document: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides for the listing and protection of species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. Listing a species results in limitations on activities that could affect that species and in penalties for the taking (as defined in the ESA) of individuals of a listed species. Federal agencies are also required to use their existing authorities to further the purposes of the act. Under certain circumstances, federal agency actions may be exempted from the act. The exemption process and its history are the subject of this report. Federal agencies are required to consult with either the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together, the Services ) to determine whether an agency project might jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify a species' critical habitat. This process is known as consultation . The consultation concludes with the appropriate Service issuing a biological opinion (BiOp) as to the harm the project poses. If a project could jeopardize a species, a jeopardy opinion is released along with any reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to the agency action that would avoid jeopardy. To excuse any incidental taking of listed species, the Services issue an incidental take statement that includes reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) to minimize the effects of the project. When a federal action cannot be conducted without jeopardizing species, and the federal agency believes that the RPAs would thwart the project, the federal agency, the governor of the state where the project would occur, or the licensees or permittees involved in the project may seek an exemption. Very rarely, the Service(s) may find that jeopardy would occur and that there is no RPA that would avoid jeopardy. The exemption process is also available for this circumstance. The exemption process offers the opportunity to consider extraordinary economic circumstances in the list of factors used in evaluating federal actions, and provides an opportunity for economic factors to override jeopardy to the species. However, an exemption is for a federal project, license, or action, rather than for a species—a key distinction. In more than four decades since the ESA was enacted, there have been only six instances in which an exemption was sought, and only two in which it was granted. Appendix A , Appendix B , Appendix C , and Appendix D provide discussions and histories of the six attempts to secure exemptions under the ESA. If there are future applications for exemptions, the historical prologue as seen through these past applications may prove useful, because this process is used so rarely. In addition, in the controversy over California water projects, there were proposals in the mid - and late-2000s to seek an exemption from the ESA. Appendix E provides a discussion and history of the California water conflict. The controversy over Tellico Dam in Tennessee in the 1970s set the stage for Congress's creation of the exemption process. As originally enacted in 1973, the ESA prohibited all activities detrimental to listed species with very few exceptions. In the 1970s, when the prospective impoundment of water behind the nearly completed Tellico Dam in Tennessee threatened to eradicate the only known population of the snail darter (a small fish related to perch), the Supreme Court concluded that the "plain language" of the ESA mandated that the gates of the dam not be closed. In Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) v. Hill , the Court stated: One would be hard pressed to find a statutory provision whose terms were any plainer than those in § 7 of the [ESA]. Its very words affirmatively command all federal agencies "to insure that actions authorized , funded , or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence" of an endangered species or "result in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species.... " This language admits of no exception.... Concededly, this view of the Act will produce results requiring the sacrifice of the anticipated benefits of the project and of many millions of dollars in public funds. But examination of the language, history, and structure of the legislation under review here indicates beyond doubt that Congress intended endangered species to be afforded the highest of priorities. After this Supreme Court decision, Congress amended Section 7 of the ESA to include a process by which economic impacts could be weighed and government projects exempted from the restrictions that otherwise would apply. The process they created is shown in Figure 1 . The Tellico Dam controversy also illustrated a common theme in ESA controversies: the protection of threatened and endangered species is rarely the chief issue. A species' need for a particular dwindling habitat and its resources often parallels human desires for the same dwindling resources. The parties to the debate have often struggled for years over the basic allocation of those resources, from Tellico River, to the Edwards Aquifer in Texas, to prairie grasslands, to water allocation in San Francisco Bay. The debate over ESA and species protection typically signals an intensification of an underlying and usually much larger struggle. In broad outline, Congress created a committee of top government officials who could pass judgment on federal projects by balancing the national interest in protecting listed species against the national interest in proceeding with an important federal project. Congress