Endangered Species Act (ESA) Reform

Picture this…  A $100 million five-star resort, spa, and golf course ceased development due to an existing habitat for the migratory Oregon Spotted Butterfly

Background  In the 1950s, America increased the development of untapped lands, paying little attention to environmental care.  With the increase of automobiles and factories, pollution became a rising issue.  This resulted in an increased scarcity of resources, and raised awareness of much needed environmental protection.

Importance of Biodiversity  Biological diversity is the interaction and cohabitation of the various species of animals, plants, fungi, and microorganisms that inhabit a particular area or ecosystem.  More than 25% of medicines and more than 3,000 antibiotics were originally derived from various endangered organisms.  The depletion of habitat resources, like nutrients, spatial environments, and other survival necessities, is placing enormous pressure on remaining natural resources.  Ecologic interdependence is extremely important.

The Creation of ESA  In the late 1960s, people’s concern about environmental preservation was steadily increasing.  In 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was created to preserve biodiversity and protect potentially endangered species.

Current Policies  The US Fish and Wildlife Service currently enforces the ESA and its listing processes.  Landowners are restricted from further developing any property that inhabits an endangered species.  Consequences for violating the ESA include potential jail time and immense monetary fines.  Landowners responsibilities for endangered species are numerous.

Problems with the ESA  Landowners are unfairly compensated for their financial losses due to ESA restrictions.  Farmland water diverted to save Chinook salmon and Delta Smelt  Result: $26 million in damages

Problems, cont.  Human lives are jeopardized  Damaged levees could not be repaired due to Elderberry Beetle habitat  Result: 3 deaths  Fire brush could not be removed due to Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat habitat  Result: Millions in property damage

Problems, cont.  Listing fallacies and recovery planning are inefficient and inaccurate.  Grey Wolves and Grizzly Bears endangered in continental US  However, tens of thousands roam Canada and Alaska

Problems, cont.  ESA restrictions are damaging corporate economies as well as endangered species populations.  Timber harvesters cut trees to prevent inhabitation of Red Cockaded Woodpecker  “Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up”  If woodpeckers were forced to inhabit elsewhere, then they would not damage the economies of various corporations.

Alternative Solutions  Australia  Introduced national park fencing system  Based on voluntary involvement by private property owners (no official government legislation is currently enforced).  Canada  Based on the United States’ ESA  Attempted to correct ESA private property problems associated property problems associated primarily with property primarily with property compensation compensation

A New Solution…  Creation of a new committee called the Endangered Species Services (ESS)  13 regional committees headed by a single national committee formed by regional leaders  The ESS will work along side the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service, as a committee under the Department of the Interior.  Committees implement new recovery processes and give individual species attention.

Where’s the money coming from?  The ESS acts as an efficiency committee. It will be used to cut back the $400 million annually in expenditures currently used for court settlements and compensation.  This will reduce the number of court cases and increase the number of species recovery plans.

How does this solve the problem?  The ESS will provide fair compensation in a timely fashion. (For example, the San Joaquin Farmer’s situation – ten year layover)  Accurate listing information will assist in the enforcement of better recovery processes that are specific to each economic and environmental situation.

How is this better than existing ESA policy? Currently, the ESA is not efficient in protecting the species or compensating the landowners. Our policy will…  Create a compromise between species recovery and property compensation.  Landowners will be able to use their land and resources more economically. They will be getting the most out of their time, money, and efforts.  Property owners will not be tempted to rid their land of a noted endangered species  Species numbers will eventually increase since the risk of landowners killing off inhabiting species will significantly decrease.

But will it solve everything?  Obviously the implementation of our committee is only a minimal step to solving much larger problems surrounding the current ESA policy.  If our policy solved everything, the problem wouldn’t exist! (and we would be on our way to Washington…)  However, our step is a significant one in that it will initiate the reform process in an effort to balance the benefit between species recovery and property compensation.

 Questions?