Water Education Foundation
This is just one post in the Wildlife & Endangered Species Category
Click here to view all posts

Revisiting myths and the Endangered Species Act

Posted by: Maven on December 11, 2009 at 7:48 am

From Brandon Middleton at the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog:

“Earlier this month the Public Policy Institute of California issued a noteworthy paper on the Golden State’s water crisis, California Water Myths. The paper includes a brief discussion of the Endangered Species Act and whether this law and other policy concerns are really the “true villians” in the California water debate. PPIC offers a fair analysis, acknowledging some of the illicit purposes behind ESA litigation and the impact that ESA restrictions can have on deliveries, while at the same time concluding that it’s not exactly clear how much additional water would flow to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California without ESA restrictions.

PPIC fails to address one key question, however: Does the Endangered Species Act put species ahead of people? This is an interesting omission, especially when one considers that environmentalists in the water debate have contended time and again that the claim that the ESA puts humans below fish and other endangered species is simply a lie. For a good example, check out this National Wildlife Federation site, which claims that it is a myth that “the Endangered Species Act puts plants and animals above people, costing us money and jobs.” … “

Read more from the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Liberty Blog by clicking here.

December 11, 2009 · Filed Under Wildlife & Endangered Species

Comments

One Response to “Revisiting myths and the Endangered Species Act”

  1. dfb on December 11th, 2009 1:12 pm

    I think the answer to the question posed by PLF is “it depends.” It depends on perspective, costs of losing a species, cost of losing other species related to the one being lost, benefits gained from the action affected by ESA, and more. In the case of the delta smelt and salmon, the answer changes based on perspectives of people who rely on the water for farming or municipal/industrial uses or the fisherman who rely on salmon fishing for their livelihoods. :-)

Leave a Reply