Monday the Obama administration announced what will probably be one of it's less controversial changes in how it administers the Endangered Species Act (ESA) reports The Hill
The admin said they'd soon begin requiring applicants for endangered status to first solicit information from state wildlife agencies asking for info before coming to the feds.
There have been many smaller bills floating around the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, none of which are close to being brought to the floor for a vote, but all of which might well be combined into a more all encompassing ESA revision.
The Obama administration is probably working to iron out the considerable differences between their own objectives and those of the Republicans over the coming year. I'd think a well orchestrated reform might in the end pass with substantial Democratic support. ESA litigation has been a problem for many states for a long time.
“The proposed policies would result in a more nimble, transparent and ultimately more effective Endangered Species Act,” Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe said in a statement.
I'd think that for those who want to reform the ESA whether or not President Obama is a lame duck or not is irrelevant. Most of the impetuous comes from individual states in the west and midwest. California for instance is in a severe drought that might well have extensive effects on much of it's economy and the lifestyles of it's residence. How will those enlightened souls feel about the pikeminnow, bony tail chub, humpback chub and razorback sucker (all ESA listed by the way) when it costs them double or triple on their water bill, or their front lawn, or maybe more importantly, one of CA's major industries?
The flip side are all the industries wishing to rid themselves of any ESA considerations, particularly the extractive industries.
It has been obvious reform was coming. Recent, and from what I've heard very solid judicial decisions have perhaps redefined what used to be thought of as a species range. When a federal judge interprets a law correctly, but unrealistically, something is bound to break. Litigation has snowballed from a few a year into what is a new cottage industry of hundreds of cases based not on science but on procedural issues.
I'd look for a trickle of news releases from the USFWS over the coming weeks. Releases meant to both mollify Republicans bent on more radical changes, and to soften the sting of what will be a major setback for Environmentalists of the left.
http://thehill.com/...