I agree it's a ridiculous interpretation. Yes, I know that example very well and that's exactly why I and the Columbia hydro association and others are working on this permitting component tied to watershed-level, in this case, ecosystem-level planning, so that those silly lawsuits—just because two fish got caught up in the old turbines—are not the focus for everyone's activities. In fact, the net benefits, including possibly biodiversity offsets, which at that scale are used.... I totally agree that the hydro company, which is putting, I think, five to ten million dollars a year into conservation measures, isn't penalized through the courts for having done that. Of course that's a disincentive. You have to remove that by using the other provisions in the act.
On April 18th, 2013. See this statement in context.