|
Congressman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House of Representative's Natural Resource Committee, has serious issues with the way the Endangered Species Act treats private property owners.
He then rewrote the Act, which was passed during the Nixon administration, and last September the House approved his sweeping changes of the 1973 law. His version is seen as common sense by some but is the cause of great cries of anguish and rending of garments among environmentalists.
So far their displeasure has seemingly stalled any action as — despite the support of the administration — Pombo's rewrite hasn't made it through the Senate. With the latest Congressional session drawing to a close, Pombo is unsure if the measure will go through the Senate, but he plans to continue the fight.
Calling the Act heavy-handed, Pombo says it relies too much on decisions driven by “somebody in Washington” who had more than likely never even visited the area to be regulated. That's obviously wrong — especially when the declaration of an endangered species habitat might translate into a family, with a century-old tradition of farming a plot of land, being told it was no longer permitted to farm that land.
Pambo also says the declarations were “driven by lawsuits,” in which case the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would lose a lawsuit filed by environmentalists. The inability to win cases, he noted, drove policymakers to look at critical habitat designations rather than recovering species. In fact, Pambo said, no one has been looking to see if the habitat being protected was even doing anything for the species.
As evidence, Pombo cites the 6 percent recovery rate for species listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Many species don't even have a current status. His proposal would change the focus of the Act from protecting habitats to adoption of actual recovery plans for the wildlife. In his seemingly common sense approach, once a recovery plan was adopted, then whatever habitat was necessary to fulfill the recovery plan would be protected.
The rewrite would also involve private property owners in the planning. By going for a goal of recovery rather than habitat protection, property owners may find it possible to participate in the recovery process without losing use of their lands.
Like the Magnuson-Stevens revisions passed earlier this year, the Pombo plan would go toward a science-based plan of action. A recovery team would be formed of independent scientists and government officials. A plan would be created with definite recovery steps which would then be implemented.
As part of the plan, definite recovery habitat needs would be addressed, rather than citing huge plots of land as habitat. In the instances where private property was impacted, Pombo said he hopes to see plans suggested to the private landowners in order for them to see a working plan to recover a species, rather than a blanket declaration of protected lands. He also suggests creation of a grant or tax credit incentive for those landowners. |
Henderson is The Journal's outdoors columnist; his columns appear on Tuesdays and Thursdays.