On December 28, 1973, President Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) into law and enacted one of the most popular and powerful environmental laws in the nation’s history.
The ESA was created at the zenith of the ecology movement to prevent extinction and promote recovery of imperiled plants and animals. For the first time a nation created a right for existence for species other than man.
Its impact is undeniable: 99% of listed species have avoided extinction, showcasing its effectiveness. Yet, despite its triumphs, the ESA has been mired in controversy since its inception, sparking heated debates about environmental protection, economic prosperity, property rights, states’ rights and federal government overreach.
Born from a growing public awareness of environmental degradation, the ESA emerged as a powerful tool for safeguarding biodiversity. It established a two-pronged approach: listing endangered and threatened species and protecting their critical habitat. Through strict regulations and recovery plans, the Act curbed human activities like development and resource extraction that threatened vulnerable species. Iconic success stories like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon, both rebounding from the brink of extinction, solidified the ESA's image as a champion of ecological preservation.
However, the ESA's path has not been without potholes and detours. One of the central contentions revolves around its "no jeopardy" clause, which prohibits actions that jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or damage their critical habitat. This has led to clashes with industries like agriculture, forestry, and energy, who argue that the Act harms their profit making. Cases like the northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest, where logging restrictions impacted timber communities, have ignited debates about balancing conservation with economic needs.
Many leading conservatives have expressed frustration with the ESA citing it as a mechanism to expand federal authority and diminishing states’ rights. The state of Texas has argued it is better equipped to protect threatened species within the state than the broad approach of the federal government. For example, in West Texas in the oil rich Permian Basin, state agencies and lawmakers in Texas have fought the proposed endangered species listing for the dunes sagebrush lizard. They argue that the ESA listing would impose undue economic burdens on industries like oil and gas, potentially hindering development and jobs. To avoid federal protections for the dunes sagebrush lizard, Texas adopted its own protection plan; however, it was later revealed that the state failed to enforce the protections.
These anti-ESA voices also express that that the protection of endangered species come at the expense of individual property rights, a core tenet of conservative ideology. Landowners may feel their ability to freely manage their own land is curtailed by habitat restrictions, leading to resentment and a sense of government intrusion. This sentiment resonates with conservative principles of limited government and individual autonomy.
It’s clear that conservative leaders in the Republican Party are receptive to proposals that would gut the ESA that could weaken critical habitat protections, increasing discretion for exemptions, or even outright repealing the Act.
Guest:
Lowell E. Baier is the author of “The Codex of the Endangered Species Act, Volume I: The Last Fifty Years & Volume II: The Next Fifty Years.”
"The Source" is a live call-in program airing Mondays through Thursdays from 12-1 p.m. Leave a message before the program at (210) 615-8982. During the live show, call 833-877-8255, email thesource@tpr.org.
This interview was recorded on Monday, December 18, 2023.
