Why Improve ESA?

Civic Infrastructure

The Problem

Without reform, the current version of the ESA will continue to spark contentious and costly lawsuits that preclude the construction and maintenance of important civil infrastructure, including water delivery systems, transportation projects, flood control systems, prisons, and other public facilities.

Example #1: Water Supply

In NRDC et. al. v. Norton, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other plaintiffs sought to disrupt the California water system through the use of the critical habitat and other provisions of the ESA. The lawsuit could make it more difficult, if not impossible, to make the improvements to California’s State Water Project and Central Valley Project that are necessary to continue providing sufficient water for agricultural and urban use.

Example #2: Electric Power

U.S District Judge James Redden has ordered increased spill from dams (and therefore decreased power production) at four lower Snake River dams and one Columbia River dam to aid threatened Snake River fall chinook. The Bonneville Power Authority has estimated that this additional spill could cost the region's taxpayers roughly $67 million. This action could cause substantial rate increases for homeowners and businesses in the Pacific Northwest.

Example #3: Threats to Local Governments

Legal challenges to "no surprises" assurances (Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) and litigation suggesting that critical habitat designations be allowed within HCPs jeopardize new roads, flood control systems, water treatment facilities, prisons, business parks and residential neighborhoods like those proposed in the San Diego Multiple-Species Conservation Program. The San Diego MSCP was developed to resolve the conflict between necessary development and conservation in a county with 2.9 million residents.

How H.R. 3824 would help

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act (H.R. 3824) would update and modernize ESA to protect vital Habitat Conservation Plans and eliminate critical habitat.

• H.R. 3824 codifies the "no surprises" policy within HCPs to give property owners, state and local governments, and other parties the necessary regulatory certainty to continue with species and conservation efforts.

H.R. 3824 replaces the use of critical habitat, a designation that has become the most problematic aspect of the current law, with an integrated recovery planning process that will focus the law on recovery and minimize the conflicts that often lead to litigation.

Read H.R. 3824 for yourself or see a section by section analysis of the bill.