Question

Discuss the relationship of wetland protection/the Clean Water Act and habitat protection/ Endangered Species Act. Specifically consider the Edwards Aquifer of the San Antonio area, what would a strong ESA argument look like in a lawsuit, and who would the suit likely target? What type of relief should be sought in defense of the species whose existence depends on it? What counter arguments might be expected?

Answer 1

The wetland protection act protected the wetlands from encroachment, drainage of sewage into them and their use as an agricultural land. The clean water act prohibited the release of pollutants into the surface water and protected the overall quality of surface waters. The endangered species act aims to conserve the endangered and threatened plant and animal species and also their habitats in which they are naturally found. So, the relationship between all these three acts/laws is to conserve the environment from pollution and to increase the biodiversity.

The ESA argument against the Edwards aquifer authority would be that it is unfair to take the rights of the residents of the Uvalde county in their share of their regional waters and it would also lead to destruction of biodiversity in that county. The counter argument could be that the Edwards aquifer authority agree to give the monetary compensation for the residents and not to over exit the available natural resources.