limited the parties who could apply for exemptions, and required that successful parties would be required to pay the costs of mitigating the project's effects. Because projects are exempted, rather than species, the ESA still requires that species affected by the exempted project must be conserved in their remaining habitat. While there have been a few amendments to this process in later years, the basic structure formed after Tellico Dam remains the same, and is described below. The Endangered Species Committee (ESC) reviews applications for exemptions, and is responsible for the ultimate decision. It may conduct additional fact-finding. The ESC is composed of the following members: the Secretary of the Interior (who serves as the chair), the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and one individual from each affected state. (If multiple states are involved, each state has an appropriate fraction of a vote. ) Application for an exemption is limited to three eligible entities: the federal agency proposing the action, the governor of the state in which the action is proposed, or the permit or license applicant (if any) related to that agency action. The term permit or license applicant is defined in the ESA as a person whose application to a federal agency for a permit or license has been denied primarily because of the application of the prohibitions in Section 7(a), which requires that federal agency actions avoid jeopardy or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. These restrictions of the exemption process clarify that the exemption process is used after a Section 7 consultation has been completed, and that the exemption process is not open to just any interested party. (See Figure 1 , Steps 3 and 7.) An exemption application must describe the consultation process already carried out between the federal agency and the Secretary (of Commerce or the Interior, as appropriate) and must include a statement explaining why the action cannot be altered or modified to conform to the requirements of the statute. (See Figure 1 , Step 9.) All applications must be submitted to the Secretary not later than 90 days after completing the consultation (i.e., issuance of a BiOp finding jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of its designated critical habitat) if the exemption applicant is the federal agency or state, or within 90 days of denial of the permit or license if the exemption applicant is a permit or license applicant. An application must set out the reasons the applicant considers an exemption warranted, include relevant documents such as a biological assessment (BA) and BiOp, and describe any alternatives to the project. Additional application requirements are contained in the relevant regulations. The Secretary may deny the application within 10 days if these initial requirements have not been completed. If the application is complete, the Secretary will publish a notice of receipt of the application in the Federal Register and notify the governor of each affected state (as determined by the Secretary), so that state members can be appointed to the ESC. The Secretary also must notify the State Department, so that its review for potential conflicts with international treaties or agreements can begin. The Secretary determines whether the federal agency and/or the exemption applicant have met three criteria: consulted in good faith and reasonably and responsibly considered modifications or any RPAs; conducted any biological assessment required; and refrained from irreversibly or irretrievably committing resources that would foreclose on the implementation of any reasonable and prudent measures to avoid jeopardy to the species or adverse modification of its critical habitat. The Secretary has 20 days from receipt of the completed application to make a finding that the exemption applicant has met the criteria. A denial for failing to meet the criteria in this stage of the application is deemed a final agency action, meaning that it has reached a stage eligible to be challenged in federal court. The last criterion, whether there has been an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, harkens back to the consultation process. The statute prohibits those initiating consultation from making such a commitment of resources if it would have "the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures." This serves to prevent waste of federal resources (such as time and money) on a project that may turn out to violate a federal statute. It also allows a project to be halted before any harm to listed species or their habitats occurs. Because the agency presumably is not carrying out the proposed project while the consultation occurs, it appears that the reference to commitments of resources in the exemption process refers to activities after consultation has concluded. Otherwise, after a jeopardy opinion, an agency that continued to work on a project might seek an exemption, but leave the ESC faced with a fait accompli—the loss of the species in violation of the act. Within 140 days of determining that the exemption applicant has met the requirements described above, the Secretary, in consultation with the other members of the ESC, must convene a formal hearing on the application and prepare a report. (See Figure 1 , Step 17.) The hearing is to collect evidence regarding the exemption. The formal hearing is conducted by an independent administrative law judge (ALJ), and can include witness testimony, offers of proof, and interveners. The purpose is to develop a full evidentiary record to provide a basis for the Secretary's report. If deemed necessary, the ALJ may subpoena records and testimony for the hearing. Service employees who participated in the consultation may not participate in the hearing (e.g., as advisors), but may be witnesses. By law, the Secretary's report must discuss the following: the availability of reasonable and prudent alternatives; the nature and extent of the benefits of the agency action; the nature and extent of alternative actions consistent with conserving the species or the critical habitat; a summary of whether the action is in the public interest and is nationally or regionally significant; appropriate reasonable mitigation and enhancement measures that should be considered by the ESC; and whether the applicant has made any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. The ESC is required to determine whether to grant an exemption within 30 days of receiving the Secretary's report. (See Figure 1 , Step 18.) If the ESC decides more information is required, it may conduct additional fact-finding, including hosting oral presentations. The ESC has subpoena powers for obtaining information it deems necessary to reach its decision. The ESC meetings, hearings, and records are open to the public, and a notice of the hearings and meetings is published in the Federal Register . The ESC shall grant an exemption if, based on the evidence, it determines that (i) there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives to the agency action; (ii) the benefits of such action clearly outweigh the benefits of alternative courses of action consistent with conserving the species or its critical habitat, and such action is in the public interest; (iii) the action is of regional or national significance; and (iv) neither the Federal agency concerned nor the exemption applicant made any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources prohibited in subsection (d) of this section. [See discussion above on commitments of resources.] The second and third items give the ESC the opportunity to weigh economic impacts of an exemption and of any alternative courses of action on a national or regional scale. An exemption requires five affirmative votes (out of seven) on the committee. If it approves the exemption, the ESC is required to specify mitigation and enhancement measures in its written decision. The mitigation and enhancement measures that are required to be established by the ESC must be reasonable and "necessary and appropriate to minimize the adverse effects" of the approved action on the species or its critical habitat. (See Figure 1 , Step 20.) The measures can include live propagation, transplantation, and habitat acquisition and improvement. The exemption applicant (whether federal agency, governor, or permit or license applicant) is responsible for carrying out and paying for the mitigation, although the applicant may request that the Secretary carry out the mitigation or enhancement measures. If so, the applicant must fund the measures carried out by the Secretary. The cost of mitigation and enhancement measures specified in an approved exemption must be included in the overall costs of continuing the proposed action, and the applicant must report annually to the Council on Environmental Quality on compliance with mitigation and enhancement measures. Mitigation costs could be considerable and may deter applicants from seeking an exemption. An exemption from the ESC is permanent unless the Secretary later finds, based on the best scientific data available, that the exemption would result in the extinction of a species that was not the subject of consultation nor identified in a biological assessment and the ESC then determines within 60 days of the Secretary's finding that the exemption should not be permanent. In cases where the Secretary does not find that extinction will result, the exemption is permanent even with respect to species not identified in a biological assessment (BA), provided that a BA was prepared during the consultation. The ESA expressly states that the penalties that would normally apply to the taking of an endangered or threatened species do not apply to takings resulting from actions that are exempted. Exemptions apply to the specific federal agency action in the exemption application, not to the species. Consequently, even if an agency action is exempted, FWS or NMFS is still obligated to recover the species. So, for example, if the exempted action causes some portion of the range of a species to become uninhabitable (as happened with the Tellico Dam), any remaining range would become more important because there was less of it. In that remaining habitat, federal actions might receive more intense scrutiny due to the harm to the species caused by the exempted action, and the frequency of jeopardy opinions might increase. Alternatively, if the total habitat area would be unchanged, but quality of the species' habitat would be degraded under the exemption, then more scrutiny might be given to federal actions that affect the habitat (e.g., water temperature, timing, or quantity), as changes might add to the stress on the population and further slow the recovery of the species. Similarly, if the exempted action affects a critical food source, the Services might seek to enhance another food source, and so on. There are limits on the ESC's authority. (See Figure 1 , Steps 10 and 13.) The ESC cannot grant an exemption for an agency action if the Secretary of State, after