Birds, Beasts and Budgets

The fierce defenders and the equally vehement opponents of the Endangered Species Act perhaps agree only on this: The measure, farsighted for its time, is now invoked to remedy increasingly complex planning problems that are way beyond what was envisioned by its drafters.

Otherwise, there is precious little consensus about the law that President Richard M. Nixon signed as last-ditch protection for plants and animals on the verge of extinction. Developers, loggers and many politicians revile the act as an obstacle to economic activity and as a clunky and costly way to protect weeds and bugs. Environmentalists see the act, with all its administrative warts, as the last line of defense against those who would otherwise pave, mine and log with abandon.

Both sides acknowledge that the law needs reform, but there agreement ends.

The new Interior secretary, Gale A. Norton, has now waded into this caldron of special interests and deeply held attitudes. A proposal buried in the budget that President Bush sent to Congress this week would give Norton-- formerly a lawyer for the property rights-oriented Mountain States Legal Foundation--wider latitude to decide which plants and animals should be protected. Even more important, the measure would restrict or preclude environmental group lawsuits against the department that seek to have rare species declared endangered and to protect their habitats. This proposal would neither solve the endemic problems of balancing development with wildlife protection nor defuse long-standing anger and suspicion. Norton claims the change is needed so her staff can focus on saving species rather than court appearances. Yet litigation has been a major factor in building the existing list of 1,243 endangered plant and animal species. In California, 90% of the species on the list gained protection as a result of a citizen petition or court action or both.

Norton also insists that her agency’s budget simply cannot meet the potential workload. The better answer would be to increase the department’s paltry $8.5-million budget request for species protection rather than cut the task to fit an inadequate budget. Norton might also redouble efforts to forge habitat conservation plans, such as those protecting coastal hills and mesas in Orange and San Diego counties, by brokering deals among developers, environmentalists and federal, state and local officials to protect fragile habitats before species are at risk.

In the absence of such efforts, the administration’s proposal on species protection lets the fox guard the henhouse.