The Endangered Species Act

| Home | The District | Drainage | Links | Reference Library | Water Conservation | Water Supply |

THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Revised March 1999
Westlands' Position Statement

Westlands supports amendments that will bring balance to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In doing so, we must continue to protect threatened plant and animal species. Targeted reform of the ESA will allow this outdated federal law to work better for everyone -- plants, animals and people. Congress should address private property rights (including water rights), socioeconomic impacts, the use of sound science and peer review in decision-making.

Issue Summary

The ESA was enacted in 1973 as a comprehensive legislative effort to curtail the extinction of domestic animal and plant species. The statute expired in 1992 and has been up for re-authorization since that time, but Congress has been unable to act. The ESA requires the Secretary of the Interior to consider listing animals and plants in danger of extinction ("endangered species") or potentially at risk of extinction ("threatened species"). Once a species is listed, federal regulators designate an area critical to survival ("critical habitat") and develop comprehensive recovery plans.

The public relies on efficient, cost-effective food and fiber production -- tasks that have become nearly impossible in some areas in the country due to implementation of the current ESA. Resources, financial and otherwise, are insufficient to provide protection for all species covered under the ESA and those species that may become "listed" as endangered or threatened. Under the current ESA, no consideration is given to economic and social impacts.

The ESA was not intended to stifle economic productivity or harm the rights of property owners, but it has. We must recognize that private landowners play a constructive role in species protection efforts. Farmers and ranchers provide habitat for approximately 75 percent of our country's wildlife, including endangered and threatened species.

California is the nation's leading agricultural producer, and is home to more listed species under the ESA than any other state. With more than 100 species currently listed as endangered or threatened in the state, and 162 more candidate species expected to be listed in the near future, the ESA has become a major force in decisions affecting water project and farming operations. Westlands farmers are not opposed to species protection, and therefore, are seeking ESA reform -- not repeal. Our farmers take pride in caring for the environment.

Even so, many landowners live in fear of finding an endangered species on their property, potentially restricting its use and diminishing its value. Westlands farmers strongly support the objectives of the ESA, but reform is needed to develop a common-sense plan that works for everyone impacted -- plants, animals and people.

Westlands' Impacts

The negative national impacts of ESA implementation have been experienced locally. Reduced water supplies have increased the amount of productive farmland left fallow, limited cropping choices, and reduced local and regional income, jobs, taxes and economic activity. The long-range outlook for reduced water supplies also has led to a sharp decline in land values and assessed valuation of property.

In recent years, Westlands farmers have endured significant water shortages due to natural drought conditions and environmental regulations that have re-allocated agricultural water to fish and wildlife. In particular, the listings of the winter-run salmon in 1992 and the Delta smelt in early 1993 further restricted the amount of water that could be exported to water users south of the Delta. A major cause of the reduction was California's continuing drought, but ESA regulations significantly
contributed to reduced supplies. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation publicly stated that the ESA restrictions reduced water allocations by an additional 10 percent in 1992 -- leaving Westlands farmers with a 25 percent supply that year. Without the ESA restrictions, the allocation would have been 35 percent.
In the case of the salmon, the Bureau is required to hold large amounts of water in Shasta Reservoir in order to release cold water into the river to help with spawning during the summer and fall. For the Delta smelt, requirements on CVP operations included additional Delta outflows at different times than those required for the winter-run salmon. With each new species listing comes the threat of even more water shortages for farmers and communities south of the Delta.

As an illustration of economic impact, in 1992 the water reduction specifically due to the ESA totaled about 115,000 acre-feet, 10 percent of Westlands' contract with the Bureau. This would have been enough water to produce crops on about 42,600 acres, with an average gross income of $1,450 per acre. On-farm losses from the ESA-related water shortage approached $62 million for Westlands alone. Using University of California modeling, approximately 950 jobs in Westlands and 4,500 jobs statewide were lost. Using the common economic multiplier of $1-to-$3, the impact to the statewide economy was a reduction of more than $218 million. The federal government also lost almost $2.3 million in revenue, based on average water rates paid by Westlands for CVP water that year.

The long-range outlook for severely curtailed water supplies also has led to a sharp decline in land values and assessed valuation, with reduced property tax revenues in Fresno and Kings counties. At the same time, the loss of jobs has increased the demand for social services in the communities affected by the reduced CVP water supplies.

The hard-line approach to administering the ESA, ironically, has created a new set of environmental concerns. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation now assumes ESA species are present and requires an environmental review before CVP water is allocated to land that has not been cultivated within a three-year time period. As a result, landowners are forced to unnecessarily till fallow soil in an effort to prevent possible habitat from developing. Unnecessary cultivation can add to the Valley's air quality concerns. At a time when many farmers are looking at non-till, sustainable farming practices and sound resources management is encouraged, the punitive nature of the ESA works to undermine positive environmental stewardship.

Talking Points for Westlands' Position

Westlands will be supporting ESA amendments that:

Restore balance to the Act's purpose and policies, recognizing that conservation efforts need to be balanced with the need for economic stability and the protection of private property;

Consider social and economic impacts in the listing process;

Do not allow the ESA to supersede state water rights;

Use best peer-review science prior to listings;

Focus on habitat rather than individual species and subspecies, allowing for "multi-species" plans;

Redefine a "take" as an action, defining "harm" to mean a direct action against a member of a species which causes physical injury to the member, not habitat modification;

Provide incentives for species conservation;

Level the playing field by providing standing to undertake citizen suits to citizens suffering economic injury.


