We'll get to Patty Murray shortly. But first a word on the underhanded manner in which
Crapo's gutting of the Endangered Species Act, S 2110, was introduced. The logical place for it to be considered would have been the Committee on Environment and Public works, which has a subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, under the leadership of Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). That subcommittee is considering ESA reauthorization of its own, but has committed to developing such legislation only after gathering adequate information and hearing from agencies, experts and stakeholders.
So the leadership sent Crapo's steaming pile to the Finance Comittee. Along with Kerry and Schumer, the committee includes a rogue's gallery of villains, including Frist, Santorum, and Crapo himself.
More bad, and then the good, on the other side.
Remember, Pombo's version has already passed the House. Any ESA bill that passes the Senate this year would be referred to a conference committee to be merged with the Pombo bill from the House. According to
Environmental News Network, the two leaders of such a conference committee would be Rep. Pombo himself and Senator Inhofe (R-OK), who has an environmental voting score of 0 according to the League of Conservation Voters.
So even a bill written by the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society would then be "reconciled" or "merged" with Pombo's, under the supervision of Inhofe. This is going to be a long row to hoe.
(photo, courtesy USFWS: Eskimo curlew, none seen in 40 years)
On a happier note: I've been hounding Senator Murray for a response on Crapo's bill. One came last night, and I like it.
Although her email reflects no knowledge that S 2110 has in fact been introduced, her (office's) response more than satisfies me that she will oppose it should it reach the Senate floor. In fact, her email itself constitutes a diary length defense of the ESA. Here it is, minus the salutations, etc.:
Since its passage in 1972, the ESA has served as the preeminent legal framework for protecting and restoring fragile wildlife species. Born out of concern for the rapidly declining bald eagle population, passage of the ESA placed strict limits on, among other things, the spraying of hazardous pesticides like DDT that were believed to have caused the eagle's decline. The law has proven tremendously successful, and no example is more evident than that of the eagle, which now boasts robust population numbers. In fact, over the past three decades only nine of the more than 1800 animals listed under the ESA have gone extinct - a 99 percent success rate.
Unfortunately, the ESA has been under increasing attack in recent months as critics have advocated for large-scale reforms. Opponents of the law assert that it is too rigid, placing an undue burden on landowners who must comply with its regulations once a threatened or endangered specie has been identified. In the House of Representatives, Representative Richard Pombo (CA-11) introduced legislation in September 2005 that aims to significantly modify the ESA. His bill, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act (H.R. 3824), is an extreme approach to reform that would ultimately do far more harm than good. The legislation passed the full House just days after its introduction.
For many ESA critics, an issue of primary concern is the current lack of compensation for those who are impacted when imperiled species or their habitats are found on the owner's property. As required under the law, when a listed species is discovered, every effort must be made to protect the habitat deemed critical toward aiding the species' recovery. Thus, landowners are often faced with a compulsion to restrict activities on those areas of their land that qualify as critical habitat. Unfortunately, with no recourse available, these regulations can have an unfair burden on the landowners.
Over the years, Congress has tried to address this concern by incentivizing compliance with the law. Initiatives like the Landowner Incentive Program and Habitat Conservation Plan grants, for example, are designed to provide financial assistance to property owners who would otherwise have difficulty meeting the ESA's regulations. Additionally, under programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the government can acquire land for public benefit from a willing seller. Representative Pombo's bill, however, seeks a far more extreme approach to this issue by requiring the government to compensate all impacted property owners, with no real provisions to ensure subsequent compliance with the ESA regulations. While the current incentive programs may not be perfect, they are a far more measured means of reducing conflicts over the ESA, providing assistance to those most significantly impacted, and better meeting the law's goals of species restoration than the vaguely proposed compensation plan.
Additional measures would reduce the role that science plays in making species assessments. For one, H.R. 3824 would eliminate the current requirement that federal agencies consult first with biologists before proceeding with actions that could harm fragile species. As it is currently structured, the ESA ensures that the best available scientific data is the primary basis on which listings are determined. Eliminating the consultation requirement would weaken the science-based objectivity, which must remain the benchmark for which these decisions are made. Additionally, H.R. 3824 would remove the restrictions on the use of certain pesticides such as DDT, reversing the very protections around which the ESA was initially based. These are only some of the alarming provisions in a bill that threatens our landmark environmental law.
In the Pacific Northwest, the ESA remains a critical tool for helping to restore our salmon populations. When the Clinton Administration first listed a number of these populations in 1999, it was the first time ever that the law had been applied in such an extensive urban area. It was an experiment that drew many skeptics, drawing fears that the law would impose excessive economic burdens that would outweigh environmental benefits. Ultimately, however, local, state, and federal leaders agreed to do whatever was necessary to preserve the species that are so iconic to our region. And while this will continue to be an uphill battle for some time, the signs for future recovery are at least encouraging.
The recent endangered listing of the southern resident orca is another sign that we need every tool available to protect Puget Sound from significant environmental decline. After decades of dwindling numbers, the December 2005 listing of the orca population is an unfortunate indication of the state of our broader Puget Sound ecosystem. Implementing ESA protection for these unique and majestic creatures is an important step toward ensuring that the natural beauty of our distinctive region is preserved for generations. Without these measures at our disposal, the disappearance of the orcas, salmon, and many other species that define our Northwest culture is all but guaranteed.
Throughout my Senate tenure, I have consistently supported strong endangered species protections. For example, I have been proud to secure millions of federal dollars for important salmon restoration and habitat conservation efforts throughout our region. I have also helped secure vital funding for Puget Sound orca research that led to the Administration's decision to list the population under the ESA. And I have consistently supported funding for incentive programs that help property owners cooperate with ESA regulations. Please know that I will always consider strong endangered species protections to be a key priority.
I appreciate knowing your views on this important issue. Rest assured, should H.R. 3824 or other similar legislation come before the full Senate for a vote, I will voice my strong opposition.
So, my Senators stand two for two opposing Crapo's bill. Email yours and see where they stand (Pre-fab email. Edit at will). Or reach out and nag them via phone or snail mail.