In case you missed it, the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Endangered Species Act was recently noted.

It is hardly cause for celebration.

Congress passed the ESA in a fit of environmental frenzy that overtook Washington, D.C., in the 1970s. It included the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and congressional passage of 15 other major pieces of legislation, including the National Environmental Policy Act.

The ESA was singular in its ineffectiveness. The recovery rate for about 1,700 protected species under the ESA is 3%, and most of those were a result of of data errors, according to the Western Caucus Foundation.

“As we mark the 50th anniversary of the ESA, one word comes to mind and it’s ‘failure,’” said Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., and chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus.

One of the main problems is its name. It would more appropriately be named the Endangered Population Act.

For example, one poster child for the ESA was the bald eagle, whose numbers had been diminishing because of the use of the pesticide DDT and other factors. The pesticide was banned and bald eagles were moved from Alaska, where they were plentiful, to places where they weren’t.

Similarly, wolves were taken from Canada, where there are about 50,000, and dropped off in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming.

In the meantime, the ESA became the weapon of choice for environmental groups seeking to stop projects or tear down others. Lawsuits by the score have been filed over projects large and small, setting off ill feelings toward environmental groups.

We can only wonder which of the many great projects of the 20th century would have been built if the ESA were around. The interstate highway system? Hoover Dam? The Golden Gate Bridge? The Empire State Building?

The one lesson the many environmental lawyers have learned is the ESA is skewed in their favor. It is devoid of pragmatism and flexibility.

In Klamath Falls, populations of sucker fish and salmon are at odds. The sucker fish depend on a certain water level in Klamath Lake, as do the salmon in the Klamath River. The problem is that increasing the river’s flow reduces the lake level. The ESA has no provision for interjecting reason into their management.

Caught in the middle are farmers and ranchers, who see their irrigation supplies squeezed on most years.

In recognition of these and other shortcomings of the ESA, the Congressional Western Caucus is leading an effort to improve the ESA. The ESA Flexibility Act would allow federal wildlife managers the leeway to work with landowners instead of against them.

In addition to Newhouse, Reps. Pete Stauber, R-Minn.; Cliff Bentz, R-Ore.; Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo.; and Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., are sponsoring the bill.

We are anxious to see if Congress can modify the ESA in a way that will improve it and allow wildlife managers to more effectively work with landowners.

That would be worth celebrating.