In 1952, Devils Hole was added to the Death Valley National Monument by a Presidential Proclamation which authorizes the president to proclaim as national monuments “objects of historic or scientific interest” situated on federal land. This declaration protected the species way before the existence of the ESA. In 1967, the Devils Hole pupfish was listed as an endangered species.
Since the early 1960s, the NPS has been monitoring the water level of the hole. In 1968, the hydrograph showed a decline of water level due to a boom in farming and development which pumped a large amount of water away from the Devils Hole’s source.
Conservation efforts were quickly put in place to stop the damage. In 1971, a federal court issued an injunction to halt further pumping. This decision prompted an appeal, and the U.S. Supreme count finally ruled that Devils Hole has a more senior water right than the development. Stated in the count’s decision (Cappaert vs. U.S.), “as of 1952 when the United States reserved Devil's Hole, it acquired by reservation water rights in unappropriated appurtenant water sufficient to maintain the level of the underground pool to preserve its scientific value and thereby implement the Presidential Proclamation”. Details of this case can be found in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=426&invol=128. This Supreme Count decision did not halt pumping but guaranteed sufficient water level for the fish.
More development pressures were put onto the Ash Meadows area in 1977 when 30,000 homes were planned to be built in the area. In 1980, the FWS designated 21,000 acres as essential habitat for the fish. In 1984, Ash Meadows Wildlife Refuge was established by Congress. The Nature Conservancy brought the land from the developer and resold that to FWS. Currently, the 40 acres where the Devils Hole locates is part of the Death Valley National Park.
As discussed in the previous posting, the fish population has declined to a critical point where extinction could be just a matter of time. Despite all the science and policies that support the protection of this species, the global problem of climate change could be the final blow to this little fish. So what does this mean to the ESA? Should we look beyond the local or regional area for effective conservation measure? We know that species, habitat and ecosystems are intertwined, so how much should be protected? How can we draw the links? How likely will those protection policies be acceptable?
Over the last 10,000 to 20,000 years, this little pupfish as well as the other endemic species in the Ash Meadows area adapted and survived against all odds. Now, they are facing the new challenge of climate change which is affecting all species. Nevertheless, none of us know how that will turn out. All the people I talked to, including myself, hope for a miracle that could save this little fish.
When I asked the ranger why we care so much about this fish which is so isolated from the rest of the world, she answered: scientists think that all these pupfish species came from the same ancestor tens of thousands of years ago, but we’re not sure. We don’t know how they fit into our evolution map; we don’t know what keys they hold to the understanding of ourselves. If they are gone, they could take away a key piece of our ecosystem puzzle.
I think her answer summarized the essence of the ESA. Yes, we want development; we should respect private property rights. However, should those concerns trump our obligation to complete the evolution map? It is possible that pupfish may not hold any scientific value after all, but if we keep allowing species to go extinct, we may end up losing all the pieces of our puzzle.
No comments:
Post a Comment