THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, March 4, 1995 TAG: 9503040460
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY BILL SIZEMORE, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 112 lines
Owners of environmentally sensitive wetlands in Hampton Roads could collect millions of dollars from the federal government under a bill passed by the House of Representatives Friday - a bill that critics have lambasted as a back-door assault on environmental protection.
The property rights bill, which passed by a 277-148 vote, offers relief to landowners whose property was devalued because of wetlands protection or rules sheltering endangered species.
``This is a bill that will make lawyers very happy, because there will be so much litigation and increased bureaucracy,'' said Kay Slaughter, a staff attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville. ``This bill is a contract on the environment, not a `Contract With America.'
``For a government that's trying to get out of gridlock, this is a prescription for gridlock.''
A congressional critic, Rep. Bruce Vento, D-Minn., called the measure possibly ``the biggest taxpayer bailout ever.''
Supporters hailed the bill as long-awaited relief for landowners burdened by environmental restrictions on their property.
Richard Nageotte, a Stafford, Va., lawyer who specializes in challenging environmental regulators, said: ``It has been recognized by the courts that the government can take property in two ways: by physically taking it or by regulating the use and value of the property essentially out of existence . .
``A physical invasion requires compensation, but a regulatory taking does not, unless there is a taking of the property as a whole. Why should you be denied compensation if they take half of it by not letting you use it? It's crazy.
``To me it's very simple: When they take your property, they pay for your property.''
Rep. Owen Pickett, D-Va., who represents Norfolk and Virginia Beach, said: ``This is not a perfect bill, but it's headed in the right direction. . . . I've always been concerned about the way the federal government intrudes into the lives of its citizens.''
Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., said the bill will rein in ``a bureaucracy out of control and running amok. We want to restore the power of the people.''
The measure was the last in a string of anti-regulation bills passed this week by the House under the GOP's ``Contract With America'' banner.
The other bills include measures that would require the federal government to pay more attention to costs and compare risks against benefits when issuing regulations, especially those dealing with the environment, and make it easier -especially for small businesses - to challenge federal regulations.
It was unclear how the bills will fare in the Senate, where it is easier for a small group of lawmakers to block legislation.
Environmentalists predicted that if the House bill survives in the Senate, it could destroy wetlands and endangered species protection laws because agencies would be reluctant to press enforcement, fearing compensation claims they could not afford to pay.
Called the ``Private Property Protection Act,'' the House-passed measure would broaden substantially the definition courts traditionally have given to a ``regulatory taking'' of property.
It would require a federal agency to compensate landowners if a federal action to preserve ecologically sensitive lands - such as wetlands - reduces the land's value by 20 percent. Courts have generally ruled that a government ``taking'' occurs when all value of a property is lost.
Designed to cover all regulations, the measure was narrowed during two days of floor debate to cover only federal actions taken to protect wetlands and endangered species, and rules involving federal water rights.
Over the two days of debate, lawmakers supporting the bill produced a litany of ``horror stories'' in which small landowners were deprived of maximum use of their land by federal agencies because the land was declared a wetland or habitat for an endangered species.
The examples demonstrate an ``arrogance'' by federal agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, which administers wetlands regulations; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which declares endangered species, the lawmakers argued.
``People believe government no longer is their servant - it's their master,'' said Rep. Billy Tauzin, D-La., one of the most vocal advocates for property rights legislation.
While failing to get a hearing on the matter last year, Tauzin found plenty of allies in the new Republican-led House. Only 23 Republicans voted against the measure, while the GOP majority was joined by 72 Democrats.
The 277-148 vote was 13 shy of the two-thirds needed to overcome a presidential veto, however. President Clinton has hinted he might veto the anti-regulation bills if they emerge as approved by the House.
No one could provide an estimate of how much the property rights measure would cost taxpayers.
``It's a blank check,'' Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said. The Associated Press contributed to this report. MEMO: [For a related story, see page A7 for this date.]
ILLUSTRATION: WHAT WETLANDS DO FOR US
Provide critical fish and wildlife habitat.
Purify water.
Retain sedimentation and pollution.
Slow the velocity of water, reducing erosion.
WHAT ACT WOULD DO
Require federal agencies to compensate landowners if a federal
action to preserve ecologically sensitive lands - including
wetlands, endangered species and federal water rights - reduces the
land's value by at least 20 percent.
WHAT IT WOULD COST
Millions of dollars in Hampton Roads
Billions nationwide
KEYWORDS: WETLANDS ENVIRONMENT by CNB