Endangered Species Act Needs Reform

Endangered Species Act Needs Reform
By Congressman Neil Abercrombie

Adapted from an editorial page submission to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin

Published October 11, 2005

Washington, DC -- The Endangered Species Act (ESA), originally enacted in 1973, is a landmark piece of environmental law. It has saved numerous species from extinction. However, there is a broad bipartisan consensus that the ESA needs to be improved and made more collaborative.

I agree the ESA can and must be improved. For too long we have been stymied by a deadlock in which opponents are frozen into positions from which they demonize one another. There's been too much name calling and too little exchange of ideas. Reason has been replaced by sophistry, and mutual respect has been supplanted by mutual suspicion. The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (H.R. 3824), which passed he U.S. House of Representatives on September 29, 2005, represents an attempt to break the logjam and exercise leadership which will raise the discussion out of the rut and move toward changes that will make the ESA fairer and more successful in protecting endangered species.

There are many important issues which are misunderstood or, in some cases, misrepresented by opponents of H.R. 3824, so I will focus on the bill's single most contentious single issue. Under the current law the federal government can set aside areas called "critical habitat" to allow an endangered species to survive. The problem is, the government rarely compensates landowners for loss of the use of their property. My experience in dealing with landowners facing this dilemma is that the great majority would be happy to help save endangered species. They only seek fair compensation for what is being taken from them. I believe this is a reasonable expectation, and it is only fair that the government compensate them for their loss. This practice is routinely applied under eminent domain statutes for the taking of land for a public purpose, such as highways.

H.R. 3824 would change the law to require payment for land set aside for endangered species. Furthermore (and contrary to assertions of H.R. 3824's opponents), the bill contains strong safeguards to prevent land owners from gaming the system to reap windfall profits from the fair compensation provision.

There is also a more practical consideration. Since the ESA's original passage, critical habitat has been designated for only 37% of the nearly 1,300 species currently protected by the ESA. That figure is a disappointingly low attainment after more than 30 years. Some have argued that the solution is to provide the funding and resources that are needed to comply with the ESA. But both Democratic and Republican administrations have faulted critical habitat as an expensive process that is comparatively ineffective considering its costs and the many lawsuits it generates. We are forced to the conclusion that our limited resources would be better spent ensuring the implementation of strong endangered species recovery plans which would include the identification and protection of habitat essential for the recovery of endangered species, along with mandatory benchmarks to measure the progress of recovery.

It is important to note that both H.R. 3824 and the Democratic substitute alternative eliminate the critical habitat provision from the ESA in order to focus resources on recovery plans. In fact, one sponsor of the alternative estimates that it is 80-90% identical to the underlying bill. I voted for the Democratic substitute, and when it failed I voted for the underlying bill. Both versions make responsible changes so that the ESA will be more efficient and cost effective.

We need to remember that H.R. 3824 has a long way yet to go in the legislative process. The bill still must be considered by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the full Senate, and a House-Senate Conference Committee. It is certain that more changes will be made at each step of the way. The key is to maintain the dialogue and continue the give and take. That is the only way we will arrive at a result that will strengthen the law which protects the endangered plants and animals that are such an important part of our heritage.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/hi01_abercrombie/Mike_letters_sb_esaopedweb05a.html