Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, August 14, 1995 TAG: 9508140031
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAMES A. McCLURE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The Endangered Species Act is one of the most significant, powerful and well-intentioned pieces of environmental legislation ever enacted anywhere in the world. Virtually every American supports the objective of species protection, and the act is the major mechanism for achieving that. There are, however, major problems with it that must be addressed.
The nearly 10 million people represented by the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition, as well as many like-minded members of Congress, are committed to addressing these problems. Despite accusations leveled by the environmental community, supporters of ESA reform don't want to gut the act, but want changes that will make it work better for people and nature.
To improve the ESA, six main principles must be embraced:
Species must be protected before they decline to the point of actually needing the ESA's help.
Once a species has been listed for protection under the act, landowners and citizens who are forced to deal with the act daily must be guaranteed that the ESA will be administered in a fair and consistent fashion.
The act must be amended to include incentives, rather than merely penalties, to encourage the public to work with the act.
If a person's property value or ability to utilize his or her land is diminished due to implementing the ESA, that landowner should be compensated for his/her loss.
Multiple species must be protected over large areas of land because the current system of protecting individual species hasn't been successful.
The science used in listing decisions and critical habitat designations must be improved.
If these changes are made, not only will the Endangered Species Act enjoy much greater public support, but species the law was designed to protect will also benefit.
Right now, the ESA simply doesn't work. There's little disagreement on this point. Even Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who only a year ago said that reauthorizing the ESA wasn't a priority, is now outlining specific areas where he feels legislative changes would make the act more user-friendly.
Private citizens who own land that is habitat to protected species are afraid of what the law will do to them and their ability to use their property. How do we change this? How do we eliminate the fear Americans feel when they hear the letters ESA? Go back to the beginning and force the federal government to implement the statute as Congress intended; use the most up-to-date scientific methods and practices available; rely on local efforts to solve ESA-related problems; and get people involved in the process.
I was a member of the U.S. Senate in 1973 when the law was passed. At that time, there was actually very little debate on it. Everyone involved was committed to the principle of protecting endangered wildlife, and I'm still committed to that principle today.
Since we originally approved it, however, it has become the ``Land Use Act.'' The ESA has been used improperly to extend control over how people use their own land and public lands they lease.
The ESA must not be gutted, but must be reformed. What we are calling for is a healthy balance between the people's needs and nature's needs. These two goals aren't mutually exclusive. They can work together. For the sake of future generations, they must.
James A. McClure is chairman of the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition in Washington, D.C.
by CNB