• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Endangered Species Act Gets Rewrite -- House Bill 'Guts' Safety Net, Opponents Say; Senate Next

Posted on: Saturday, 1 October 2005, 12:00 CDT

By From Our Press Services

WASHINGTON - The House reversed three decades of conservation policy Thursday by approving a bill that narrows the reach of the Endangered Species Act and pays farmers and developers for saving threatened creatures.

By a vote of 229-193, lawmakers approved a top-to-bottom overhaul of the landmark 1973 Endangered Species Act, perhaps the nation's most powerful environmental law. The law has led to contentious battles over such animals as the spotted owl, the snail darter and the red-legged frog.

The bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where moderate Republicans have shown little support. The White House backed the House measure, though it had concerns about the overall price tag, warning it could have a "significant" impact on the budget deficit.

The House approval marks a triumph of persistence for Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., a rancher who has sought changes in the law for more than a decade.

"We knew the Endangered Species Act had problems," Pombo said.

"We knew there were things that needed to get fixed, that weren't working in current law."

Co-authored by Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., and backed by a deep-pocketed coalition of developers, farmers and private property advocates, the bill fundamentally rewrites endangered species protections. It's particularly important in California, currently home to 304 federally protected species.

Tennessee has 94 federally protected species and generated the first test of the law's reach that resulted in a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1978.

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, as Pombo's bill is titled, replaces the much-maligned "critical habitat" system with something more narrowly focused. For the first time, it reduces protections for "threatened" species compared to "endangered" species.

It gives property owners a greater say in developing species recovery plans and restricts the kind of information scientists can present when seeking to protect plants and animals. It pays property owners when their plans are thwarted by species protections.

"It's a longstanding right in this country to be compensated when the government takes your property away," Cardoza said.

But many other Democrats, and some moderate Republicans primarily hailing from East Coast states, contend the bill undercuts important environmental protections.

"The Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, fish and plants that are on the brink of extinction," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said. "It really comes as no surprise that (Republicans) would bring a bill today that would shred the safety net."

The proposed changes would be costly.

The federal government currently spends about $379 million annually on endangered species activities. The new bill could boost this to more than $600 million annually, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated.

Some of the added cost would come from modifying agency rules and meeting new planning deadlines, the budget analysts say. Some of the added cost would come from having to pay fair-market value to landowners with frustrated development plans.

"This bill creates an endless slush fund for developers," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., charged. "We would pay landowners not to break the law."

The Bush administration has likewise raised concerns about the property owner compensation plan as being a potentially open-ended commitment of federal funds. The administration formally supported the bill Thursday, while still raising red flags.

"(A provision in the) bill, as well as various statutory deadlines, may generate new litigation and further divert agency resources from conservation efforts," the White House Office of Management and Budget declared Thursday.

Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Resources Committee, said months of negotiations broke down over key provisions, among them the insistence that landowners be paid for losses.

Source: Commercial Appeal, The

More News in this Category