...While not a cure all, my bill is a simple reform aimed at modernizing the ESA and making the listing process more transparent.
When
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service makes a listing decision, it not
only aims to protect the species, it also affords some protection to the
ecosystems that those species rely upon. They frequently make what is
called “critical habitat” designations, which are lands that are
essential for the conservation of a species.
Activities
on these lands are heavily restricted. In states like Nevada, where
mining, ranching, energy production and outdoor recreation all serve as a
central component of our local economy, these restrictions can be
devastating.
My bill does not take away the Interior’s
authority to limit these types of activities. It simply requires the
Department of Interior to report the full economic impact of any
proposed critical habitat designation to the public before it can make a
decision. Specifically, rather than the very limited economic analysis
they currently conduct, the Service must determine the effect a
designation would have on property use and values, employment, and
revenues for state and local governments.
Additionally,
it requires the Service to exclude areas from critical habitat
designations if the benefit of keeping it in multiple-use far exceeds
the benefits a restriction would have for wildlife.
Access
to all lands, particularly public lands, is vital to Nevada’s character
and economy. Restricting the multiple-use of those lands in a
nontransparent and irrational fashion is not an option for Nevadans who
rely heavily on them for their livelihood. Whether it is the
greater-sage grouse, the long-eared bat, the lesser prairie chicken, or
any other species the agency is making a decision on, it is critical
that at a minimum we add this simple, commonsense step to the process.
The ESA has expired and hasn't been reauthorized in years. It only exists because Congress, now controlled by Republicans, keeps funding it. Want the abuse stopped? Quit funding it. If the R's refused to fund the ESA, then the enviros and other proponents would have to come to them for reauthorization. All the leverage would then switch to those who want reasonable reform.
UPDATE: Mea culpa. I was less than precise in my hurried comments. All of the statute has not expired, just that section that authorizes appropriations. Both the Senate and the House have rules that prohibit appropriating funds which have not been authorized, but does so for the ESA anyway. I'll provide a further explanation on Sunday and try to slow down in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment