Elfreth Highlights Successes of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congresswoman Sarah Elfreth (MD-03), the Vice Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee and a member of the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee, questioned Professor of Law and Director, Earthrise Law Center, Lewis and Clark Law School, Daniel Rohlf in an oversight hearing focused on evaluating the implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

During her line of questioning, Elfreth highlighted the importance of the success stories that have come out of the Evaluating the Implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act and expressed her doubts on the prospective of leaving natural resource decisions to the states as a patchwork effort, “And just like clean air, clean water, polluted water, wildlife doesn’t tend to respect arbitrary political boundaries. So when we talk about the stewardship of our most vulnerable wildlife, I’m not sure that a patchwork approach from the states would be the right solution, and to the witness’ point, I don’t think it would provide any kind of certainty for the business community either by going about it in that manner,” said Congresswoman Elfreth. 

A full transcript of the exchange is included below.

Congresswoman Sarah Elfreth

Hearing Remarks As Delivered

Hearing on “Evaluating the Implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act”

February 26, 2025

ELFRETH: “First, let me just say it warms my heart to hear you talk about availing yourself to the judiciary branch when you disagree with the executive branch and when you disagree with the rule of the judiciary, you come to the legislative branch to seek a remedy. That’s exactly how our framers framed out our system of government. I want to respond just to some assertions made by the witnesses, and the need to throw this back to the states. And just like clean air, clean water, polluted water, wildlife doesn’t tend to respect arbitrary political boundaries. So when we talk about the stewardship of our most vulnerable wildlife I’m not sure that a patchwork approach from the states would be the right solution, and to the witness’ point, I don’t think it would provide any kind of certainty for the business community either by going about it in that manner. I do want to point out that when the bill—the ESA—was passed and was challenged in court, SCOTUS and Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Nixon appointee, said that it was the ‘comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation.’ I’m gonna highlight that word ‘comprehensive’ because I think it is important here. I want to drill down on this idea of the best available science being not available in all cases. I think when we talk about the work of this Committee, best available science is important because the inputs are gonna change on a near daily basis. Inputs of weather, inputs of pollution, inputs of overdevelopment are going to have an impact on endangered species and the marine animals that we are discussing here. And so, for Mr Ralph, can you…we talked about here, where some people feel that the two laws we have been talking about where the laws have broken down, can you talk a little about the success story that we’ve also seen here, and how best available science actually informed the success stories brought about by these pieces of legislation?”

RALPH: “If you look, really, we can talk about examples all day long… and there are many examples. salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin for example, are at least beginning a road to recovery because of the protections of the Endangered Species Act have started to address problems with those species, change federal damn operations, for example, to be more conducive to the needs of those species and the rights of Indian tribes in the North West to take fish at all their usual and accustomed places. But I think something that we haven’t talked a lot about, if you look writ large, the Endangered Species Act has been tremendously successful. We look at a few high-profile instances, but if you look across the country, there are thousands of informal and formal consultations under the section seven process of the Endangered Species Act where federal agencies have to consult with the National Fisheries Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service. In almost all of those instances, those consultations either end informally or with a biological opinion saying “the action can proceed” or in the very rare cases where there actually is a jeopardy biological opinion, it's been decades that a jeopardy biological opinion has been issued without reasonable and prudent alternatives that allow the agency action to go forward essentially as planned that is economically and reasonably feasible. So the Endangered Species Act really doesn't stand in the way of any development. At the most, it generally opposes modest restrictions to minimize the take of endangered species and ensure that their continued existence is not jeopardized.”

ELFRETH: “It’s always easy to highlight the worst-case scenarios and not the success stories.” 

RALPH: “That is the day to day of the Endangered Species Act, the success stories.” 

ELFRETH: “We've talked a lot about private industry and some challenges to growth there from these two bills. I also want to point out, serving on the Armed Services Committee as well, that there are success stories even within the DOD of these two laws, actually helping with readiness, actually helping with installation security, and in fact, at least a number of former joint chiefs of staff across multiple administrations have talked about the actually greatest threat to readiness and national security is not either of these laws, but the threat of climate change, and I hope that we can begin to discuss some of the impacts of that in this committee as well. And with that, I yield my time. Thank you Madame Chair.” 

###