6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
July 6, 2018
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O ur V iew
Western governors offer prudent ESA proposal
S
ince it was passed in 1973,
the Endangered Species Act
has been all but untouchable
by members of Congress, who
consider amendments to the law
with the same trepidation they
would if they were climbing over
an electric fence.
It’s not that the ESA is perfect
— far from it. Rather it’s fear of
retribution from environmental
groups who see the law as
their meal ticket and a weapon
they use against anyone who
doesn’t share their enthusiasm
for shutting down economic
activities across the West to
“save” local populations of
various species.
For example, wolves
have been a major problem
for ranchers since they were
reintroduced in Idaho and
Yellowstone National Park in
the 1990s. Since then, they have
spread into neighboring states,
where they have caused even
more problems, but wildlife
managers have had their hands
tied.
That’s why an effort by the
Western Governors’ Association
is so interesting. The top elected
officials in the western-most 21
states and three Pacific territories
— Republicans and Democrats
— took on the challenge of
studying the ESA to determine
how they could make it work
better.
Headed by Wyoming Gov.
Matt Mead, the association first
invited people from around
the West to talk about the
law. The governors’
recommendations
are the result of those initial
conversations and “drilling
down” to develop ideas
for addressing the law’s
shortcomings.
It was not easy. The ESA is
complicated and riddled with
strict deadlines. In fact, the
deadlines are part of the problem,
the governors found. They were
added in 1982 and have provided
environmental groups with the
hammer they wanted to force
the federal agencies to pay them
whenever they miss a deadline.
The governors recommended
that the deadlines be made more
realistic. The also recommended
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
be allowed to prioritize petitions
for species of concern. Those
species that are already the
subject of on-the-ground
conservation efforts would be a
lower priority than other species
that are not being helped. This
would allow time to determine
how any conservation efforts
are working before the USFWS
jumped in.
Such recommendations
represent a well-thought-out
starting point for making the ESA
better and more effective.
They “would require agencies
to consider conservation efforts
and give them time to work,”
David Willms, a policy adviser
to the Wyoming governor,
recently told the Idaho
Water Users
Association’s
water law conference.
We’ve previously
recommended that Congress
tear up the ESA and start over
on a better law that works, and
is workable. The ESA overloads
federal agencies, exposes them
to needless lawsuits and prevents
wildlife and land managers
from using all the tools at their
disposal to do their jobs.
Getting rid of the ESA,
however, is probably not realistic,
since every environmental group
would most likely hit the panic
button at the mention of repeal.
But the case the Western
governors make for judiciously
modifying the ESA to make it
more effective — and ultimately
save more species in need of help
— is difficult for even the most
ardent environmentalist to resist.
Wolves protected under
the federal Endangered
Species Act have
created massive
problems for ranchers
and others in much of
the West. The Western
Governors’ Association
has proposed changes
to the ESA.
California needs to follow endangered species review mandate
By KAYCEE ROYER
For the Capital Press
U
nder the California Endan-
gered Species Act (CESA),
the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required
to conduct status reviews of species
listed as either threatened or endan-
gered every five years. The depart-
ment has unlawfully failed to conduct
these five-year status reviews for 231
out of the 235 listed species, and ap-
parently has no intention of conduct-
ing the reviews.
In 2016, the California Cattle-
men’s Association, with the help of
the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a
lawsuit against the CDFW to compel
them to conduct the mandatory five-
year reviews. The status reviews are
extremely important, because they
can be crucial to the recovery of list-
ed species. Californians have a vital
interest in seeing species recover, for
both economic and environmental
reasons.
However, without up-to-date in-
formation on species, we lack the
sound scientific analysis needed to de-
termine if the department’s programs
are making progress toward their stat-
ed goal of restoring threatened and
endangered species.
Feet dragging
Since the lawsuit was filed, CDFW
officials have dragged their feet, ef-
fectively delaying the 231 overdue
status reviews for more than two
years. They recognize the reviews are
mandatory, but claim they do not need
to complete them because it would
cause species to go extinct. Yet when
pressed on this point, department of-
ficials cannot point to anything, other
than a lack of resources that would
make their contention true.
There are two reasons why the
department is wrong about its re-
quirement to complete the five-year
reviews.
First, the CDFW fears its other
activities will come to a screeching
halt because of the resources needed
to conduct these five-year status re-
views. But the department bases its
resource estimates on the wrong type
of status review. This confusion be-
tween two types of status reviews is
like equating traveling from San Di-
Guest
comment
Kaycee Royer
ego to Sacramento on foot with trav-
eling there by car. Even though the
word “traveling” is the same, the two
modes of transportation make the trip
extremely different in terms of time
required. Similarly, conducting a five-
year review is much less time con-
suming than conducting the extensive
status review the department claims it
has to undertake.
The department incorrectly argues
that to comply with the five-year sta-
tus review requirement, it needs to
undertake what is called a 12-month
status review. This more intensive
type of review, which requires sig-
nificant investment of resources and
collaboration with outside scientists,
ultimately concludes with a recom-
mendation to list or not list the spe-
cies. These reviews often require mul-
tiple CDFW scientists and biologists
to review complex and challenging
questions related to the species’ legal
status. Also, many of these reviews
undergo peer review, which adds to
the time required for completion.
By contrast, the process for the
five-year status review requirement
is much less intensive, requiring only
90 days to complete. The five-year re-
view is statutorily equivalent to what
is called a petition evaluation, which
the department conducts whenever
stakeholders petition to list or delist
a species under CESA. To complete
a five-year status review, the depart-
ment would only need to evaluate and
compile information it has on hand to
analyze whether a change in a species’
status is warranted.
