7749 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Power and Potential of the Act 35 pinge with increasing pressure on nonhuman species, the-need for informed decisions becomes more acute. Good science must be accompanied by a better public understanding of how our lives touch other species-and how their well-being affects our own. Of course, we find our lives more complicated by this under- standing. It is a blade with two edges..On one side there is a temptation to administer the law through political compromise, more often than not unwarranted. For example, a species con- sidered to have little intrinsic merit may affect a major project (such as a dam or highway) to the extent that it cannot proceed without major adjustments or serious consideration of some complex alternative. This can excite the interest of politicians who are sensitive to the idea that human constituents are far more important than any other species, especially when a spe- cies does not enjoy a great deal of popularity. Protection of certain fishes of the Colorado River; for example, has increas- ingly come into conflict with the need for increasing exploita- tion of that river. In order for the fish to survive, water must be made available at the right time and in the right quantity. Moreover, temperature, rate of flow, and other physical charac- teristics of the river are often crucial habitat components. It is difficult to know what to do: Requisite studies are expensive and take many years to conduct, and water development projects- or at least their proponents-cannot wait. In such a circum- stance, politicians often bring intense pressure to bear upon the administrators of the act, even to the extent of threatening legis- lative action to "fix" the problem. Administrators, ever con- scious of the power of politicians, may try to resolve the issue by offering mitigation schemes designed to obviate the hazard to a species with the understanding that any adverse consequences to the species will be taken care of at a later time. Yet to succumb to the temptation to fix the problem after the fact is to admit an inability to deal with the issue now, when there are many possible options. As a project moves forward; the num- ber ofchoices available for mitigating the impact on a threatened or endangered species becomes limited or even nonexistent. The idea of finding a convenient way out today, the cost of which may be extirpation or extinction, is a denial of the purpose and intent of the act and establishes a dangerous precedent. On the other side, some may be drawn to use the ESA's