9/30/2005
Property Rights: The House has passed a more reasonable version of the Endangered Species Act, this one a bit more respectful toward a critical habitat that was slighted by the original law.
The ESA is a Nixon-era law intended to protect plants and animals from extinction, largely by regulating economic growth and development. Since it went into effect, roughly 1,300 species have been listed as endangered or threatened.
Environmentalists love the law as if it were the 11th Commandment. Its success rate, though, is abysmal.
Only a few species have been removed from the list, some because it was discovered they weren't actually endangered, others because, despite the law's protection, they died off anyway.
Some on the list have recovered — but not due to the ESA.
Two widely cited examples of the law's supposed "success" are the recoveries of the peregrine falcon and the bald eagle. But the falcon was given another chance because of the efforts of a private organization that bred the bird in captivity. The eagle came back strong primarily because hunting the species was outlawed.
While the ESA has sputtered in its primary duty to protect wildlife, it's done a fine job of choking the habitat of another species: humans. It has done far more to harm property rights than it has to save vulnerable plants and animals.
Because of the restrictions of the ESA, there have been a number of cases where humans, particularly farmers and ranchers, were forbidden to improve their own land.
Too many have found themselves owners of land that can't be tilled, irrigated, harvested or otherwise used to provide a living. Private property effectively has been taken by the government, always without fair compensation, as the Constitution guarantees.
And the owners are still liable for taxes on the land.
There's nothing wrong with making an honest effort to save wildlife from extinction. It's a noble goal.
So is the protection of property rights. What's needed is a rational balance between the two that includes compensation for owners who lose use of their land. The new House version of the ESA passed last week does just that.
That's quite a change for Washington, where — bullied for years by radical environmentalists — no one ever seemed to want to stand up for small property owners.
Then in June came the Kelo Supreme Court ruling, which basically did away with constitutional protection of private land. Suddenly there was a new sensitivity to property rights that allowed House lawmakers to move ahead.
We're not sure what will happen in the Senate, even though it's under Republican control. But we know people are livid about Kelo — and come ballot time might be equally angry about any law that takes away property rights, for no real benefit.
Source: http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20050930