Current work in wildlife, rivers, public lands, and climate

Saturday, October 1, 2005
Endangered species act: Opinion in state split over changes

Environmentalists and endangered-species advocates cried foul while livestock- and oil-industry advocates cheered as the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Thursday fundamentally changing the 30-year-old Endangered Species Act
Contact: Staci Matlock The New Mexican

Environmentalists and endangered-species advocates cried foul while livestock- and oil-industry advocates cheered as the U.S. House ofRepresentatives passed a bill Thursday fundamentally changing the 30-year-old Endangered Species Act.

The measure would alter the act’s language dealing with endangered species’ habitats, establish a program to reimburse landowners for environmental restrictions on their property and increase the power of the secretary of the Interior.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., passed 229 to 193, with three-dozen Democrats supporting it and almost three-dozen Republicans opposed. It was introduced Sept. 19 with 95 co-sponsors, including Rep. Stevan Pearce, R-N.M.

Critics say the legislation strips protection for habitat, enriches developers and lets a political appointee — the secretary of the Interior — determine the “best available science” for protecting species.

“Pombo’s bill will tear an irreparable hole in the vital safety net the Endangered Species Act provides for endangered wildlife and plants in the Southwest,” said Nicole Rosemarino, endangered-species specialist with theSanta Fe-based environmental group, WildEarth Guardians. “Clearly, the nation’s leadership is not listening to the more than 85 percent of Americans who support strong endangered-species protection.”

Rosemarino said habitat for New Mexico’s endangered species, such as thenorthern aplomado falcon, is protected under the existing Endangered Species Act but that, “Those forward steps will vanish under Pombo’s bill, which is a shameless giveaway to industries imperiling the nation’s wildlife.”

The bill’s advocates say the existing law is ineffective in protectingendangered species and that the changes will encourage landowners to protect them. “We were extremely pleased the bill passed,” said Caren Cowan, executive director of the 1,800-member New Mexico Cattle Growers Association. “It wasn’t saving species, and it was punitive to landowners, not incentive-based.”

One incentive under the bill would have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pay private landowners for lost revenue caused by protecting an endangered species. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who voted against the bill, gave this example of what that would mean: The owner of 10 acres with an endangered bird living on one of them tells the federal agency he plans to build a hotel on the land. The agency then has 180 days to decide if the hotel would harm the bird. If it stops the hotel for that reason, the landowner can bill the federal government, which would pay him for the millions of dollars that he says the land and proposed development are worth.

The bill’s opponents say the wording will leave a wide-open door for developers and speculators to bilk the government out of millions of dollars.

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimated the cost of implementing all the bill’s aspects at $2.7 billion from 2006 to 2010, even though it said payouts to private landowners are uncertain because they will depend on land claims and court decisions.

Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service makes some grants to landowners who protect and improve habitat for endangered species, according to Larry Bell, the service’s assistant regional director for external affairs in Albuquerque.

Beyond that, if an endangered species is found on private land, the Fish and Wildlife Service can do little under current law unless the landowner kills a member of the species or is receiving other federal money. A private landowner receiving federal money must consult with the service before taking any action that might harm an endangered species.

Pombo’s bill now heads to the Senate, where opponents hope to stop it. “We’re looking to the Senate for some sanity,” Jeremy Vesbach, executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, said. “The House bill basically says, ‘we give up, it’s too hard, we’re just going to cut a few holes in the safety net and let some species go extinct from the face of the Earth.’ It’s morally shameful.”

Cowan said the amount that both opponents and supporters have spent on lawsuits under the existing act is “criminal. We’re talking tens of millions of dollars.” The new bill will foster better cooperation between the federal government and private landowners, she said.

Contact Staci Matlock at 470-9843

Copyright 2005 The New Mexican – Reprinted with permission