ESA news: Montana House votes to nullify the ESA, Sacramento Delta, and owls vs. owls
The stakes get higher and higher. This week, in Washington D.C., Judge Sullivan will hear oral arguments on the polar bear litigation. See Anchorage Daily News. But all over the nation, even legislators are talking about delisting of species. Howling at the controversies over wolf protections, the Montana House of Representatives voted to repeal the ESA. See BoiseWeekly and NECN and New West. Arizona may not be far behind. See YumaSun. Maybe even Wisconsin? The state Department of Natural Resources says wolves are causing more problems for Wisconsinites. See Chicago Tribune. But in Texas, the Edwards Aquifer Authority, a governmental entity that exists, in part, to manage the challenges associated with the ESA, is seeking flexibility from the otherwise applicable framework of Texas state water law. See MySanAntonio.
While CaliforniaProgressReport calls for nuance in managing the region's challenges, the Pacific Legal Foundation prefers the blunt instrument. Last week, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the constitutionality of the ESA, as applied to the decision to cut off water use in the delta to protect the smelt. And other news from the Sacramento Delta includes this interesting perspective from Investor's Business Daily on the cost of green. And "for what?" ask some, including the author of this San Francisco Chronicle article noting that "Delta fish may be too far gone to save."
The ESA has moral costs too, as John Platt reveals in this Scientific American article discussing whether we should shoot barred owls to save spotted owls. But the owl needs help, because despite the ESA, populations are declining. See Statesman Journal. See also, The Smithsonian.