The Future of the Endangered Species Act: Richard Pombos Threatened and Endangered Species Act of 20

1
The Future of the Endangered Species Act
Richard Pombos Threatened and Endangered
Species Act of 2005

• Chapter 6 Environmental Policy in Congress
• Presented by Brian Burke

2
Threatened and Endangered Species Act of 2005

• Introduced to the House on Sept. 19. 2005
• Sponsored by Calif. Rep. Richard Pombo
• Purpose To Amend and reauthorize the ESA of 1973
  to provide greater results conserving and
  recovering listed species, and other purposes
• Passed to Congress on September 29, 2005 (House
  Vote 229 193)

3
Major Changes

• Bill is a major overhaul of the ESA. 74 page
  document. Major changes
• Eliminate Critical Habitat
• Mandates Secretary of State Response within 180
  days
• Interior Secretary determines what constitutes
  appropriate scientific data for decision-making
  under the law

4
The ESA

• The pit bull of environmental laws.
• Don Barry, recent Assistant Secretary for Fish
  and Wildlife and Parks, 1991
• the broadest and most powerful
  wildlife-protection law in U.S. History
• National Academy of Science, 1995
• Federal endangered species law is the closest
  thing to an absolute legislative command in
  public natural resource law
• 2 Coggins Glicksman, Public Land Resources,
  section 156.01

5
The ESA

• The US Supreme Court
• The plain text of Congress in enacting this
  statute was to halt and reverse the trend towards
  species extinction, whatever the costs the ESA
  admits of no exception and reveals a conscious
  decision to give endangered species priority over
  the primary mission of Federal agencies
• TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978).

6
Why change?

• Best scientific and commercial data available
  is a weak scientific standard
• Ineffectiveness of Critical Habitat
• Resulting Loss of Property Value

7
Pros

• Recovery Plans and Teams
• Recovery Agreements and Contracts
• Incentives to Private Property Owners
• Removes rapant litigation resulting from
  Critical Habitat designation
• Secretary of Interior to establish criteria that
  will constitute definition of best available

8
Cons

• Eliminate Critical Habitat Protections
• Recovery plans are non-regulatory and provide no
  mandatory protections for habitat
• Recovery teams
• Requires teams to include reps. From each
  constituency with direct interest in the species
  and its economic and social impacts
• Removes requirement that recovery plans be
  prepared for the conservation and survival of
  endangered species and threatened species

9
Cons

• Repeal Protections Against Hazardous Pesticides
• ESA requirements are waived for five years
• Politicize Scientific Decision-making Process
• Sec of Interior determines BAS
• Eliminate Check and Balance
• Administration may exempt federal agency from
  requirement to consult with USFW
• Requires Taxpayers to Pay Developers
• 180 Day Deadline