Economics and the ESA

Farm and Ranch May 6, 2011 Imposing crop protection chemical spray buffers along waterways to protect endangered salmon would be costly for northwest agriculture. Are these economic considerations ever taken into account?

Eric Schwab, Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, told a joint congressional hearing this week that economic costs come into play when considering reasonable and prudent alternative measures that are to be taken to protect a species.

Schwab: “It is true that we have to take action to remove jeopardy or to avoid actions that would allow jeopardy to continue. So, the economic factors are in a sense by statute secondary to that, but they are factored in once you look at the available tools that would be there either to avoid jeopardy or prevent adverse modification of habitat.”

USDA Chief Economist Joe Glauber was asked if he felt enough consideration is being given to reasonable and prudent alternatives.

Glauber: “Again we are certainly willing to extend our expertise. I think the services have been calling on us as of late, but I think that is where more information could be brought to the process, absolutely.”

Glauber told the joint hearing of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee and the Natural Resources Committee that the assumption is there would be little if any agricultural production in a spray buffer zone.

I’m Bob Hoff and that’s the Northwest Farm and Ranch Report on Northwest Aginfo Net.

?