And indeed who could idly stand by without supporting the Endangered Species Act in its great task of snatching the symbolic bald eagle or the mighty grizzly from the jaws of extinction?
Congress assigned responsibility for the 1973 ESA to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, both agencies capable of developing strong rules and staffed with professionals competent to fight off any business that might try to challenge their regulations.
Its chief weapon was and is the "critical habitat designation" -- the area where human activity is limited to protect the endangered species, and which is indefinitely expandable -- and thus destructive to human activity.
Last week, in Highland, Calif., the House Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Water and Power held a field oversight hearing on "Questionable Fish Science and Environmental Lawsuits: Jobs and Water Supplies at Risk in the Inland Empire."
The hearing was triggered by the FWS's expanded Santa Ana sucker fish critical habitat designation. That was brought about by an environmental lawsuit and a resulting FWS critical habitat regulation, which has threatened the water supply and economic livelihoods of more than three million Southern California residents.
Local analyses have calculated the economic effect of the designation at more than $4 billion loss to the region. Reps. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and Ken Calvert, R-Calif., wrote a letter to committee chairman Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and subcommittee chairman Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., requesting that the natural resources panel hold a field hearing on this issue. There was a feeling that the government could have won the case on basis of the science.
McClintock, Lewis and Calvert heard from local officials, representatives of interested private groups, and FWS officials.
McClintock began, "Today's hearing involves a similar situation that threatens to permanently damage the economy of this region -- in the name of a six-inch fish called the Santa Ana Sucker.
"Once again, it appears we face a taxpayer-financed environmental litigant -- the Center for Biological Diversity -- blissfully unconcerned about the economic suffering it is causing to a region of millions of people, while attaining little, if any, advantage to the fish."
Lewis said "as of today the unemployment in San Bernardino and Riverside counties stands at 13.6 and 14.7 percent. I believe it's time to look closely at federal policies, which are threatening thousands of jobs in this community because of over-regulation on behalf of the Santa Ana Sucker fish."
Then Calvert added that "today, Congress and community leaders are working to revive our economy and put Americans back to work ... the revised critical habitat designation affects an enormous urban population and its water supply.
"According to some estimates, the service's critical habitat designation could mean the loss of almost 126,000 acre feet of local water every year. If this water could be replaced with imported water, it would cost the region an additional $2.87 billion, a cost that will ultimately be passed on to working families and job creators in the form of ever-increasing water rates. However, given current limitations on pumping from California's Delta the sad reality is this lost water may very well be irreplaceable.
Toward the end of the hearing, Calvert asked Ileene Anderson, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, "Is there any water project that you're aware of that you are in favor of?
Anderson (shaking her head in a negative way "for a few deafening seconds," according to a person in attendance), said, "Nothing, um. ..."
She was then cut off by Calvert, who asked her to submit something in writing on specific projects they supported. He ended with the comment, "It shouldn't take you long."
Examiner Columnist Ron Arnold is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.