WSP07065 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000873 "economically and technologically feasible" apparendy is made by the agency having oversight responsi- bilities, but this has not prevented the implemenradon of "reasonable and prudent ahernatives" that have had drastic economic effects. such as those being imposed on federal hydroelectric power operations in the Pacific Norrhwest. There is no evidence that the criterion that reasonable and pruden< alterna- tives be "economically" feasible has any meaning in the application of the Endangeted Species Ace. Endangered Economic Health The Endangered Species Act is the most powerful environmental law enacted by Congress. In reality. any federal agency action affecting a listed species is subordinated to the act. Unprecedented discretion is given the [wo agencies imple- menting the act. the Fish and Wildlife Service and ,he National Marine Fisheries Service. There are virtually no economic constraints in implementing the act. One of the great failures in implementation of the Endan- gered Species Act is the emphasis on Secrions 7 and 9. which pro- vide for enforcement of the act against citizens otherwise engaged in lawful activities. While CQnser- vadon and recovery is the stated goal of the act, the emphasis is on enforcement. In fact, the COSt of recovery has not even been esti- mated for hundreds of listed spe- cies. New species are being listed without any indication of the fea- sibiliry of recovery, much less the COSt of recovery and delisting of those species. The Endangered Species Acr was last reauthorized in 1987 for a period of five years. I t was due for reauthorizarion in 1992. Dur- 48 . PORUM jiJr Applil!'d Rt!uar~h .tfla Public Po/icy ing the last nine years, several bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate to reautho- rize the act. Some of these bills have attempted to address ,he problems described above. Others have at- tempred ro teinforce the existing methods of implementing ,he act or to make it even more stringent. Few of these bills passed Senate or House committees. and none was enacted into law. There is no con- sensus by a congressional major- iry on what changes need ro be made to rhe act. As a resulr, rhe existing act remains rhe law of the land. Chronology o' Compromise The Upper Colorado River Basin. which is the watershed upstream of Glen Canvon Dam, includes more than 108.000 square miles (280,000 square kilometets) of drainage and thousands of miles of rivers and srreams. Ir also in- cludes 800 miles (1.300 kilome- rers) of designated critical habitar for four endangered fish species. Water development and use in the basin suPPOrtS irrigated agri- culture, urban development, rec- reation, fisheries, wildlife, and a variety of industries. Transfer of water OUt of the basin also su p- plies municipal water for Salt Lake City, Cheyenne, Denvet, Colorado Springs, Albuquerque, and othet urban areas in Utah. New Mexico, and Colorado. When the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973, the Colo- rado squawfish-now the Colorado pikeminnow-and rhe humpback chub wete "grandfathered" as original listed endangered species, Two other Colorado River basin species, the razorback sucker and the bonyrail. were later added ro the endangered species list, In the lare 1970s, the Bureau of Recla- mation began "consulting" with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the impacts of water projects on endangered species, as required by rhe Endangered Species Act. Since ,har time, the Fish and Wildlife Service has uniformly held that water project depletions any- where in the Upper Colorado River Basin, including those deplerions upstream of perrinent habicat, "jeopardize" the endangered fish, In the early 1980s, the Endan- gered Species Act was applied to nonfederaJ projects. In the incerim, water users and the Upper Basin states began to more fully under- stand the implications of the En- dangered Species Act; a decision of the U.S, Supreme Court brought consrrucrion of Tellico Dam-a project of the Tennessee Valley Authority-to a complete halt due to potential impacts on the snail darrer, an endangered speCIes. In July 1983, the Fish and Wildlife Service developed a draft report stating that the only way for water projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin to avoid jeop- ardizing endangered fish species was to replace all depletions on a one~for-one basis. New projects would have to double storage ca- paciry and release one-half of the deplerion to che scream to offset the other one-half being used. This req uiremen t would have made fu- ture water developmenr infeasible. It would have deprived the Upper Basin states of water entirlement:s provided for under inters[a[e com- pacts that had been ratified by Congress. . Colorado Water Congress Spe- cial Project. The draft report goe the attention of the Upper Basin stares and Upper Basin warer us-