Endangered Species Act undergoes overhaul

The Mercury News ^ | Mon, Oct. 03, 2005 | BILL LAMBRECHT

[GreenFreeper]

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - The new version of the Endangered Species Act approved by the House is unlikely to pass muster in the Senate, at least right away. Critics worry especially about a murky provision that could pay landowners tens of millions of dollars in damages for property devalued by restrictions due to rare critters or plants.

Nonetheless, sponsors' success in getting this far and winning bipartisan backing shows widespread recognition of problems in one of the nation's most venerable environmental laws.

In a barometer of emotions flowing on the issue, no fewer than four Old Testament books (Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Isaiah) were quoted during the daylong debate on the House floor.

Members pointed fingers at one another as they spoke with passion about their core beliefs, whether they be saving "God's creatures" or protecting private property.

(SNIP)

Critics of the law told stories of development blocked, farm land idled and levees unrepaired because of restrictions forced by the Endangered Species Act.

Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., said that a hospital in his district was forced to spend $3 million to move a building because of the presence of an endangered fly.

As a result of the threats posed by the law, "shoot, shovel and shut up" has become the mindset among many farmers, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., asserted on the House floor.

[GreenFreeper]

ECO-PING

Major Points of the New ESA:

Eliminate the designation of certain land as "critical habitat" for endangered species. The current law limits the use of such land.

Require the government to come up with a plan to save endangered species; the plans must be finalized within two years after a plant or animal is designated "endangered."

Require the government to reimburse landowners for the value of developments that are blocked because of potential harm to endangered species.

Expand the power of the Secretary of the Interior to decide what scientific data to use in designating and protecting endangered species.

Repeal restrictions on the use of pesticides that could harm endangered species.

[clee1]

I love my pets, and I enjoy hunting and fishing, but anytime human progress is held up because of some weed or gnat, my blood boils.

Adapt or die.

[GreenFreeper]

I love my pets, and I enjoy hunting and fishing, but anytime human progress is held up because of some weed or gnat, my blood boils. Adapt or die.

I agree to a point, though just about any form of preservation would include some sort of impediment of human progress. We need to avoid overexploitation of species ala the tragedy of commons.

[RightWingAtheist]

The expansion of the Sec' of Interior's powers is the point which worries me the most. In addition to only expanding and more firmly cementing federal power, there's no way one person or even one office will have all of the necessary scientific information to gauge ALL Endangered Species cases, unless we restrict the position to professional and accredited biologists in the future. It may actually INCREASE spending and produce an even more bloated bureaucracy because it will necessitate the formation of large teams of advisors to handle all the cases in each state.

[GreenFreeper]

It may actually INCREASE spending and produce an even more bloated bureaucracy because it will necessitate the formation of large teams of advisors to handle all the cases in each state.

I agree completely- especially having done a significant amount of work with Endangered Species. Why would the Sec. of Interior bve able to decide what scientific data to use? Just what we need more politics brought into the realm of science!! To top it off a 2 year deadline may be fine for certain species recovery plans but grossly inept with others (specifically long-lived species). There has got to be a better more efficient way!

[Carry_Okie]

Eliminate the designation of certain land as "critical habitat" for endangered species. The current law limits the use of such land.

Ths current law limits uses BENEFICIAL to the species under the mistaken assumption that preservation of the status quo will do any good. In fact, it can be harmful.

Require the government to come up with a plan to save endangered species; the plans must be finalized within two years after a plant or animal is designated "endangered."

This is foolish on the face of it. Often (if not usually) the optimal means to restore populations are unknown. Sometimes the response time is critical and can't wait years for a plan (especially since the agencies can't seem to publish status reviews on time as it is). What is needed is a way for a range of validated processes to develop in response to an expressed need.

Require the government to reimburse landowners for the value of developments that are blocked because of potential harm to endangered species.

Absolutely. However, the assumption is that a fair determination will be made (including speculative value) which is not historically supportable, AND that the species won't recover with something less than a total taking. Offering a contract for a population recovery might be all that's needed.

Expand the power of the Secretary of the Interior to decide what scientific data to use in designating and protecting endangered species.

This is very scary. Since when did a bureaucracy issue a finding in opposition to its own interests?

Repeal restrictions on the use of pesticides that could harm endangered species.

I have no idea what this means in practice. Why not let the market determine the actuarial risk instead? If the recovery contract is valuable, landowners will automatically consider risks to the species.

[GreenFreeper]

What is needed is a way for a range of validated processes to develop in response to an expressed need.

Exactly- though that is easier said than done. Given the unique range of niches, life histories, etc. involved, a standardized process may be difficult, if not impossible. You need to first assess a population, determine it's critical resources, and then develop a recovery plan based on the above. While very vague, I don't see how bureaucracy can deal with this effectively and efficiently. I like you idea of contracting it out.

Repeal restrictions on the use of pesticides that could harm endangered species..

I wonder if the author twisted the wording of this clause or was parroting some enviros talking points. This doesn't make much sense to me either!

[Coleus]

it's about time, but the problem still exists, trees and birds are protected while the unborn are not. Doesn't make sense. .

[Carry_Okie]

Given the unique range of niches, life histories, etc. involved, a standardized process may be difficult, if not impossible.

The processes do need to be site specific. Frankly, I don't accept impossiblity, not worth it is more rational. In that manner, sites that are more conducive to recovery stay in that business while others pursue more attractive combinations of uses.

While very vague, I don't see how bureaucracy can deal with this effectively and efficiently. I like you idea of contracting it out.

Too slow, to remote, too varied, too complex, and too much overhead, yup.

[RightWingAtheist]

Maybe open an Office of Ecological Assessment?

[Smokin' Joe]

Critics worry especially about a murky provision that could pay landowners tens of millions of dollars in damages for property devalued by restrictions due to rare critters or plants.

The part that really irks me is the assumption that use of your land and the existence of rare animals or plants are mutually exclusive,especially when discussing agricultural uses.

Often farm or ranch land has been handed down through several generations, and has been farm or ranch land the entire time.

If this use was so devastating to the existance of 'endangered' species, the point would be moot, because those species would not be on the land to protect at all.

When people have been careful with the land they derive their living from (if you aren't good stewards of the land, you will not make a living there long), leave them the heck alone and let them continue doing what they are doing.

[Savage Beast]

"provision that could pay landowners tens of millions of dollars in damages for property devalued by restrictions"

It should! If it's worth saving, it's worth paying the fair market price.

[KarinG1]

Just do what I do. Mix Roundup about 50/50 with DDT. If any environmentalists come around, spray them in the face with it.