a hearing and a review of the proposed agency action, certifies in writing that carrying out the action would violate a treaty or other international obligation of the United States. For example, if the species in jeopardy is a migratory bird and the action is prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty, then the Secretary of State may find that the action would violate that treaty, and no exemption could be granted. The Secretary of State must make this determination within 60 days "of any application made under this section." (The determination could be difficult, however, because the Interior Secretary's report that would fully describe the agency action would not be due for an additional 80 days, well after the deadline for the Secretary of State.) In contrast, the ESC must grant an exemption if the Secretary of Defense finds that the exemption is necessary for national security. (See Figure 1 , Step 13.) The language of this section does not make clear whether the ESC would still have to meet and vote, even though the result would already have been determined. While there have been a number of controversies over the years in which conflicts between military readiness and the ESA have been alleged, there have been no instances in which the Defense Department (DOD) has availed itself of this provision, even though the ESC result would be a certainty. DOD has claimed that the exemption provision is too cumbersome and time-consuming for its use, given the geographic array of its actions and their frequency. If there is a presidentially declared disaster, the ESA provides another option for an exemption under this process. ESA (16 U.S.C. §1536(p)) authorizes the President, after such a disaster, to make the determinations that would have been made by the Secretary and the ESC. The presidential exemption may be granted only to projects to replace or repair public facilities. To grant the exemption, the President must determine that the project is necessary to prevent the recurrence of a natural disaster and that the emergency situation does not allow ordinary procedures to be followed. The ESA provides that the ESC "shall accept the determinations of the President." It is unclear whether this provision means that the ESC must still be convened, even though acceptance of the determination is pre-ordained. This section of the law has not been invoked to date. If an agency action receives an exemption and avoids the penalties that otherwise would apply under the ESA, other underlying issues related to natural resources may still exist. Such conflicts often involve not only the listed species protected under the ESA but also species protected under other federal laws, state protections, and multiple levels of government, as well as a number of interest groups. As a result, the underlying conflict is rarely centered solely on threatened or endangered species. For example, in a controversy regarding river and dam management in the San Joaquin River basin and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) in California, multiple lawsuits have been filed over the years based on both federal and state laws. These lawsuits have addressed a host of issues, such as irrigation water supply, fish and wildlife management, recreation, and the environment. The federal court decisions that formed the impetus for the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement agreement were based not only on the ESA but also on a state law requiring dam owners to provide sufficient water for downstream fish habitat. In this and other CVP-related cases, water-flow restrictions due to ESA requirements are only one piece of the regulatory puzzle. State water quality flow requirements often limit management of pumps before ESA requirements are triggered, particularly during drought. Thus, at certain times of the year and under certain hydrological circumstances, an ESA exemption would not necessarily result in more water being pumped. In general, with respect to the ESA's interaction with state laws, where ESA requirements are stricter than state requirements or otherwise incompatible with them, then the ESA requirements will preempt the state requirements. However, in other instances, such as the aforementioned CVP-related cases, some state requirements are additional to and compatible with those of the ESA and both sets of requirements apply simultaneously. As outlined above, the exemption process is a complex affair, and even without extensions, could take 280 days. Because the resulting decision risks causing the extinction of a species, some would argue a rigorous process is appropriate; others still may find it onerous. But even if the process were simple, any potential exemption applicant would face these challenges: The applicant must fund any required mitigation measures; the funding obligation lasts for the life of the action—potentially forever, depending on the nature of the action. Because the exemption applies to the action and not to the species, FWS or NMFS must continue to attempt to recover the species. Consequently, the burden of conservation and recovery may fall more heavily elsewhere. A governor, trying to balance the interests of an entire state, might find this a particularly difficult obstacle. If conservation of a listed species is only one of various statutory obligations under federal or state laws, then an exemption from ESA for the action may not advance the action, because those other statutory obligations may still be required. Many parties to a dispute may be