I. Introduction

While we agree with Richard B. Stewart, in his Article, Solving the U.S. Nuclear Waste Dilemma, on some crucial issues--most notably that the national process for developing a geologic repository for disposal nuclear waste is currently a mess--we have a substantially different perspective on the reasons for the mess and the path forward.

I. Background on Geologic Repositories

Richard B. Stewart's article, U.S. Nuclear Waste Law and Policy: Fixing a Bankrupt System, provides a thoughtful discussion of some of the complex scientific, policy and legal issues involved with nuclear waste generation and disposal. It is packed with useful facts, information, and history, and just the recitation of the history and circumstances of nuclear waste disposal issues and decisions in a readable, understandable form makes a useful contribution.

In his article, Solving the U.S. Nuclear Waste Dilemma, Richard B. Stewart analyzes the history of the failure of the U.S. to manage the recycling and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) from the nuclear fuel cycle associated with the production of electricity. He then develops some insightful suggestions to rectify the problem, recognizing that our current government policy is not moving the country toward a viable solution for disposal of SNF and HLW.

My basic critique of the Endangered Species Act (the ESA) is that it is built on an untenable premise that there is something natural--whether called species, ecosystems, or biodiversity--out there that we can save from humanity's reach. The Act's problems ultimately are rooted in a denial of the extent of human domination of nature and a failure to recognize our limited ability to halt and reverse the decline of species, ecosystems, and biodiversity given our pervasive impact on the planet.

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

Despite a change in the presidential administration in 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) enforcement activity continues at the pace of the late 1990s. Much has been made of a decline in civil and criminal fines from fiscal year (FY) 2001 to FY 2002. Civil penalties collected by EPA declined from $101.6 million in FY 2001 to $55.6 million in FY 2002; criminal fines have declined from $94.7 million in FY 2001 to $62.2 million in FY 2002.