Endangered Species Act Under Attack

Congress is trying a back-door approach to gut the Endangered Species Act, environmentalists charged this week.

Two bills aimed at regulatory reform sailed through the House of Representatives recently on lopsided votes.

Little noted in the debates was the fact that the endangered species process would be among those restricted by the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act and the Regulatory Transition Act.

“This is a direct attack on the law, cleverly disguised under the Contract With America,” said Dorene Bolze, spokeswoman for the Wildlife Conservation Society. “This is not the way to solve the real problems and weaknesses of the Endangered Species Act.”

If the two bills pass, the agency would be forced to remove 15 recently added species - mostly plants and fish - from the endangered and threatened lists. It would also halt consideration of 119 others in different stages of review.

Land-rights groups say the two bills are needed to relieve industry of excessive regulation. But their support is somewhat guarded.

Chuck Cushman of the American Land Rights Association worries the proposals will cool the “white hot anger” of those eager to see major changes in the law.

“It would be much better for us if we listed all these species as endangered now, so we can have the widest possible anger rise up against ESA and force changes that make it more conducive to communities and businesses.”

The 1973 Endangered Species Act makes it a federal crime to kill, harm, sell, possess, import or export any endangered or threatened species.

Congress is expected to discuss reauthorizing the act this summer.

In the meantime, the two bills passed by the House would make indirect changes if they can get through the Senate intact and survive a threatened presidential veto.

The risk assessment bill, which the House passed Tuesday, would require federal agencies to base new rules primarily on their likely costs and benefits. The proposal covers any new regulation that would cost industry more than $25 million.

An addition to the endangered species list often costs at least that much.

The Regulatory Transition Act, passed Feb. 17, would cancel most new rules proposed or enacted since last Nov. 20.

It includes an amendment that bans any additions to the lists of endangered or threatened species through 1996, unless Congress reauthorizes the act before then.

Environmentalists contend both bills would weaken the current law. Now, the Interior Department is required to use the “best scientific evidence available,” not an economic analysis, when adding to the list of endangered species.

The bills also would make it more difficult for researchers to implement the law, said Michael Bean of the Environmental Defense Fund.

“The Endangered Species Act already accommodates economic and industrial interests to a significant degree,” Bean said.

Rep. George Nethercutt of Spokane, who like most Republicans voted for both bills, disagrees.

A “common sense approach” to implementing the Endangered Species Act must include a cost-benefit estimate of its effect on businesses and communities, he said.

“Those who want to limit the scope of government don’t want to kill the Endangered Species Act,” Nethercutt said.