Become a friend of

   the Klamath Bucket  


   Send Donations Here

     All donations are tax  




 This Website is Dedicated to

 Alvin Alexander Cheyne

January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005





The Endangered People Act

(WSB Radio) — Despite the threat of legal action by Gov. Sonny Perdue, the Army Corps of Engineers says it has no plans to reduce the release of water from Lake Lanier and Lake Allatoona .

Army Major Darren Payne tells WSB’s Pete Combs the Corps is required by law to send water down the Chattahoochee River to protect endangered wildlife, power plants and water needs along the river.

“At the moment there’s not a whole lot we can do,” said Payne. Gov. Perdue has given the Corps a deadline of today to respond to the state’s demand to reduce the amount of water, under the threat of legal action.

Payne says the Corps will continue to release 2 billion gallons of water a day.

“We cannot deviate without some action being taken on the endangered species act or special legislation,” said Payne.

Ah, the Endangered Species Act strikes again! A law which has arguably done more to undermine property rights in our country than any other could potentially endanger the lives of Georgians. The Army Corps of Engineers apparently has no choice but to follow the law as it is currently written meaning the federally protected mussels and sturgeons have priority over the people of Georgia .

As Gov. Sonny Perdue threatened legal action, the Georgia delegation to the U.S. House as well as both of the state’s senators introduced legislation to amend the ESA to allow states to be exempt from the law if either the Secretary of the Army or the state’s governor declare emergency drought conditions (Personally, I would prefer a complete repeal of the ESA but this proposal seems like a reasonable enough compromise for now).

I fail to understand where the controversy is. Does anyone really want to argue that these animals should have priority over American citizens who are being forced to cut back their water usage so they can have water to drink, bathe, and clean with? Outrageous!

Neal Boortz proposed a rather interesting idea: the governor should order the Georgia National Guard to seize the dam from the Corps of Engineers. I have no idea of what the legalities of doing such a thing are and other legal options should be exhausted first, but I believe one could make a good case for doing just that. During the War of 1812, at least one governor who opposed the war refused to allow U.S. troops to come into his state. If one were to look at a more contemporary example, certain “sanctuary cities” refuse to enforce federal immigration laws.

While I normally advocate the rule of law, it seems to me that if cities and states can pick and choose the federal laws they wish to follow, then ignoring the ESA in this emergency seems to be quite appropriate. Endangered species should never have the ability to endanger people.  

Posted By: Stephen Littau @ 2:21 pm || Permalink || || Categories: Environment, Military, Federalism, History, Legal, Property Rights, Zoning and Land-Use, Government Regulation, Theory and Ideas

TrackBack URI:
Read more posts from
Stephen Littau

• • •


1.       The ESA and your comments raise an interesting dilemma for me. On the one hand I abhor government intervention into our lives. On the other hand, I love such places as the Boundary Waters (I will never forget sitting on the lake shore with my youngest son watching two bald eagles fight over the same prey on the far side of Lake 4 and many more such memories) and if we don’t take steps to protect such wilderness it and the bald eagles will be gone; lumber companies drool over the thought of getting into the Boundary Waters. So, what do lovers of liberty do?

Comment by BJ Eddy — October 18, 2007 @ 1:28 am

2.       This story misrepresents the actual situation in two ways:

First, part of the issue is a long political fight over water rights between Alabama and Georgia . Alabama wants the water released so that it can have the water.

Second, this in no way endangers any people. This is a controlled release; they’re not just unleashing a flood upon the poor people downstream. The harm to one group of people (water users in Georgia ) is exactly offset by the benefit to another group of people (water users in Alabama ).

So drop this nonsense about environmental laws hurting people. There are some good examples of this (such as the Klamath River situation), but this is most definitely not an example of environmental laws hurting people.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 18, 2007 @ 1:28 pm

3.       Chepe:

I understand that the fight between Alabama and Georgia is part of the drought issue. I didn’t address that angle because I don’t have a dog in that fight and I don’t know very many of the details (though it’s my understanding that Alabama isn’t doing anything to conserve water or to otherwise help the situation).

You don’t believe there is a water crisis in Georgia ? The local papers seem to disagree. The water levels are at or near historic lows relative to the population.

This has wider implications than just Georgia . Other states will likely face similar problems in the future ( Nevada , Arizona , Utah , Colorado ). If the ESA is contributing to a water shortage, then the ESA needs to be amended or preferably, ended.

Comment by Stephen Littau October 18, 2007 @ 3:58 pm

4.       You don’t believe there is a water crisis in Georgia ? The local papers seem to disagree.

I never intimated any such thing.

If the ESA is contributing to a water shortage, then the ESA needs to be amended or preferably, ended.

This is a matter of making choices about what we as a people want. The trade-offs are real and they are often complicated, and they are sometimes weird. The classic case was the snail darter back in the seventies. This little fish prevented the construction of a dam. In that case, I feel, the ESA did everybody a disservice. There are also lots of weird cases of insignificant species stopping projects. But there are also plenty of cases where the ESA is much easier to justify. How about the protection of the bald eagle? It is quite possible that, were it not for the protection afforded by the ESA, the bald eagle would no longer exist in this country.

Another important point is that the ESA often carries lots of side benefits. For example, in the Klamath River case, farmers were using so much water from the Klamath River that the salmon runs were being reduced, having an impact on the salmon fisheries offshore. So who’s more important, farmers or commercial fishermen? (Actually, I don’t think that the ESA got caught up in that dispute directly, although there was some entanglement involving something at Klamath Lake , I believe.)

Anyway, the point I’m making here is that this issue is a lot more complicated than “worms versus people”. I see the ESA as a clumsy starting point, a way of developing some experience in handling a really tricky problem that’s only going to get worse. I think it’s time to rewrite the ESA to provide more precise protections. There are some areas in which the environment is still getting clobbered, and others in which the ESA is overkill.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 18, 2007 @ 6:52 pm


NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: