Issue Position: Environment/Natural Resources

Issue Position

It is no secret the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has caused economic hardship and devastation to farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and individuals. A prime example is the unfortunate case in the Klamath Basin in California. The National Academy of Science reported the Fish and Wildlife Agencies decision to withhold desperately needed water from Klamath Basin farmers in order to protect an endangered species of sucker and salmon fish was unfounded and wrong. Essentially, the Fish and Wildlife Service used the authority given them under the Endangered Species Act to support an erroneous and hastened decision.

This law has become more ominous and powerful than Congress ever intended it to be. It has been applied across millions of acres and hundreds of miles of watercourses costing billions of dollars. I believe we can improve this law and limit unwarranted impacts if we define the scientific standard federal agencies must meet when making ESA decisions.

For this reason, I am a cosponsor of the Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning Act of 2003. Representative Greg Walden (R-Oregon), introduced this bill to ensure the use of sound science in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While there are clearly many problems with the implementation of the Act, one of the major problems relates to the federal agencies' interpretation of the ESA with regard to the use of the "best possible science." There are no definitions in the ESA or the regulations as to what constitutes the "best" or "available" information.

H.R. 1662 would require the federal government to give greater weight to empirical or field-tested data and initiate a system of peer-review for many of the federal agency decisions. The bill would establish a qualified peer review panel meeting the National Academy of Science standards to review ESA decisions and activities, including listing a species, delisting a species, recovery plans, jeopardy opinions and non-jeopardy opinions.

The bill also would require the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to list a threatened or endangered species only if data are collected in the field that supports the determination. Similar standards must be met in delisting a species.

Right now, our success ratio with the ESA is deplorable. Less than 5 percent of the endangered and threatened species in the United States have been successfully recovered and delisted over the past 30 years. If we use solid, proven science instead of beltway guesswork in crafting recovery plans for these species, we can more effectively recover and delist endangered species.

The Endangered Species Act is based on excellent intentions, but problems with the language of the law have caused as many problems as it has solved. The ESA should be reformed so that it protects species while avoiding unnecessary adverse affects such as the financial devastation suffered by farmers in the Klamath Basin last summer.

Source