sunday times: endangered endangered species act

This distressing news posted at the Gristmill: that on July 4, the New York Times reported on a piece of draft legislation "that would effectively gut the Endangered Species Act. The proposed law was prepared by the Republican staff of the House Resources Committee, led by Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.), who's long opposed the ESA."  The proposed bill (nauseatingly titled the "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005") would:

• Limit critical habitat to include only areas currently occupied by a listed species, rather than including potential habitat (needed for recovery) or historical range.
• Limit protection for threatened species until they become endangered.
• Lower the current standard of recovery to a standard of mere survival.
• Consider the protection of endangered species as a "taking," requiring the government to compensate land owners (read a rabid editorial on this topic calling the ESA a "reign of terror" by one of Pombo's cronies at the right-wing APC).
• Narrow the reach, potentially exempting many federal actions now subject to review.
• Create many new layers of bureaucracy and requires mountains of redundant paperwork, hobbling the Act's effectiveness with the resultant delays, costs, and potential lawsuits.
• Automatically end the Endangered Species Act in 2015.

More analysis at the Center for Biological Diversity. If that's not enough, we have to be seriously concerned about how a new Supreme Court will impact the Endangered Species Act (and other environmental legislation).  Chris at Organic Matter has an excellent post explaining a particular point, that those following the Bush ideology feel that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been interpreted too broadly, yet a whole host of environmental legislation hinges upon the current interpretation:

A single ruling from the high Court suggesting that the application of the commerce clause to any environmental legilation is unconstitutional could have the fallout effect of dismantling other such laws as the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Chris points to a post at Bush GreenWatch further explaining the importance of the right nominee for the Supreme Court. Read up on these issues, and head to the DailyKos and the Endangered Species Coalition for some action items.

Comments

[Trix]

Its all so disturbing and, not to be a righteous Canuck, but what the hell is going on down there?!! The Bush administration has gone so hardcore and ruthless! It's frightening!
My whole week has been thrown off because I need my friday dose of Kady..

[Nuthatch]

Believe me, if things keep up, we'll be neighbors.

As for Kady, she just pooped in my office. I guess she thinks she should have gotten face time on Friday, too!

[John]

I'm very worried about the future of environmental legislation in this country. I suppose if the federal law is eviscerated, there will still be state laws in place in at least some states. That is, unless the Supreme Court strikes down environmental legislation at both the federal and local level. Another Scalia/Thomas type could lead to that.

For the near future, the best hope for habitat preservation and species protection might be private groups like the Nature Conservancy.