Second, the California legislature
recognized there would be resource
constraints when it enacted the five-
year status review requirement. In
fact, the wise stewardship of taxpayer
resources was a key rationale for the
requirement: legislators understood
that tracking the progress of species
listed under the CESA was necessary
to efficiently and effectively allocate
funds to those species most deserving
of protection. The legislature, under-
standing the importance of these re-
views, has not repealed or relaxed the
requirement that the five-year reviews
be conducted.
This five-year status review re-
quirement ensures that the CDFW is
periodically checking in on listed spe-
cies. These reviews play an important
role in the conservation of threatened
and endangered species, because they
compile crucial information about
how a species is doing, current pop-
ulation levels, the potential threats
and harms the species might face, and
how the recovery programs are actu-
ally working. This allows officials to
make decisions based upon the most
up-to-date data and analysis.
Important role
The five-year reviews also protect
property owners from unnecessary
regulatory burdens imposed because
of species that are no longer threat-
ened, and they protect taxpayers by
ensuring the department is efficiently
handling its resources and attending to
those species that face the most seri-
ous threats of harm.
The federal government recog-
nizes the value of regular reviews in
endangered species management. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service im-
plements a similar five-year review
requirement to ensure species listed
under the federal Endangered Species
Act are those that actually warrant pro-
tection. The federal review revealed
that at least seven of the species listed
under CESA may be eligible for reclas-
sification or delisting. But because the
CDFW has failed to complete its five-
year reviews, we have no idea whether
these actions might be appropriate at
the state level as well.
Californians care deeply about
the conservation, protection, and en-
hancement of our state’s threatened
and endangered species, and we have
entrusted that vital responsibility to
the CDFW. By abdicating its respon-
sibility to conduct regular status re-
views of endangered and threatened
species, the department is failing to
uphold its end of the bargain. It’s time
for the CDFW to follow the law and
conduct the five-year status reviews
as required.
Kaycee Royer is an attorney at
Pacific Legal Foundation, which
litigates nationwide to achieve court
victories enforcing the Constitution’s
guarantee of individual liberty.
America needs a farm bill now
By STEWART TRUELSEN
For the Capital Press
T
he United States has a land
area of 2.3 billion acres, with
half used for agricultural pur-
poses — cropland, forestland, pas-
ture and range. The farm bill is vi-
tally important legislation affecting
this enormous, valuable resource
and its rural population.
The farm bill, passed by the
Senate last week, comes up for
reauthorization every few years.
There have been 17 farm bills
passed by Congress since the first
one in 1933. They are sometimes
called omnibus farm bills because
of the numerous titles and subtitles.
The current law, the Agricultural
Act of 2014, expires in September.
The first farm bill, The Agricul-
tural Adjustment Act of 1933, was
signed by President Franklin Roos-
evelt during the Great Depression.
It was called an adjustment act be-
cause the primary objective was to
reduce farm surpluses in hopes of
raising agricultural prices. During
the depression farm prices and in-
come fell by more than half.
Since then, farmers have relied
on the farm bill for help in dealing
with the risks of farming. The farm
bill provides a measure of protec-
tion from the instability inherent in
agriculture. Don Paarlberg, a dis-
tinguished farm economist of the
last century, said, “Agriculture is
notoriously unstable.”
Paarlberg said that vagaries of
weather and market behavior are
major causes of this instability, but
they are not the only ones. Another
factor, he said, is the uncertainty
of what government officials are
going to do. This is certainly true
now with trade agreements under
review and possibly canceled and
tariffs imposed on American farm
exports.
Tough times have returned
once more to agriculture, and
farm income again has been cut
in half over the last five years.
One difference today is that so
many farm families have off-
farm income. It’s one way they
themselves mitigate risk. Farm
financial indicators such as debt-
to-asset ratios are also better
Guest
comment
Stewart Truelsen
than during previous downturns
— even though trends in lending
such as interest rates and loans
denied are moving in the wrong
direction.
Obviously, a farm bill is not a
cure for instability, or instability
would have been ironed out of
agriculture by now, but it does
help farmers manage risk. As
American Farm Bureau Federa-
tion President Zippy Duvall said,
“The 2018 farm bill would protect
federal crop insurance and ad-
dress challenges facing dairy and
cotton farmers. The bill continues
the work of streamlining and im-
proving programs that encourage
our conservation work and pro-
mote critical research and devel-
opment of farming practices.”
Duvall noted that farmers are re-
silient and will get through this lat-
est downturn. However, it would be
totally unfair to drag out the farm
bill debate and leave them guessing
as to what the future holds. To do
so only ratchets up the instability
inherent in farming.
The Food Stamp Program, now
the Supplemental Nutrition Assis-
tance Program or SNAP, was added
to the farm bill in 1973 to help gain
support from members of Congress
in urban districts. It now accounts
for some 80 percent of farm bill
spending on an annual basis. The
food and nutrition component es-
sentially makes the farm bill a
“food bill.”
The fact of the matter is the farm
bill is one of the most important
pieces of legislation that Congress
deals with. It affects half of the
land resources of the United States
and all of the rural population. It
ensures all Americans that we will
have the food, fuel and fiber we
need for the future, and it is good
for the nation’s economy.
Stewart Truelsen is a food and
agriculture freelance writer and a
regular contributor to the Amer-
ican Farm Bureau Federation’s
Focus on Agriculture series.