\| Home \| The District \| Drainage \| Links \| Reference Library \| Water Conservation \| Water Supply \|
	THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
	Revised March 1999 Westlands' Position Statement Westlands supports amendments that will bring balance to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In doing so, we must continue to protect threatened plant and animal species. Targeted reform of the ESA will allow this outdated federal law to work better for everyone -- plants, animals and people. Congress should address private property rights (including water rights), socioeconomic impacts, the use of sound science and peer review in decision-making. Issue Summary The ESA was enacted in 1973 as a comprehensive legislative effort to curtail the extinction of domestic animal and plant species. The statute expired in 1992 and has been up for re-authorization since that time, but Congress has been unable to act. The ESA requires the Secretary of the Interior to consider listing animals and plants in danger of extinction ("endangered species") or potentially at risk of extinction ("threatened species"). Once a species is listed, federal regulators designate an area critical to survival ("critical habitat") and develop comprehensive recovery plans. The public relies on efficient, cost-effective food and fiber production -- tasks that have become nearly impossible in some areas in the country due to implementation of the current ESA. Resources, financial and otherwise, are insufficient to provide protection for all species covered under the ESA and those species that may become "listed" as endangered or threatened. Under the current ESA, no consideration is given to economic and social impacts. The ESA was not intended to stifle economic productivity or harm the rights of property owners, but it has. We must recognize that private landowners play a constructive role in species protection efforts. Farmers and ranchers provide habitat for approximately 75 percent of our country's wildlife, including endangered and threatened species. California is the nation's leading agricultural producer, and is home to more listed species under the ESA than any other state. With more than 100 species currently listed as endangered or threatened in the state, and 162 more candidate species expected to be listed in the near future, the ESA has become a major force in decisions affecting water project and farming operations. Westlands farmers are not opposed to species protection, and therefore, are seeking ESA reform -- not repeal. Our farmers take pride in caring for the environment. Even so, many landowners live in fear of finding an endangered species on their property, potentially restricting its use and diminishing its value. Westlands farmers strongly support the objectives of the ESA, but reform is needed to develop a common-sense plan that works for everyone impacted -- plants, animals and people. Westlands' Impacts The negative national impacts of ESA implementation have been experienced locally. Reduced water supplies have increased the amount of productive farmland left fallow, limited cropping choices, and reduced local and regional income, jobs, taxes and economic activity. The long-range outlook for reduced water supplies also has led to a sharp decline in land values and assessed valuation of property. In recent years, Westlands farmers have endured significant water shortages due to natural drought conditions and environmental regulations that have re-allocated agricultural water to fish and wildlife. In particular, the listings of the winter-run salmon in 1992 and the Delta smelt in early 1993 further restricted the amount of water that could be exported to water users south of the Delta. A major cause of the reduction was California's continuing drought, but ESA regulations significantly contributed to reduced supplies. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation publicly stated that the ESA restrictions reduced water allocations by an additional 10 percent in 1992 -- leaving Westlands farmers with a 25 percent supply that year. Without the ESA restrictions, the allocation would have been 35 percent. In the case of the salmon, the Bureau is required to hold large amounts of water in Shasta Reservoir in order to release cold water into the river to help with spawning during the summer and fall. For the Delta smelt, requirements on CVP operations included additional Delta outflows at different times than those required for the winter-run salmon. With each new species listing comes the threat of even more water shortages for farmers and communities south of the Delta. As an illustration of economic impact, in 1992 the water reduction specifically due to the ESA totaled about 115,000 acre-feet, 10 percent of Westlands' contract with the Bureau. This would have been enough water to produce crops on about 42,600 acres, with an average gross income of $1,450 per acre. On-farm losses from the ESA-related water shortage approached $62 million for Westlands alone. Using University of California modeling, approximately 950 jobs in Westlands and 4,500 jobs statewide were lost. Using the common economic multiplier of $1-to-$3, the impact to the statewide economy was a reduction of more than $218 million. The federal government also lost almost $2.3 million in revenue, based on average water rates paid by Westlands for CVP water that year. The long-range outlook for severely curtailed water supplies also has led to a sharp decline in land values and assessed valuation, with reduced property tax revenues in Fresno and Kings counties. At the same time, the loss of jobs has increased the demand for social services in the communities affected by the reduced CVP water supplies. The hard-line approach to administering the ESA, ironically, has created a new set of environmental concerns. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation now assumes ESA species are present and requires an environmental review before CVP water is allocated to land that has not been cultivated within a three-year time period. As a result, landowners are forced to unnecessarily till fallow soil in an effort to prevent possible habitat from developing. Unnecessary cultivation can add to the Valley's air quality concerns. At a time when many farmers are looking at non-till, sustainable farming practices and sound resources management is encouraged, the punitive nature of the ESA works to undermine positive environmental stewardship. Talking Points for Westlands' Position Westlands will be supporting ESA amendments that: Restore balance to the Act's purpose and policies, recognizing that conservation efforts need to be balanced with the need for economic stability and the protection of private property; Consider social and economic impacts in the listing process; Do not allow the ESA to supersede state water rights; Use best peer-review science prior to listings; Focus on habitat rather than individual species and subspecies, allowing for "multi-species" plans; Redefine a "take" as an action, defining "harm" to mean a direct action against a member of a species which causes physical injury to the member, not habitat modification; Provide incentives for species conservation; Level the playing field by providing standing to undertake citizen suits to citizens suffering economic injury.