Dear Mr. Venrick:

Thank you for contacting me about proposals to reform the Endangered Species
Act (ESA).  I appreciate knowing your views on this critical issue.

Since its passage in 1972, the ESA has served as the preeminent legal framework
for protecting and restoring fragile wildlife species.  Born out of
concern for the rapidly declining bald eagle population, passage of the ESA
placed strict limits on, among other things, the spraying of hazardous
pesticides like DDT that were believed to have caused the eagle's
decline.  The law has proven tremendously successful, and no example is
more evident than that of the eagle, which now boasts robust population numbers.
In fact, over the past three decades only nine of the more than 1800 animals
listed under the ESA have gone extinct - a 99 percent success rate.

Unfortunately, the ESA has been under increasing attack in recent months as
critics have advocated for large-scale reforms.  Opponents of the law
assert that it is too rigid, placing an undue burden
on landowners who must comply with its regulations once a threatened or
endangered specie has been identified.  In the
House of Representatives, Representative Richard Pombo (CA-11) introduced
legislation in September 2005 that aims to significantly modify the ESA.
His bill, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act (H.R. 3824), is an
extreme approach to reform that would ultimately do far more harm than good.
The legislation passed the full House just days after its introduction.

For many ESA critics, an issue of primary concern is the current lack of
compensation for those who are impacted when imperiled species or their
habitats are found on the owner's property.  As required under the law,
when a listed species is discovered, every effort must be made to protect the
habitat deemed critical toward aiding the species' recovery.  Thus,
landowners are often faced with a compulsion to restrict activities on those
areas of their land that qualify as critical habitat.  Unfortunately, with
no recourse available, these regulations can have an unfair burden on the
landowners.

Over the years, Congress has tried to address this concern by incentivizing
compliance with the law.  Initiatives like the Landowner Incentive Program
and Habitat Conservation Plan grants, for example, are designed to provide
financial assistance to property owners who would otherwise have difficulty
meeting the ESA's regulations.  Additionally, under programs such as the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, the government can acquire land for public
benefit from a willing seller.  Representative Pombo's bill, however,
seeks a far more extreme approach to this issue by requiring the government to
compensate all impacted property owners, with no real provisions to ensure
subsequent compliance with the ESA regulations.  While the current
incentive programs may not be perfect, they are a far more measured means of
reducing conflicts over the ESA, providing assistance to those most
significantly impacted, and better meeting the law's goals of species
restoration than the vaguely proposed compensation plan.

Additional measures would reduce the role that science plays in making species
assessments.  For one, H.R. 3824 would eliminate the current requirement
that federal agencies consult first with biologists before proceeding with
actions that could harm fragile species.  As it is currently structured,
the ESA ensures that the best available scientific data is the primary basis on
which listings are determined.  Eliminating the consultation requirement
would weaken the science-based objectivity, which must remain the benchmark for
which these decisions are made.  Additionally, H.R. 3824 would remove the
restrictions on the use of certain pesticides such as DDT, reversing the very
protections around which the ESA was initially based.  These are only some
of the alarming provisions in a bill that threatens our landmark environmental
law.

In the Pacific Northwest, the ESA remains a critical tool for helping to
restore our salmon populations.  When the Clinton Administration first
listed a number of these populations in 1999, it was the first time ever that
the law had been applied in such an extensive urban area.  It was an
experiment that drew many skeptics, drawing fears that the law would impose
excessive economic burdens that would outweigh environmental benefits.
Ultimately, however, local, state, and federal leaders agreed to do whatever
was necessary to preserve the species that are so iconic to our region.
And while this will continue to be an uphill battle for some time, the signs
for future recovery are at least encouraging.

The recent endangered listing of the southern resident orca is another sign
that we need every tool available to protect Puget Sound from significant
environmental decline.  After decades of dwindling numbers, the December
2005 listing of the orca population is an unfortunate indication of the state
of our broader Puget Sound ecosystem.  Implementing ESA protection for
these unique and majestic creatures is an important step toward ensuring that
the natural beauty of our distinctive region is preserved for
generations.  Without these measures at our disposal, the disappearance of
the orcas, salmon, and many other species that define our Northwest culture is
all but guaranteed.

Throughout my Senate tenure, I have consistently supported strong endangered
species protections.  For example, I have been proud to secure millions of
federal dollars for important salmon restoration and habitat conservation
efforts throughout our region.  I have also helped secure vital funding
for Puget Sound orca research that led to the Administration's decision to list
the population under the ESA.  And I have consistently supported funding
for incentive programs that help property owners cooperate with ESA
regulations.  Please know that I will always consider strong endangered
species protections to be a key priority.

I appreciate knowing your views on this important issue.  Rest assured,
should H.R. 3824 or other similar legislation come
before the full Senate for a vote, I will voice my strong opposition.
Again, thank you for contacting me.  Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Patty Murray

United States Senator

P.S. I'd like to invite you to receive Patty Murray's Washington View, my
weekly legislative update by e-mail.  If you are interested in receiving
my update, please sign up here: http://murray.senate.gov/updates.