reluctant to appear publicly to side with the extinction of a species, no matter how uncharismatic. Moreover, if the increased risk of extinction provides only modest advancement for the action, the rewards of a successful exemption application may not seem worth the effort. As a practical matter, the consultation process itself offers federal agencies many opportunities to modify their actions to avoid jeopardizing species or adversely modifying their designated critical habitats, yet still proceed with their actions. The well-known implications of an ESA conflict generally prompt agencies to consider ESA consequences at a very early stage in their actions to avoid conflict later, and specifically to avoid the need for an exemption. Prospective applicants, whether a federal agency, a governor, or a license applicant, must balance the costs of the process described above with benefits (and costs) of winning an exemption. Even so, in many cases, some land and water resource users believe ESA protections for species to be onerous. The protection of threatened and endangered species is often only one of many complex issues surrounding debates over land use, water allocation, energy extraction, energy corridors, and the like. Parties to such debates have commonly struggled for years or even decades over the basic allocation of these resources, as illustrated by the conflicts over water resource management in California; water use in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee basin in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia; river basin flooding in Tennessee's Tellico River; and timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest, to name only a few. But because the ESA has strong legal protections for listed species, it tends to force decisions on issues that have long been in conflict. When an exemption is considered, potential applicants may be unaware of the stringency of the process, the fact that the exemptions apply to the action rather than the species, the need for the applicant to fund potentially costly permanent mitigation, and the fact that after an exemption is granted, the burden of conservation may fall more heavily on any other areas that the species inhabits or on other resources that the species requires. These considerations likely have played a strong role in limiting interest in the exemption process. (See Appendix A , Appendix B , Appendix C , and Appendix D .) In addition, perhaps the consultation and negotiation stages provided for in the ESA accomplish the purpose of modifying proposed actions early in the planning and development stages and so avoid harm to listed species. These cautions may help explain why the exemption process has rarely been invoked in any recent case. If those involved in a project decide to proceed with an exemption application, the first step is to decide who can and should apply, and for what action. Then the exemption process described above may begin. The Secretary and then the ESC would have to make all of the required findings on which an exemption rests. Even if all of the required findings were made in favor of the applicant, mitigation determined (and the applicant, whether the action agency, the governor, or any permit applicant has the means to pay for it), and an exemption granted, controversy and legal challenges may continue. Other laws may still be in play and, as a result, conflicts may remain. Appendix A. Exemption Denied for Tellico Dam, Tennessee A dam on the Little Tennessee River was proposed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), based on arguments that it would aid navigation, power generation, and economic development. Opposition to the project arose early in the planning for the dam, because of concern over fishing, recreation, Native American religious sites, and loss of agricultural land. After discovery of the snail darter, project opponents had to decide whether to abandon their old arguments and pin their hopes on a small fish. According to one observer, "opponents would have preferred a weapon like a bald eagle or a bear or a buffalo. But what they had was [a] fish." Appendix B. Exemption for Grayrocks Dam, Wyoming and Nebraska The Platte River, in its lower reaches in Nebraska, is a major stopover site in the migration of endangered whooping cranes between southern Texas and north central Canada. FWS determined that the federal action agencies involved in permits for construction of the nonfederal Grayrocks Dam and Reservoir in Wyoming, along with existing projects in the Platte River basin, would have jeopardized the downstream habitat of cranes. Specifically, a reduction in instream flow as a consequence of the project as originally designed could have damaged the cranes' resting sites. (The reduction in total flow would also have threatened Nebraska irrigation interests, and caused the state to oppose Wyoming's plans.) The federal action agencies were the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, because the dam's developers needed to obtain a Corps permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and the Rural Electrification Administration, which had guaranteed loans to the dam's developer. Appendix C. Exemption for BLM Timber Sales, Oregon Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, controversy abounded in the Pacific Northwest over timber harvests from federal lands. The various players included hikers, large and small timber companies, commercial fishermen and recreational anglers, Indian tribes, hunters, motorized recreation interests, water users, birders, and others. Key federal laws included the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. And though the litigation history under these statutes regarding timber management in the Northwest is rich and complex, not until the listing of the northern spotted owl as threatened on June 26, 1990, was the ESA a major factor in the debate. The conflict arose because this species is heavily dependent in its entire life cycle on old growth forests of the type found in the Cascades in southern British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and northern California. The same forest characteristics that make an area valuable to this species also make it valuable to the timber industry. