Legislators Seek to Revise Endangered Species Law

WASHINGTON —  One of Rep. Bill Thomas’ constituents wanted to open a recycling business on 20 acres in the Central California community of McKittrick, but he balked when a federal agency said he would have to pay thousands for the permit he would need.

Under terms of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asked the landowner to buy an additional 380 acres of land for a wildlife refuge to mitigate any harm the recycling business would cause to wildlife.

Each acre cost about $1,000, Thomas said. “This is extortion, plain and simple,” he told the House Resources Committee on Wednesday.

Thomas (R-Calif) is one of several member of Congress who say that they support the idea of protecting endangered species, but want to amend the Endangered Species Act to make it more landowner-friendly. Under current law, private landowners are bearing too much of the cost of protecting endangered animals, they said.

“It is wrong to force some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole,” said Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), chairman of the House Resources Committee and sponsor of a bill that would require the federal government, in its efforts to protect wildlife, to minimize any impact on property rights or compensate the owner with taxpayers’ money for any loss of use of the land.

Thomas has introduced three other bills. Similar legislation has been unsuccessful in the past.

But some conservation groups say that the measures would put the public in the position of paying property owners for complying with the law--for not killing endangered wildlife or destroying their habitat.

“Paying people not to do the wrong thing defies common sense and would be a raid on the treasury,” said Steven Shimberg, a National Wildlife Federation vice president. Landowners who feel they have been mistreated by the government already have recourse in the courts, he said.

Under Young’s bill, private property owners “would be free to bulldoze sea turtle and shorebird nesting beaches and to chop down eagle nesting trees,” he said.

Shimberg said efforts to improve the law, which has strong support from the public, should center on providing financial incentives for property owners to go beyond the law’s requirements by taking action to benefit endangered wildlife.

“This bill, however, is a shotgun blast that would cripple the ESA and the irreplaceable fish, wildlife, and plant species that depend on it,” Shimberg said.

Since the Endangered Species Act became law 25 years ago, few lawmakers imagined the controversy it would unleash: fights pitting the protection of plants and animals against the rights of people to own and manage their land, perform their job and meet the needs of a growing population.

Measures deemed necessary to protect such wildlife as the snail darter, spotted owl, kangaroo rat, Delhi fly, and black-spored quillwort have caused headaches for some landowners, bringing many projects to a temporary or permanent halt.

“When I voted for the ESA in 1973, Congress was not told that this law would be used to force private property owners to set aside land for habitat for species against their will and without being compensated for the loss of their property,” Young said.