• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Endangered Species Act of 1973

Posted on: Monday, 21 July 2008, 03:00 CDT

By Hazlehurst, John

Water projects in the West, which typically involve one or more federal agencies, invariably trigger Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The act enjoins such agencies against actions that either "jeopardize" the continued existence of a species or result in the "adverse modification" of its critical habitat.

For projects such as the Southern Delivery System, complying with ESA requirements can be legally complex and time-consuming.

But fortunately for the customers of Colorado Springs Utilities, the recently-released preliminary environmental impact statement found no threatened or endangered species habitat within the water pipeline project's boundaries.

Had any been identified, CSU would have been required to prepare and implement a "habitat conservation plan."

Such plans can be expensive, said Arizona lawyer Lisa McKnight, citing the Roosevelt Dam and Lake Plan in central Arizona. The plan, which concerned reservoir operations and benefited four bird species, will cost the applicant between $15 million and $30 million.

Dave Padgett, the manager of CSU's Environmental Services Department, said that utilities "really hasn't experienced any long delays or cost increases" because of the ESA.

"Once you understand the process," he said, "you can design your projects to minimize (ESA related) costs or delays."

The conflicting mandates of the two principal federal environmental laws, the Clean Water act of 1972 and the ESA, often interact in ways that seem illogical and self-defeating.

As Richard Meyerhoff and Mark Murphy wrote in Southwest Hydrology: "The conflict between clean water and (endangered species) aquatic habitats may seem contrived if you've never attempted to acquire state and federal discharge permits for aquatic habitat restoration."

In practice, water managers in the arid West have turned to treated effluent in order to provide adequate streamflow for aquatic habitats. But since the Clean Water Act can require additional treatment, the discharged effluent is of greater value for "economically more competitive uses, such as a golf course."

Such diversions, say the authors, contribute to species loss and habitat degradation. "One wonders how many extirpated aquatic and riparian species have already lost this wastewater war."

Credit: John Hazlehurst

(Copyright 2008 Dolan Media Newswires)

(c) 2008 Colorado Springs Business Journal, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.

Source: Colorado Springs Business Journal, The

More News in this Category