America’s approach to endangered species protection has drifted away from recovery efforts. While the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been effective at preventing species from going extinct, it has failed to actually bring species back to healthy population levels. The law was designed to stop harm, but it lacks the framework to incentivize recovery. As a result, species protection is addressed one project at a time, in the permitting process or in court, rather than through long-term conservation plans. This approach drives up costs and slows infrastructure without delivering meaningful results for wildlife. 

A recent report from ConservAmerica analyzed two decades of energy and infrastructure projects to quantify the ESA’s effects. What it found is that the United States regularly spends billions of dollars fighting over endangered species in court when it should prioritize preventative conservation and economic incentives. 

Of the 17 large-scale energy projects analyzed, more than two-thirds were litigated under federal environmental laws. While the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Clean Water Act (CWA) typically caused delays or project changes, lawsuits under the ESA were more likely to halt a project entirely. This is because the ESA allows courts to stop a project if a single species is at risk, rather than just sending it back for more review like other environmental statutes.

Roughly 40 percent of projects facing serious ESA litigation were ultimately canceled or delayed, wiping out tens of billions of dollars in investment. Interstate pipelines were especially vulnerable; nearly 80 percent faced ESA challenges, and over half never made it to completion.

>>>READ: Reviving the God Squad to Tackle ESA Reform

The economic impact is significant. The Mountain Valley Pipeline nearly tripled in cost, from $3.5 billion to nearly $10 billion. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline was shuttered after costs surged to $8 billion. The Keystone XL Pipeline consumed billions in sunk capital before being canceled outright. These are just a few of the many projects that have faced serious delay or cancellation due to the ESA.

The most significant finding, however, is the disparity between the costs of litigation and conservation. ConservAmerica found that fully funding recovery for the relevant species would have cost less than one percent of the project’s final cost or sunk losses. 

• Keystone XL: The species at risk, including the whooping crane and pallid sturgeon, could have been recovered for roughly $100 million, compared to the $2 billion in sunk costs it faced.
• Mountain Valley Pipeline: Full recovery for the Roanoke logperch and candy darter would have cost under $30 million, while cost overruns exceeded $6 billion.

The U.S. is spending billions on legal fights and project delays instead of millions on species recovery efforts.

The data shows that projects do better when conservation is handled early. In one case, a pipeline developer set up a dedicated habitat conservation fund for less than half a percent of the project’s total cost. The upfront investment reduced litigation risk and allowed the project to move forward on time and on budget. 

To modernize the Endangered Species Act, ConservAmerica recommends 4 reforms.  

1.  Fund state and tribal wildlife agencies: Congress should shift its focus to proactive recovery by providing stable funding to state and tribal wildlife agencies through models like the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (RAWA). The funding should go to voluntary recovery efforts of listed species, as well as preventative efforts for near-threatened species. Investing before species reach crisis levels is far cheaper and more effective than relying on emergency regulation.
2. Create safe harbors: Congress should modernize ESA mitigation so projects can address species impacts upfront. If a project pays for approved conservation measures in advance, it should have regulatory certainty against further litigation over those same impacts.
3. Reward voluntary efforts: Since 80 percent of listed species live on private property, recovery is impossible without landowner cooperation. Market-based habitat recovery incentives and tax credits can turn species stewardship into an asset for landowners, where they are paid for these conservation initiatives. 
4. Scale public-private matching conservation: Private companies and NGOs often provide funding to match federal conservation dollars. Congress should leverage institutions like the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to scale voluntary recovery efforts, attract private matching dollars, and make taxpayer dollars go further.

These reforms don’t harm endangered or threatened species. They actually strengthen recovery by moving species protection out of the courtroom and into tangible conservation work.

We don’t need to choose between energy, infrastructure, and wildlife, but we must stop favoring expensive legal conflicts over affordable, voluntary recovery. 

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.