Species act reform is long overdue

It's about time. The wheels on the Endangered Species Act have been wobbling and squeaking for years, to the great discomfort of many Americans, and finally, Congress is taking tangible steps to fix the problems.

Rep. Rick Pombo, R-Calif., has proposed a top-to-bottom overhaul of the Endangered Species Act through legislation that is poised to clear the House Resources Committee.

Even some liberal Democrats on the committee announced that they agree with some of the proposed changes. And that is a refreshing acknowledgment, considering that the standard, robotic defense of the 1974 law is that it is some kind of unassailable, sacred book that has grown, as a result of case law, to volumes of books.

For years, environmental groups have been clinging to that idea, arguing that the law isn't broken, so why fix it.

But that has become a ridiculous claim, because the Endangered Species Act clearly is broken. That's why it has risen to the top of the legislative priority list for dozens of interest groups, ranging from Realtors to recreation groups. Government officials, too, have pointed to inefficiencies and high costs associated with the act.

But while the Endangered Species Act has its problems, that doesn't mean Pombo's reform bill is perfect either. It's high time for a thoughtful debate to produce some type of compromise on many of the relevant issues, starting with "critical habitat."

The ESA's provisions pertaining to "critical habitat" designations have by themselves fueled an environmental litigation industry. Right here in Montana, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel have been tangled up for the last few years in litigation and bureaucratic paperwork over designating critical habitat for bull trout, rather than devoting resources to actual habitat improvement projects.

The service on Friday came out with a decision that expanded critical habitat designation for the fish. But because it covers only 18 percent of the waters that were originally considered for designation, critical habitat will likely remain a legal issue fought with paper rather than a tangible benefit for fish.

As a result of numerous lawsuits, the lengthy and costly process of designating critical habitat has been an abomination that has at times consumed most of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's budget.

While the service has targeted truly "critical" areas for species protection, it never seems to be enough. Enviro-litigants have accomplished, at great cost to taxpayers, sweeping designations that arguably have little tangible benefit for the species in question, but will surely be fertile grounds for future litigation.

"There is a recognition that the current critical habitat arrangement doesn't work, for a whole host of reasons," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., a leading liberal voice on the House Resources Committee.

With such consensus, we are for once optimistic that Congress will find middle ground that will lead to changes in a law that is desperately overdue for improvement.