A bald eagle was spotted over the Des Moines River on January 11, 2009. This iconic image highlights the significance of the Endangered Species Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973. This law requires federal efforts to protect endangered plants and animals in the U.S.
America is in need of development. The demand for affordable energy, a modern electric grid, and increased housing infrastructure is pressing. However, progress cannot be defined solely by the number of transmission lines or energy facilities we construct. Abundant nature with clean rivers and healthy forests is equally important. Replacing nature with concrete and steel would lead to a diminished America.
The ongoing permitting debate in Congress presents a false choice: building the needed infrastructure supposedly means weakening environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act. This approach is flawed. The Act, supported by bipartisan backing in 1973, upholds a crucial American value: safeguarding wildlife as part of national heritage.
The Act includes a prohibition on the “take” of endangered species and mandates federal consultation with wildlife experts on projects affecting these species. Recent administrative actions have undermined these provisions, weakening the Act. The Senate’s permitting reform bill would further erode the consultation requirement by delegating it to states, compromising federal protection responsibilities.
Destroying habitats has the same effect as harming animals directly. These measures are essential parts of the Endangered Species Act. Without them, the Act loses its effectiveness. Contrary to claims that the consultation requirement hinders development, studies show that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consultations rarely stop or significantly alter projects. Informal consultations take about two weeks, while formal ones take about two months. This process allows developers to work with wildlife experts to reduce harm.
The Endangered Species Act does not block progress. It ensures growth proceeds responsibly. Choices like clean energy versus wildlife or infrastructure versus ecosystems are false dichotomies. America has the capacity to build while safeguarding irreplaceable natural resources. The current political deal in the Senate risks undermining this balance, despite past bipartisan agreement on the importance of preventing extinction.
Instead of altering the Endangered Species Act, Congress should focus on real barriers to development. Improving agency efficiency, increasing staff and resources, and identifying low-conflict areas for projects are better solutions than compromising environmental protection. The Act should remain untouched, preserving a responsibility taken up decades ago: protecting wildlife as part of America’s prosperity. The Act should not become a negotiation tool in permitting reform discussions. Building America’s future should not sacrifice the natural heritage we value and need.
Andrew Bowman is the president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife.
Leave a Reply