Endangered species repair required
By Richard W. Pombo
July 28, 2006
California, as much or more than any other state, has
witnessed firsthand the Endangered Species Act's (ESA) shortcomings.
The Golden State has the second-highest number of
endangered species in the nation, from the captivating California condor to
the less-than-charismatic Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly.
It's not too surprising, then, that California leads
the Lower 48 states in acres of officially designated critical habitat.
Nearly 20 percent of the state's approximated 100 million acres is in the
regulatory clutches of this deleterious designation.
Despite the state's obvious stake in ESA, little has
been done to move reform legislation through the U.S. Senate. Californians,
with untold resources tied up due to ESA, deserve real reform and should
demand action from their elected officials.
Even with ESA's unsuccessful track record, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently designated critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog. The estimated cost in San Luis Obispo County,
Calif., alone is $165 million. Projected costs for the entire state are $497
million over 20 years.
What are we getting in return for all that money?
The answer, unfortunately, is not much. Multiple officials within the FWS,
over successive administrations, have criticized the critical habitat
provision as ineffective and conflict-ridden.
In 1999 congressional testimony, Jamie Rappaport
Clark, then FWS director, said:
"... in 25 years of implementing the ESA, we
have found that designation of 'official' critical habitat provides little
additional protection to most listed species, while it consumes significant
amounts of scarce conservation resources. We believe that the critical
habitat designation process needs to be recast as the determination of
habitat necessary for the recovery of listed species. This 'recovery
habitat' should be described in recovery plans."
For a federal agency to admit its program provides
little benefit while consuming huge resources translates in normal English
to a program that is useless at best. However, after leaving public service
for Defenders of Wildlife, Ms. Clark changed her tune. When she testifies
now, she calls critical habitat "a crucial tool for ensuring the
survival and recovery of imperiled species."
Like many aspects of the ESA, critical habitat is
driven by litigation, providing an endless supply of slam-dunk lawsuits to
activist groups that can bag taxpayer dollars in the form of attorney's
fees.
Critical habitat is not the only outdated provision
of the ESA. After more than three decades and billions of taxpayer dollars,
FWS documents reveal that only 10 -- or less than 1 percent -- of the Act's
roughly 1,300 listed species have been recovered. Of those that remain under
its care, just 6 percent are classified as improving, and a staggering 70
percent are classified as either "in decline" or of
"unknown" status.
No wonder the U.S. Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) recently assessed the endangered species program as "not
performing."
Furthermore, many costs have skyrocketed
beyond what recovery plans originally intended. For example, the decurrent
false aster's (a plant) recovery plan anticipated recovery by 1997 at a cost
of $58,000. In 2006, the FWS announced it will finally review its status,
after spending more than 800 percent of what was originally projected.
Similarly, the least tern's recovery plan anticipated the bird could be
recovered by 2005, at a cost of $1.75 million to $2 million. By fiscal 2004,
least tern expenditure had exceeded $23 million.
These are just a few of the ESA's shortcomings, but
they more than justify the Office of Management and Budget's assessment that
the program is "not performing," and are just some of the reasons
the U.S. House of Representatives, with a strong bipartisan vote, passed
H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act (TESRA). TESRA
provides many long-needed improvements, including elimination of wasteful
critical habitat provisions. Instead, it identifies habitat in recovery
plans -- just as Defenders of Wildlife's Jamie Clark testified was needed
when she was with the FWS.
But TESRA also accomplishes much more. It requires
timely comprehensive recovery plans and includes affected parties on
recovery teams to reduce conflict. When conflict is unavoidable, TESRA
requires compensation for private property owners' loss of property or its
use. Further, TESRA provides common-sense exemptions for emergencies and
national security while strengthening scientific standards, improving
reporting and mandating transparent decisionmaking.
To work, the ESA must refocus on recovery instead of
conflict. For TESRA to work, the Senate must get the job done. Endangered
species, and Californians, deserve better. Ignoring the need to improve the
ESA is a dereliction of congressional duty and an unrecorded vote to
perpetuate a failing conservation program.
Richard W. Pombo, California Republican, is
chairman of the House Resources Committee and a member of the Agriculture
Committee.
