Access to water is a fundamental climate change issue in North America and internationally. It is related to significant political, social, and ecological struggles that indigenous peoples face, and governments and courts so far have done little to address these inequities.

In the western United States, the management of surface water quality and quantity is highly compartmentalized. This compartmentalization among and within state and federal authorities is not inherently objectionable. To the contrary, it likely is necessary. Yet, the degree of compartmentalization appears to have so divided management of this resource that damage has been done to both sides. Opportunities exist for cooperation, coordination, and a more holistic perspective on water management with little or even no change in law.

Above my desk at work, I keep a button that reads "Save the Ugly Animals Too." It is a reminder that more than just the charismatic megafauna, such as wolves and bald eagles and grizzly bears and whales, are worth conserving. From the standpoint of protecting the web of life, including the ecosystems that benefit us all by providing services such as water purification, flood control, nurseries for our fish and shellfish, and opportunities for outdoor recreation, it is often as important to conserve the lesser known species, the cogs and wheels that drive those ecosystems.

In a recent essay, Katrina Wyman suggests four substantial reforms aimed at improving implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and furthering species recovery: (1) decoupling listing decisions from permanent species protection;3 (2) requiring the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to implement cost-effective species protection measures;5 (3) prioritizing funding for biological hotspots;6 and (4) establishing additional protected areas.

Katrina Wyman has penned a bold, provocative, and innovative critique of the capability of the Endangered Species Act (ESA or Act) to meet the challenges of an increasingly human-dominated world. Bold because the ESA, perhaps more than any other environmental law, has impassioned champions who disfavor dissent. It is no easy task to critique a law with the truly noble mission to preserve life other than our own, particularly when the law's basic premise is that the mission's success is critically dependent on abundant and altruistic actions by us.

Editors' Summary

I. Introduction and Overview