Environmental Problems, Their Causes, and Sustainability 1

Most people would say yes. The problem is thatrequiring government compensation for regulatorytakings would cost so much that it could cripple thefinancial ability of state and federal governments toprotect the public good by enforcing existing or futureenvironmental, land-use, health, and safety laws. Thehigh costs involved could also hinder passage of anynew environmental land-use, environmental, health,and safety laws because of lack of funds to compensatecitizens and businesses. Some anti-environmentalistsand elected officials opposed to the ESA push for requiringcompensation for regulatory takings as a wayto weaken or gut the ESA.The controversy over regulatory takings is a continuationof the long-standing conflict over two typesof freedoms: the right to be protected by law from thedamaging actions of others and the right to do as onepleases without undue government interference.Achieving a balance between these conflicting types ofindividual rights is a difficult problem that governmentshave been wrestling with for centuries.How Can We Encourage Private Landownersto Protect Endangered Species? Trying to FindWin-Win CompromisesCongress has amended the Endangered Species Actto help landowners protect endangered species ontheir land.The ESA has encouraged some developers, timbercompanies, and other private landowners to avoidgovernment regulation and possible loss of economicvalue by managing their land to reduce its use by endangeredspecies. The National Association for Homebuilders,for example, has published practical tips fordevelopers and other landowners to avoid ESA issues.Suggestions include planting crops, plowing fields betweencrops to prevent native vegetation and endangeredspecies from occupying the fields, clearingforests, and burning or managing vegetation to makeit unsuitable for local endangered species. Somelandowners who discover small populations of endangeredanimals may also be tempted to use the “shoot,shovel, and shut up” solution.Congress changed the ESA in several ways to helpdeal with these and other problems associated with theregulatory takings issue. In 1982, Congress amendedthe ESA to allow the secretary of the interior to usehabitat conservation plans (HCPs). They are designed tostrike a compromise between the interests of privatelandowners and those of endangered and threatenedspecies.With an HCP, landowners, developers, or loggersare allowed to destroy some critical habitat or kill allor part of an endangered or threatened species populationon private land in exchange for taking steps toprotect that species. Such measures might include settingaside a part of the species’ habitat as a protectedarea, protecting critical nesting sites, maintainingtravel corridors for the species involved, paying to relocatethe species to another suitable habitat, removingcompetitors and predators, or paying money to havethe government buy suitable habitat elsewhere.Once the plan is approved it cannot be changed,even if new data show that the plan cannot protect aspecies and help it recover. By 2004, some 400 HCPshad been developed.Some wildlife conservationists support this approachbecause it can help head off use of evasive techniquesand reduce political pressure to weaken or eliminatethe ESA. However, there are two major criticismsof HCPs. One is that many of them have been approvedwithout enough scientific evaluation of their effects ona species’ recovery. Another problem is that manyplans are political compromises that do not protect thespecies or make inadequate provisions for its recovery.In 1999, the USFWS approved two new approachesfor encouraging private landowners to protect threatenedor endangered species. One is safe harbor agreementsin which landowners voluntarily agree to takespecified steps to restore, improve, or maintain habitatfor threatened or endangered species located on theirland. In return, landowners get technical help. Theyalso receive government assurances that the natural resourcesinvolved will not face future restrictions oncethe agreement is over, and that after the agreement hasexpired landowners can return the property to its originalcondition without penalty.Another method is the use of voluntary candidateconservation agreements in which landowners agree totake specific steps to help conserve a species whosepopulation is declining but is not yet listed as endangeredor threatened. Participating landowners receivetechnical help and assurances that no additional resource-userestrictions will be imposed on the landcovered by the agreement if the species is listed as endangeredor threatened in the future.Should the Endangered Species Act BeWeakened? One Side of the StorySome believe that the Endangered Species Actshould be weakened or repealed because it has beena failure, tramples on private property rights, andhinders economic development of private land.Since 1992 Congress has been debating the reauthorizationof the ESA with proposals ranging from eliminatingthe act, to weakening it, to strengthening it.The strongest opposition to the act is in the westernUnited States where most public lands are located.Many westerners view the federal regulatory agenciesmanaging these public lands as an enemy that wantshttp://biology.brookscole.com/miller14243