-----Original
Message-----
From: Peyton
Knight [mailto:pknight@nationalcenter.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:36
AM
To: Peyton
Knight
Subject: Hostility
Toward Key Provision of Pombo Endangered Species Reform Bill Shows
Environmentalists Aren't Committed to Public's "Right to Know"
Contact: Peyton Knight or Ryan
Balis at (202) 543-4110
For Release: September 21,
2005
Hostility Toward Key Provision
of Pombo Endangered Species Reform Bill Shows Environmentalists Aren't Committed
to Public's "Right to Know"
Washington,
D.C. - The environmental movement's strong opposition to a key provision of Rep.
Richard Pombo's Endangered Species Act reform bill suggests they aren't serious
about protecting the public's "right to know," says The National Center for
Public Policy Research. It also suggests environmentalists aren't serious
about saving endangered species, the group says.
"For perhaps the first
time, Congress is considering a proposal to stop penalizing private stewardship
and thus create an ESA that offers the potential of being good for both people
and good for species," said R.J. Smith, senior fellow at The National
Center.
The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act (TESRA), which
was introduced by House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo and others
September 19, includes a provision that would require the federal government to
inform property owners within 90 days whether their proposed activities would
harm species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
But environmental
groups such as Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity
oppose the provision, arguing it would harm species.
"Environmental
groups say they support the public's 'right to know,'" said David Ridenour, Vice
President of The National Center for Public Policy Research. "But they
apparently don't think this right should extend to American landowners-they
would rather keep them in the dark."
The 90-day review period could be a
means of not only protecting the rights of property owners, but of saving
species, according to The National Center.
"So long as ambiguities exist
on which activities are illegal and which are legal, which activities would harm
species and which would not, property rights and endangered species will both be
in jeopardy," said Peyton Knight, director of the John P. McGovern MD Center for
Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at the National Center. "A 90-day
review period, if formulated correctly, could protect property owners by giving
them the final agency decision they need to seek compensation for their losses
under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But it would also
protect species in so doing."
The Endangered Species Act has failed to
save endangered species because its incentives are wrong.
"Today private
landowners live in fear of the ESA," said Ridenour. "Those who harbor
endangered species on their property often find themselves subject to severe
land use restrictions."
To avoid such restrictions and the losses in
property values that accompany them, many landowners preemptively sterilize
their land to keep rare species away.
The Pombo proposal appears to have
been significantly changed from a draft released this summer. With further
refinement, several provisions of the proposal could relieve property owners of
some of the ESA's harsh regulatory burden.
Under one provision, property
owners who lose the productive use of their land due to endangered species
regulations would receive 100 percent of the fair market value in compensation
for their losses. The provision also notes that any "ambiguities regarding
fair market value shall be resolved in favor of the property
owner."
"Given its failure to recover species and its enormous burden on
private property owners and regional economies, you would think Congress would
want to repeal the ESA," said Knight. "Strong protection of private
property rights ought to be a minimum standard for the Act."
The recent
bill comes on the heels of a coalition letter widely circulated last week.
The letter was signed by over 80 major national and state public policy
organizations voicing their concern that TESRA's first draft would not have
provided meaningful reform to the ESA.
Plans revealed in the early draft
to introduce "invasive species" regulations to the ESA have been removed from
TESRA. Knight says this removal was essential.
"Adding invasive
species regulations to the ESA would have had a devastating impact on
landowners," he said. "We're thankful that this has been removed from
TESRA."
The House Resources Committee has scheduled a hearing on TESRA
for Wednesday, September 21, and plans to vote on the bill the following
day.
As Congress is currently conducting hearings on eminent domain
abuse, this may be a critical week for property rights.
"Eminent domain
abuse is a terrible injustice to be sure," said Ridenour, "But when government
takes your land under eminent domain, you get compensated. Under the
Endangered Species Act, government can take your property without paying you a
dime."
For more information, contact Peyton Knight or Ryan Balis at (202)
543-4110.
# # #
501 Capitol Court,
N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 543-4110
Fax (202)
543-5975
E-Mail: info@nationalcenter.org
Web:
www.nationalcenter.org