[env-trinity] Pombo bill questioned

[Josh Allen]

Pombo bill questioned

 

http://www.paradisepost.com/Stories/0,1413,292~30282~3076814,00.html 

 

By Jeremy Walsh - Paradise Post Staff Writer

 

 

 

Land-rights activists are cheering and environmentalists are lamenting
the passage of a bill in the House of Representatives that would
significantly alter the landmark Endang-ered Species Act of 1973. The
bill, authored Congressman Richard Pombo (R-Tracy) and known as the
Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005, was passed in
the House on Thursday, 229-193.


The reform bill would eliminate the "critical habitat" requirement which
establishes areas protected from encroachment by federal agencies when a
species is listed as endangered. The bill requires "recovery plans" for
species instead, which would have to be developed within two years. The
habitat designated in these recovery plans would not be protected from
federal actions.
Supporters of the bill say "critical habitat" isn't as critical as some
make it out to be. State Sen. Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley), who
represents the Ridge, believes the elimination of this term is the most
important part of the bill.


"Studies from the American Land Rights Association have concluded that,
for many species such as the northern spotted owl, habitat designation
is completely irrelevant to recovery," he wrote in a letter to the San
Francisco Chronicle. "This change would not only protect
private-property rights, it is also a great boost to species recovery."
According to Aanestad's spokes-man Bill Bird, that "great boost" comes
not from the removal of the "critical habitat" requirement, but from the
incentive the bill would offer to landowners to help with recovery.


"It rewards property owners who take part in the species recovery
process," Bird said, adding currently the federal government does not
take input from landowners, state or local government, and simply seizes
the land.
"The owner is the best steward of the land," Bird said. "The owner has
direct stake in his or her land therefore they are going to care for
that land. When the owner is presented with opportunity and incentive to
protect a species, it's only logical that a property owner would say,
'Of course. What do you want me to do?'"


Many environmentalists disagree.
"It's a big cash payoff for greedy developers," said De-fenders of
Wildlife Vice Presi-dent of Communications Cathy Hoffman. "It requires
the federal government to pay taxpayer dollars to developers not to kill
endangered species."
Hoffman also said the bill puts no limits on those payments.
"I don't know where the federal government's going to get that kind of
money," she said. "There's never been a law out there that has required
taxpayers to pay land owners to comply with a law. It sets a dangerous
and terrible precedent."


Defenders of Wildlife warns the bill would repeal critical habitat
without providing adequate assurances that habitat necessary for
recovery would be protected.
They also claim it would ease requirements on federal agencies to ensure
their actions do not jeopardize endangered plants or animals and cut
wildlife experts out of the loop in determining whether agency actions
would harm endangered species.
The bill would also enable landowners with development plans to proceed
with land development if the interior secretary does not answer their
questions about whether their development would harm protected species
within 180 days (with a 180-day extension possible).


Congressman Wally Herger, who represents Paradise (& Trinity Co.), voted
in favor of the bill, noting his advocacy for establishing a precedent
for human safety before endangered species.
"Our Northern California congressional district has been 'ground zero'
for many tragic events resulting from an outdated and inflexible ESA,
including the Arboga levee break and the Klamath Basin water shut-off of
2001," he said in a press release. "These tragedies helped demonstrate
the inflexibility of the current ESA and the critical need for
substantial reform. (Thursday's) House passage of comprehensive ESA
reform represents a tremendous victory in the fight to bring common
sense to this well-intentioned but seriously flawed law."


The bill includes a provision based on Herger's Species Rescue Act,
which was introduced after a levee break in Arboga, south of Marysville,
in 1997. This provision requires the interior secretary to waive or
streamline the ESA when human health, safety or property is threatened.
Herger's press secretary Darin Thacker cited a Washington state forest
fire near the Chewuch River in July 2001 that killed four firefighters
as another example of unfortunate ESA restrictions.


An investigative team re-leased a report stating a firefighting
helicopter had been unable to draw water from the river for several
hours "partially due to a lack of clearance related to the Endangered
Species Act," though the report listed the delay as an "influencing"
rather than a direct "causal" factor in the deaths. Now the bill will
face scrutiny in the Senate, which may review it in the upcoming two
months. At least one member, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) has expressed
concerns about the removal of the "critical habitat" designation.



The writer can be reached at jwalsh at paradisepost.com. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20051003/19bfd0fa/attachment.html>