Financial and other resources are leveraged that go far above and beyond actions required under a baseline of regulation. States and their communities retain control over their destiny instead of the courts, while conservation is elevated in public discourse and made a clear state priority. Federal district court decisions in Texas and Oregon and legal challenges westwide are beginning to undermine the benefits of state conservation plans. The decision in Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Daley, holds that the requirement under the ESA for federal agencies to consider state conservation plans means almost nothing, and that conservation efforts by individuals count only if they are mandated as part of a federal agency's regulatory requirements and are already in place. The decision renders state and local regulatory actions meaningless unless they are backed by legal assurances that they will remain in place into the future.
All government is premised upon decisions today that can be changed by later decision makers.
The decision appears to trivialize this important fact of democracy. The decision also disregards actions stipulated in such agreements if the tasks require time to be fully implemented. Yet, no recovery plan can be instantly developed and implemented, and species take multiple life cycles to recover. In short, under the decision's current narrow interpretation, the objectives of ESA can only be met through federal regulation and federal enforcement. This creates an enormous contradiction with the purpose of the Act - especially for species that are heavily dependent upon private land.