The Endangered Species Act, which became a financial “nightmare” that hinders development and, to some extent, leads to the extinction of species, may soon be repealed.

It appears that the Bush administration proposes preservationists several changes that would give federal agencies the right to decide for themselves whether infrastructure projects like highways and dams might jeopardize endangered animals, as well as endangered plants.

In other words, the Bush administration is making an attempt to alleviate the damage that was generated by the Act. It seeks the promulgation of new regulations aimed to let federal agencies make their own evaluations of the projects’ possibility to harm endangered species. Under current law, the U.S. federal agencies are required to consult with specialists at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service in order to find out whether a potential project may trigger to the cessation of existence of some species.

People who advocate both preservation of endangered species and plants and their habitats showed disapproval of Bush’s plan. According to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat from California and chief of the Senate's environment committee, his proposal is against the law. Also, Representative Nick Rahall, (D-WV), chairman of the House committee that supervises the US Department of the Interior (DOI), confessed he was really bothered by the President’s intention.

"This proposed rule ... gives federal agencies an unacceptable degree of discretion to decide whether or not to comply with the Endangered Species Act," Rahall asserted.

The aforementioned draft rules are to be applied to any plan the federal agencies would create. At present, government experts in all non-domesticated plants and animals involve in scores of such reviews every year.

Another rule change implies the effects labeled as harmful for the endangered species. They will be limited and the scientists will be given a 60-day deadline for assessing a project when required. If they won’t be able to adopt a decision within this predetermined period of time, the project would be considered as complying with the preservation requirements; therefore, it could move forward.

"If adopted, these changes would seriously weaken the safety net of habitat protections that we have relied upon to protect and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years," claimed John Kostyack, Senior Manager at the National Wildlife Federation's Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming initiative.

Five years ago, the administration came up with analogous revisions intended to consent agencies to approve new pesticides and projects to diminish wildfire risks, with no need of requiring the experts’ point of view about the likelihood of negative effects on endangered species. But the pesticide-related rule was shortly overturned in court and The Interior Department, in conjunction with the Forest Service, is currently being sued over the rule related to wildfire prevention.

According to some experts’ estimations, almost 50 percent of presently existing species are in danger of extinction. If preventive measures won’t be taken, their extinction and habitat reduction are expected to occur by 2100.