http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-ed-species14-2008aug14,0,4172592.story
EDITORIAL
An endangered act
A new proposal would let all kinds of federal agencies make
decisions about what species to protect.
August 14, 2008
The Bush administration has shown extraordinary disdain for the
Endangered Species Act over the years, dragging its heels on listing
some species (polar bear, sage grouse, wolverine) and removing vital
protections for others (gray wolf, arroyo toad, red-legged frog,
spotted owl). Time after time, it has been pulled into court for
flouting the law, and most of the time it has lost and been ordered
to do its job.
But regard for endangered species hit a low point this week, when
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed a regulatory change that
would undermine not just case-by-case decision-making but the law's
basic procedures. According to the proposal (pdf)
<http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/AT50PR2008_08_13_FR.pdf>,
federal agencies that wanted to start a new project -- a road, say,
or a dam -- could decide on their own that it wouldn't harm an
imperiled species, in which case they wouldn't have to consult with
the wildlife biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or
National Marine Fisheries Service who are the experts on these
matters.
Other agencies not only lack such expertise, they have a built-in
conflict of interest. We wouldn't think of letting an oil company
decide whether a new offshore rig might harm the ocean; we wouldn't
allow a pharmaceutical company to market a new medication on its
say-so that the drug is safe. Why would we let the Department of
Transportation build a new road through the habitat of the California
gnatcatcher because its engineers claim that the project would do no
harm?
Under Kempthorne's proposal, a project could be halted or scaled down
only if it was "reasonably certain" to harm endangered species;
currently, scientists must show that damage is "reasonably
foreseeable." The proposal also would make it harder for scientists
to consider the cumulative effects of various projects.
Because of a 30-day public comment period, instead of the usual 60 or
90 days, the rule could be adopted and in place before the
presidential election. Though it might well be overturned by
Congress, the courts or perhaps a new administration, the process
would take months, giving federal agencies the chance to push through
their projects. That makes this proposal a particularly cynical move,
designed for expediency, not good government.
To get involved: The public can comment, and view the comments of
others, at regulations.gov.
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
purposes only. ***
