursuant to interstate compacts or United States Supreme Court decrees. Implementation of the Act should be consistent with state water rights systems, should assure the use of federal reclamation projects in accordance with their authorized purposes, and should not adversely affect rights under water storage contracts for the allocation for available supplies of water to fulfill these contracts. Today, I would like focus on two major sections of the Act: the Listing Process and the Section 7 Consultation Process, and review suggestions for their reform. Then I would like to discuss briefly proactive measures which can be taken to keep species from being listed in the first place, the need to enhance the role of state and local governments in the recovery of endangered species, enhancement of the role of stocking in the recovery process, the expansion of the role for recovery plans, citizen suit issues, and the protection of private property rights. The Listing Process, Section 4 of the Act, directs the Secretary of the Interior to list all species, subspecies, and distinct population groups of wildlife that are endangered or threatened, and to list species and subspecies of plants. The Secretary of Commerce makes listing decisions regarding marine fish and mammals. Species. have been listed in each of the fifty states. Listing decisions are to be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Economics may not be considered in listing decisions. The story of Colorado River Municipal Water District, which serves one-half million people in the Odessa-Midland-Abilene, Texas area, demonstrates how the Act is based on limited, arrogant and out- dated biology and why the listing process needs to be reformed. When the District was allowed to reactivate a ~ 404 permit to build a 74