An LA Times editorial

I haven't finished reading the opinions in NAHB vs. Defenders yet, but the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times has reached a conclusion:

Last month, the Supreme Court sided with developers and the administration, ruling that the federal government was not bound by the Endangered Species Act and could give states authority to issue water pollution permits in sensitive habitats. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled otherwise, saying that the Environmental Protection Agency had an obligation to safeguard endangered species, something that could not be done if a state took over permitting.

And a proposal prepared at the behest of Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne suggests weakening habitat protections and, worse, ceding some authority over vulnerable species to the states. But one reason the bald eagle rebounded is that the states lacked the power to determine its fate. How disingenuous that Kempthorne celebrated the eagle's thriving population last week, while seeking to weaken the act that made it possible.