Reform will strengthen endangered species act
The Oct. 1 editorial about the U.S. House of Representatives' passage of the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (HR 3824) is not up to the Star-Bulletin's usual standard of thoughtful analysis. It sheds more heat than light on this hotly debated but poorly understood legislation.
The Endangered Species Act, originally enacted in 1973, is a landmark piece of environmental law.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.
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 Reason has been replaced by sophistry, and mutual respect has been supplanted by mutual suspicion. HR 3824 represents an attempt to raise the discussion out of the rut and move toward changes that will make the ESA more fair and more successful in protecting endangered species.
Many important issues are misunderstood or, in some cases, misrepresented by opponents of HR 3824, so I will focus on the bill's single most contentious 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 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.
HR 3824 would change the law to require payment for land set aside for endangered species. Furthermore (and contrary to its opponents), the bill contains strong safeguards to prevent landowners 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, only 37 percent of the nearly 1,300 species protected by the ESA have had their habitats designated. That figure is disappointingly low. Some have argued that the solution is to provide the funding 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 conclude that our resources would be better spent ensuring the implementation of strong species recovery plans that would include the identification and protection of essential habitat, along with benchmarks to measure the progress of recovery.
It is important to note that both HR 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 percent 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 HR 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 along 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 that protects the endangered plants and animals that are such an important part of our heritage.
U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie represents urban Honolulu.