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

EDITORIAL: Senate Should Step Up to Save the Endangered Species Act

Posted on: Tuesday, 3 January 2006, 12:00 CST

By The Centre Daily Times, State College, Pa., The Centre Daily Times, State College, Pa.

Jan. 3--The U.S. House has endangered the future of the 32-year-old law that Congress passed to save animals and plants from extinction. Now it's up to the Senate to protect the Endangered Species Act.

A proposal passed by a divided House three months ago would gut the law. It would undo critical wildlife protections and put onerous new obstacles in the way of agencies trying to enforce the law. It would drain limited resources to finance a costly new entitlement for developers whose plans would harm endangered species.

A Senate committee is planning its own review of the law. There is plenty of room to improve it without eviscerating it.

Critics of the law claim it has burdened landowners with regulations without fulfilling its purpose of protecting endangered species. They point out that just 10 of about 1,300 species listed as endangered under the act have recovered.

But species recovery is a long-term project. Half the endangered species listed are stable or improving, according to Environmental Defense, and that figure rises to two-thirds for species that have been on the list for at least 15 years. If not for the law, the bald eagle, grizzly bear, manatee and Florida panther might be extinct.

With the purported goal of making the law more effective, the House proposal would replace the system of protecting critical habitat for endangered species with weaker "recovery plans." It would subject the understaffed and underfunded federal agencies trying to enforce the law to excessive reporting requirements and unrealistic deadlines. It would complicate and delay the addition of species to the endangered list, and eat up valuable recovery time afterward, with more bureaucratic steps.

The House proposal also would entitle developers to compensation at taxpayers' expense for lost profits if their plans are rejected because of the harm they would do to endangered species. That would remove an incentive for developers to work with agencies on measures to mitigate harm to species so that their plans can move forward.

And the House proposal would limit the government's power to restrict pesticide use under the law. That power has not only helped bald eagles and other species recover; it has broadly benefited the environment and public health.

The Senate can do better. It can increase financial incentives -- as the House would -- for landowners who take steps to safeguard endangered species on their property, but without sacrificing other protections. It can reward states that aggressively protect species at risk. It can provide more money and manpower to federal agencies to speed up reviews of development proposals, a step that could benefit developers and endangered species alike.

Rather than work from the deeply flawed House proposal, the Senate needs to undertake a sincere effort to improve the Endangered Species Act.

-----

Copyright (c) 2006, The Centre Daily Times, State College, Pa.

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.

Source: Centre Daily Times (State College, Pa.)

More News in this Category