Because the Administration's budget recently made two very strong statements about these ESA programs. Two completely wrongheaded statements.
First, take science.
I've read the testimony that will be presented here today. No one disputes that listing decisions - indeed all decisions under the ESA should be based upon the best science possible.
The Administration itself repeats the "sound science" mantra in its testimony, and throughout its budget request for ESA programs generally.
Sound science, to me, means good science, and we know that good science isn't cheap.
But this Administration's budget cuts ESA science funding, along with funding for recovery plans, habitat conservation plans and candidate conservation plans - all the things we know are critical to achieving success under the Act.
Instead, the budget is a sop - it cuts these programs and tells our threatened and endangered species to look to the Land and Water Conservation Fund stateside grants for the funding to stay alive.
In my State of Nevada that will mean that desert tortoises, Lahontan cutthroat trout and Armagosa toads will compete with pools, ballparks and recreation centers for funding.
One example of this sop hits close to home. This budget cuts a program I helped start called the Nevada Biodiversity Initiative. We started it in 1993, but as a result of its tremendous success, it became part of the President's budget five years ago.
The Initiative has helped provide the scientific understanding of imperiled species throughout the West, and has helped direct conservation and recovery efforts in a scientifically effective way. The Administration zeroes out the Initiative in its budget. It cuts the science that is the foundation for every ESA-related activity in Nevada.
The second wrongheaded statement the Administration makes in its budget is to ask for a rider to prohibit citizens from petitioning the FWS to list species as threatened or endangered, or from designating critical habitat.
The Administration argues that the rider is necessary because compliance with citizen generated court orders will consume the entire budget for listings and critical habitat.
The Service argues that this litigation forces it to protect species under the Act based upon citizen and court priorities rather than according to its own priorities.
That argument simply doesn't hold up.
The overwhelming majority of litigation over listings arises when the FWS fails to meet a statutory deadline to respond to a citizen petition to list.
In responding to that petition, the FWS can decide to list a species, not to list it, or can put it on a candidate list and assign it a low priority for listing based upon listing guidance that's been in place since 1983.
Is there a lot of litigation over the priority the FWS assigns to citizen-petitioned listings? Are citizens going in and reordering the priorities the FWS sets?
No. The suits force the Service to meet deadlines. Citizens, at least in this context, are not determining the listing priority of species.
Do citizen suits often prompt important listings that might not happen because of political opposition?
Yes. Salmon, spotted owls, and - in Nevada - the desert tortoise, were all listed as a result of citizen suits.
What's the answer to the backlog?
What about increasing the funding for the listing program?
The Service estimates that it would take roughly $80-120 million to clear up the backlog.
We could develop a 5-year plan to get this work done, rather than shutting the courthouse door to our citizens.
While we all might disagree about some of the topics to be discussed here today, we should all be able to reach agreement that the ESA can't achieve its goal of restoring threatened and endangered species if we starve it of funding.