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages large tracts of old growth forest in Oregon, where conflicts over resource management had arisen many times; the presence of the threatened spotted owl was a new complication. BLM submitted its proposed FY1991 timber sale program to FWS for Section 7 consultation. The history below contains lawsuits and actions based on the ESA, but omits the many legal actions based on other statutes (e.g., the initial lawsuits against Forest Service timber sales under the National Forest Management Act). Appendix D. Three Attempts at an Exemption In addition to the three completed applications, there were three other instances in which applications were filed, but the applications were withdrawn or abandoned. Pittston Refinery, Eastport, Maine The Pittston Company wished to build an oil refinery at Eastport, ME, in the mouth of the Bay of Fundy, an area with one of the world's greatest tidal fluctuations (over 20 feet). In its BiOp on an EPA permit, FWS held that the refinery would jeopardize bald eagles, and NMFS held that the project would endanger whales. Initially, EPA denied Pittston's application for a permit to discharge effluent. In 1979, the company responded with two actions. First it sought an administrative appeal of the denial. Second, it applied for an exemption under ESA for its discharge permit. The company felt it was forced to take the two actions simultaneously because the ESA required an application to be filed within 90 days of the denial of a permit. In January 1979, the various parties agreed to suspend the exemption process while a compromise was sought. The effort at compromise was not successful. Environmental groups sued, asking an injunction to stop the exemption application. They argued that the case was brought prematurely, before the issue had finished with the administrative appeals process. In effect, they argued that the ESA itself was poorly written, in that it forced the applicant to carry out two procedures (appeal and exemption) simultaneously. The U.S. Justice Department agreed that the law was unclear and that the exemption process should not run concurrently with an appeal. The court eventually agreed that the exemption process could not begin until the appeals process was finished. This confusion, and apparent conflict, was addressed by Congress in the 1982 amendments to ESA. These amendments clarified that the exemption process was to be invoked only after the issuance of a BiOp and after other means of compliance had failed. In the case of a permit or license, the exemption process must also wait until after an agency formally denies the permit or license. The applicant may not simultaneously seek an administrative appeal and an exemption. Docking Area, Mound City, Illinois The Consolidated Grain and Barge Company (CGBC) sought to build a docking area for barges on the Ohio River at Mound City, IL. The area was habitat for the endangered orange-footed pearly mussel, Plethobasus cooperianus . CGBC had sought a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 to construct the docking area. FWS issued a jeopardy BiOp to the Corps which denied the permit on that basis. Initially, the owner of the property agreed to provide funds for the exemption application, although CGBC was not willing to commit similar funds. On November 6, 1985, FWS published notice of the exemption application in the Federal Register . On December 6, 1985, FWS published a Federal Register notice of a hearing to be held in St. Louis, MO, on January 28, 1986. The notice indicated that the DOI Secretary agreed that the threshold criteria for beginning the exemption process (see Box 12, Figure 1 ) had been met, and set the details for the next stage of the process, that is, the hearing. The notice also reminded interested parties that the applicant had the burden of proof in the proceedings. At a pre-hearing conference with an administrative law judge on January 8, 1986, CGBC sent no one to represent its interests. A partner in a law firm of the lawyer hired by the landowner was present, but said he had limited information concerning the issue. He had no list of witnesses on which to call. The lawyer asked for a one-week extension of the hearing, but before it was held, the exemption application was withdrawn. Dredging Alligator Pass in Suwanee Sound, Florida On July 30, 1986, the consulting engineer of the Suwanee River Authority (SRA) applied for an exemption for a project to dredge Alligator Pass in Suwanee Sound, FL, an area that provided habitat for the endangered manatee. It is not clear that the consulting engineer had authority from the SRA to apply on its behalf. The project needed a permit from the Corps, which had denied it, primarily on the grounds of the presence of manatees. On August 12, 1986, the