04/27/05 E.S.A. reform needed, Part two

04/27/05 E.S.A. reform needed, Part two

Now that Tom Sansonetti is no longer the U.S. Justice Department's top environmental attorney, he can reflex on why the Endangered Species Act is such a mess in need of reform. Actually, Sansonetti's views developed prior to and during his three and a half year stint with the Justice Department. Some of it was formed while living in his native state of Wyoming. Some of it was formed while defending the federal government in E.S.A. related litigation. He says the problem in a nutshell is that the courts, not the government, control E.S.A. listings. How so? Sansonetti says any environmental group or concerned citizen can file a petition for listing for a potentially endangered or threatened species. By law, the government, specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has 180 days to file a report determining the status of the species in question. SANSONETTI: 240 folks are so far behind in the stack of petitions that are there, that it has led to lawsuits. Environmental groups come in and say, "Hey, the one eyed horned toad. The 180 days is up. You didn't say whether it should be listed or not". Well, the biologists haven't even had a chance to go look at it, or look for it. Court says "Hey, your 180 days are up. Do you have a report?" Answer? "No". They say, "Well, environmental group wins. Federal government, you lose. First of all, you pay the fees for the environmental group. They were the prevailing party. And number two, I want to see you back here in court within a certain time period. And you're going to have that report in your hand. I'm ordering it. Another example of the courts' control over E.S.A. is critical habitat designations. Fish and Wildlife officials say that such designations offer little or no additional protections to species in question & a view Sansonetti shares. However, many judicial rulings on E.S.A. listings have required critical habitat to be part of the equation in species recovery efforts. In addition, the plaintiffs have the advantage of how an E.S.A. related case is filed in the courts. SANSONETTI: There is a choice for plaintiffs to bring cases dealing with the Endangered Species Act. You can either bring the case if you're unhappy with the activities of the federal government in the state where the animal or plant exists or you can bring the case in Washington D.C. where the decision maker in such matters exists. And that means rulings are made on a case by case, in some instances, a court by court basis. More in our next program.
Previous Report04/26/05 E.S.A. reform needed, Part one
Next Report04/28/05 E.S.A. reform needed, Part three