[env-trinity] [SPAM?] Klamath Falls Herald and News: House passes ESA overhaul

[Josh Allen]

House passes ESA overhaul 

http://www.heraldandnews.com/articles/2005/09/30/news/top_stories/top2.t
xt 

 

 

 

 

Published September 30, 2005

Combined local, wire reports 

The U.S. House passed legislation Thursday that could rewrite the
Endangered Species Act.

The bill would greatly expand private property rights under the law that
has been credited with helping keep the bald eagle from extinction but
which also has provoked bitter fights over land use.

By a vote of 229-193, lawmakers approved a top-to-bottom overhaul of the
1973 act, perhaps the nation's most powerful environmental law. The law
has led to contentious battles over species such as the northern spotted
owl, the snail darter and the red-legged frog.

It was also blamed for the federal cutoff of irrigation water to the
Klamath Reclamation Project at the start of the 2001 growing season.

The Bureau of Reclamation withheld water from farmers that year to
protect threatened coho salmon in the lower Klamath River and endangered
sucker fish in Upper Klamath Lake.

U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, a Republican whose district includes Klamath and
Lake counties, is a co-sponsor of the bill. He came to Klamath Falls on
Sept. 19, where he announced the bill at a rally.

Walden was the only one of Oregon's five House representatives to vote
for the bill. Reps. Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio, Darlene Hooley and
David Wu voted against it. All four are Democrats.

Walden was unavailable for comment when called by the Herald and News
Thursday evening.



 

 

 

Rep. Wally Herger, whose Northern California district includes the
Klamath Basin, praised the bill.

"Our Northern California congressional district has been ground zero for
many tragic events from an outdated and inflexible ESA, including ...
the Klamath Basin water shut-off of 2001," Herger said in a statement
distributed Thursday.

The rewrite faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where Republican
Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, head of the panel that oversees the
law, has expressed concerns about the House bill.

The bill would require the government to compensate property owners if
steps to protect species thwart development plans. It also would make
political appointees responsible for some scientific determinations and
would stop the government from designating ''critical habitat,'' which
can limit development.

The changes were pushed through by the chairman of the House Resources
Committee, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif. The California rancher contends
the current rules unduly burden landowners and lead to costly lawsuits
while doing too little to save plants and animals.

''You've got to pay when you take away somebody's private property. That
is what we have to do,'' Pombo told House colleagues. ''The only way
this is going to work is if we bring in property owners to be part of
the solution and to be part of recovering those species.''



 

 

 

Many Democrats and moderate Republicans said Pombo's bill would
eliminate important protections for species and clear the way for large
handouts from the government to property owners.

The bill sets a ''dangerous precedent that private individuals must be
paid to comply with an environmental law,'' said Rep. Nick Rahall of
West Virginia, the committee's top Democrat.

''What's next? Paying citizens to wear seat belts? ... This bill will
not improve species' ability to recover,'' he said.

A White House statement on Thursday supported the bill. But it noted
that payments to private property owners could have a ''significant''
impact on the budget.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that those payments would run
less than $20 million a year. The bill's opponents predicted a much
higher total.

The Fish and Wildlife Service says there are 1,268 threatened and
endangered plants and animals in the United States. About a dozen have
gone off the list over the years after they were determined to have
recovered; nine have become extinct.

Opponents of the existing law said the numbers show it's not working,
while supporters say the same figures show it's successful because it is
keeping species alive.

Pombo's bill would:

n Eliminate critical habitat. That is area now required to be designated
when a species is listed and is protected from adverse actions by
federal agencies. Instead, ''recovery plans'' for species, including
designation of habitat, would have to be developed within two years. The
recovery plans would not have regulatory force and the habitat would not
be protected from federal actions.

n Specify that landowners with development plans are due answers from
the interior secretary within 180 days, with a 180-day extension
possible, about whether the development would harm protected species. If
the government fails to respond in time, the development could go
forward. If the government blocks the development, the landowner would
be paid the fair market value of the proposed development.

*  Give the interior secretary the job of determining what constitutes
appropriate scientific data for decision-making under the law.

An alternative from a group of Democrats and moderate Republicans would
have strengthened the recovery plans, eliminated the payments to
landowners for blocked developments and created a scientific advisory
board to assist the interior secretary. The proposal failed by a 216-206
vote.

On the Net: Endangered Species Act: 
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa.html

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20051003/da41b4c2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 73 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20051003/da41b4c2/attachment.gif>