board of the SRA refused to ratify the actions of the consulting engineer and asked that the exemption application be withdrawn. In a letter on his own stationery, the engineer asked that the application be continued. After a further exchange of contradictory letters, the withdrawal stood. Appendix E. California Central Valley Project and State Water Project (Delta Pumping) Two existing federal BiOps affect coordinated operation of the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and the California State Water Project (SWP), two of the largest water resource projects in the country. Of particular concern to many Members of Congress has been the effect of ESA pumping restrictions on water supplies available from these projects to water users in central and southern California. Many water users saw dramatically reduced supplies during a multiyear drought—in some years, receiving no water from the CVP. Whereas some parties have advocated eliminating or otherwise relaxing these pumping restrictions, others have voiced concerns about such efforts on the multiple threatened and endangered species in question, such as the Delta smelt and various salmon and other species. Although other factors, such as state water quality regulations and hydrologic limitations, play a role in how much water can be pumped and made available to water users, much attention has been paid to restrictions on project operations due to implementation of the ESA. In 2009, some parties advocated for petitioning the governor and the President to begin the ESA exemption process in response to reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) developed during the ESA consultation process on the coordinated operation of the CVP and SWP. Since then, most action has been aimed at developing legislation to address the ESA restrictions. In the 114 th Congress, legislative activity focused primarily on H.R. 2898 S. 1894 , and S. 2533 . While all three bills contained provisions pertaining to pumping levels and threatened and endangered fish species, none included provisions seeking or supporting exemptions under the ESA exemption process. Provisions allowing increased pumping beyond the RPA limits under certain conditions were included in S. 612 , the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act, which was signed into law on December 16, 2016 ( P.L. 114-322 ). New legislation in the 115 th Congress also could address CVP and SWP operations and implementation of the ESA.
summary: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is designed to protect species from extinction, but it includes an exemption process for those unusual cases where the public benefit from an action is determined to outweigh the harm to the species. This process was created by a 1978 amendment to the ESA, but it is rarely used. This report will discuss the exemption process for an agency action, with examples from past controversies, and its potential for application to actions that may affect current controversies, such as water supply. The ESA mandates listing and protecting species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. Listing a species limits activities that could affect that species and provides penalties for taking individuals of that species. The ESA also requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (together, the Services) to determine whether a federal action may jeopardize the continued existence of a species or harm its critical habitat. The consultation process may lead to an opinion by one of the Services that the action will jeopardize listed species or harm their critical habitats unless certain reasonable and prudent alternatives are included in the action. Rarely, the federal action agency may hold that those alternatives are inconsistent with the agency action. In other extremely rare cases, the Services may find that no alternatives are available that would allow the project to proceed and still prevent jeopardy. In either case, the following are the categories of potential applicants that can apply for an exemption for a federal action despite its effects on listed species or their critical habitat: the federal action agency interested in proceeding with the action, an applicant for a federal license or permit whose application was denied primarily because of the prohibitions of ESA requiring that federal agency actions avoid jeopardy to threatened or endangered species or harm to their critical habitats, or the governor of the state where the action was to have occurred. An exemption application is considered by a specially convened committee which may exempt the federal agency's action from the prohibitions of the ESA. The exemption process allows major economic factors to be judged to outweigh the ESA's mandate to recover a species when the federal action is found to be in the public interest and is nationally or regionally significant. The exemption process has been invoked with a dam on the Tellico River (TN), a water project in the Platt River (WY and NE), and timber sales (OR). In three other instances, the process was begun but was aborted before a decision was reached. In addition, there has been interest over the years in invoking the process in light of controversies over management of federal and state water resource projects in California, although no application has ever been filed. When a project achieves such levels of controversy, Congress is sometimes asked to intervene in the outcome, as it did in the case of the Tellico Dam and an endangered fish in the late 1970s.