WSP11168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attachment 7 Needs of people 0J2787 . ..... ;,..~. ~\. A Newsletter 5808 S. Rapp Street, Suite 204, Littleton, CO 80120 (303) 798-6772 FAX: (303) 347-0018 OCTOBER 1992 Sweeping Reforms to ESA Proposed .'ENDANGERED SPECIES MANAGEMENT ACT'LAUNCHED The Nationwtde Public Projects Coalition in September released the text of its proposed Endangered Species Act reform legislation, and Washington observers satd it was the IIDst sweeping overhaul of the 1973 ESA to be proposed to da te. The legislative package is entitled "The Eildaneered Species Hanaganent Act of 1992," but NPPC presenters acknowledged that introduction yet in 1992 ts unlikely given the election-year rush to adjourn Omgress. According to NPPC Administrative Officer Bob Toosing, who drafted the bill, IIEI1Y of its features were inspired by a NPPC white paper on shortcomings of the ESA which was authored by Dr. Fad<. 1ldde, former Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ha.oever, Tonsing said, the final version of the Act has IIEI1Y authors, inasmuch as it was reviewed line- by-line and extensively revised by a panel of ESA experts at an all-<lay mrrkup session which was held at the Association of California Water Agencies in Sacta!lEllto on August 28. The Act was presented to key Senate and House staff III!!Ilbers, as well as a mmJber of national association executives, in briefing sessions on September 11 in Washington, D.C. !'bst of the reforms are intended to provide adequate and explici t rnmagement processes and rectify other significant flaws which ....re inherent in the original Act, including: (1) fue process is lacking in the current Act, and the injustices which result fran unwarranted listing petitions often outweigh the environ- 1Il!(\ta1 gains which the Act facilttates. The current Act largely shuts U.S. citizens out of procedures which can destroy their property values and damage their lifestyles. (2) fconanic and social I.mpacts to regions and the entire nation which li6tings can trigger receive ro weight under the current Act unless the cunbersome Ehdangered Species Conmittee ("God Squad") exception process can be triggered or the U.S. Omgress tntervenes. Tonsing said drafters of the Act are aware that defenders of the status quo, and the proponents of even less due process in spec les listings, will argue that the proposed changes will make the listing process IIDre complex than it is today. The drafters acknowledge that to be a fact, Pe said, but proffer that democratic and just systems tend to be slower to reach conclusions than do authoritarian systems. Sam:! of the specific proposed changes are as follows: . The current Act does rot define "interested persons," which bogs the protection n>rl1anisms down with gadfly petitions, in addition to legltim3te ones, and inflicts hardships on persons and institutions which are impacted. The proposed arrendm:!nts ""uld define "interested persons" as those "able to demmstrate personal and I.nrnediate harm from a govemnent action affecting the environment." . The current Act treats suhspecies the same way it does true species, even though those sub- species often could he replicated through selective breeding. The proposed ~ts ""uld limit jurisdiction of the Act to true species, and provides a scientific definition of what are true species. . It would he established that listings or desig- nations of critical habitats which impolir existing uses by right of public or private property ""uld be defined as "takings" and subject to just compensation. . The current ~t does rot address how isolated populations of spectes which IIBY he abundant in other parts of the na tion are to be handled, which is an invitation to bureaucratic abuses. The proposed arrendm:!nts recognize the primacy of individual states in such IIBtters, although Published by the Nationwide Public Projects Coalition