Posted on 09/29/2005 4:42:21 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON The House on Thursday passed legislation that could greatly expand private property rights under the environmental law that is credited with helping keep the bald eagle from extinction but also has provoked bitter fighting.
By a vote of 229-193, lawmakers approved a top-to-bottom overhaul of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, perhaps the nation's most powerful environmental law. The law has led to contentious battles over species such as the spotted owl, the snail darter and the red-legged frog.
The rewrite faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, head of the panel that oversees the law, has expressed concerns about the House bill.
The bill would require the government to compensate property owners if steps to protect species thwarted development plans. It also would make political appointees responsible for some scientific determinations and would stop the government from designating "critical habitat," which limits development.
The changes were pushed through by the chairman of the House Resources Committee, GOP Rep. Richard Pombo. The California rancher contends the current rules unduly burden landowners and lead to costly lawsuits while doing too little to save plants and animals.
"You've got to pay when you take away somebody's private property. That is what we have to do," Pombo told House colleagues. "The only way this is going to work is if we bring in property owners to be part of the solution and to be part of recovering those species."
Many Democrats and moderate Republicans said Pombo's bill would eliminate important protections for species and clear the way for large handouts from the government to property owners.
The bill sets a "dangerous precedent that private individuals must be paid to comply with an environmental law," said Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, the committee's top Democrat.
"What's next? Paying citizens to wear seat belts? ... This bill will not improve species' ability to recover," he said.
A White House statement on Thursday supported the bill. But it noted that payments to private property owners could have a "significant" impact on the budget.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that those payments would run less than $20 million a year. The bill's opponents predicted a much higher total.
The Fish and Wildlife Service says there are 1,268 threatened and endangered plants and animals in the United States. About a dozen have gone off the list over the years after they were determined to have recovered; nine have become extinct.
Just this week, a toad that environmentalists say is being killed off by an invasive fungus that may have originated in Africa is no longer a candidate for protection under the act, the agency said. It said the boreal toad is a subspecies of a toad whose habitat ranges from Alaska to New Mexico.
Pombo's bill would:
Eliminate critical habitat. That is area now required to be designated when a species is listed and is protected from adverse actions by federal agencies. Instead, "recovery plans" for species, including designation of habitat, would have to be developed within two years. The recovery plans would not have regulatory force and the habitat would not be protected from federal actions.
Specify that landowners with development plans are due answers from the interior secretary within 180 days, with a 180-day extension possible, about whether the development would harm protected species. If the government fails to respond in time, the development could go forward. If the government blocks the development, the landowner would be paid the fair market value of the proposed development.
Give the interior secretary the job of determining what constitutes appropriate scientific data for decision-making under the law.
An alternative from a group of Democrats and moderate Republicans would have strengthened the recovery plans, eliminated the payments to landowners for blocked developments and created a scientific advisory board to assist the interior secretary. The proposal failed by a 216-206 vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Net: Endangered Species Act: www.fws.gov/endangered/esa.html
My bad.
"Just this week, a toad that environmentalists say is being killed off by an invasive fungus that may have originated in Africa is no longer a candidate for protection under the act, the agency said. It said the boreal toad is a subspecies of a toad whose habitat ranges from Alaska to New Mexico."
Well hells bells. Where does this stuff end. Pretty soon the only option will be to ship everyone to the moon so we don't impair the habitate of any animal speicies. Of course then no one will be around to observe the splendor of this unique world. Much like the unbalance between trying to integrate peoples who life in near stone age environments with those that live in the modern world, what paths are best to take verse what is known not to work. Guess many of us don't want to see whole speicies become extinct, but how does one save them when it impacts mankinds ability to produce say grains, that feed cattle that we eat. I for one do not have the wisdom to know what are the best routes to take.
You mean like this?
TITLE 23
CHAPTER 1
SUBCHAPTER I
§ 157. Safety incentive grants for use of seat belts
this administration is, line by line, saving this country from socialist implosion.
Fight the Good Fight.
The ESA was bad legislation...and IMHO, unconstitutional...the day it was written. It has since become big envir-whacko business and big pork politics for demos and rinos alike...lots of omney, billions per year, all at the cost of basic, essential liberty.
Senate will never let this pass!
A White House statement on Thursday supported the bill. But it noted that payments to private property owners could have a "significant" impact on the budget.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that those payments would run less than $20 million a year. The bill's opponents predicted a much higher total.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The White House is worried about $20 million dollars to pay for what it takes from its citizens, but won't bat an eye at the billions of dollars in entitlement handouts given in the wake of the hurricanes, etc.?
I'm forced to wonder if this is how the drafters of the bill would characterize it. I somehow doubt it. Is there a single appointed position in government that isn't "political"? It's politicians who are in charge at the top, right?
How is paying to people to wear seat belts comparable to paying people when you take land away from the owners control to save some toad?
If a law absurdly required the driver to put the seat belt over their elbows....then the law would effectively render the vehicle useless, and the owner should be compensated.
Even if we started drilling ANWR like a $10 hooker tomorrow, we still wouldn't solve our problems until we can also build the refineries to keep up with demand. But ANWR isn't the final reserve. We need to be sinking wells all over our coastlines: Florida, Texas, Louisiana, California, Alaska. I don't care how much the enviroweenies whine. Look, first off, the technology exists to protect the environment. Every drop of oil spilled by an oil company costs them $$$. They don't want that. So believe it, the technology isn't going to ruin the environment!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.