Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />g.,:::? <br />""'I: <br />Hol. <br />~ <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />721 Centennial Building <br />131) Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone, (303) 866.3441 <br />FAX: 0031866.4474 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />Roy Romt'r <br />GovernOf <br /> <br />J~mes 5 lochheOld <br />Executive DIrI,c'L1or. DN~ <br /> <br />O;:lTie~ C. Li\e. PE <br />O;rpclor, eWeB <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board Members <br /> <br />FROM: Randy Seaholm <br /> <br />DATE: November 20, 1997 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Agenda Item 23e, November 24-25, 1997 Board Meeting- <br />Endangered Species Act Reauthorization Bill <br />Informational Item <br /> <br />On September 16,1997 Senators Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID), John Chafee CR-VT), Max <br />Baucus (D-MT) and Harry Reid CD-NY) announced agreement on the bipartisan ESA <br />reauthorization legislation, which was introduced as S. 1180, the Endangered Species Recovery <br />Act of 1997 and S. 1181, the Endangered Species Habitat protection Act of 1997. S. 1180 is the <br />bill that would reauthori'Le th.e Endangered Species Act and S. 1181 is the Bill that would amend <br />the Internal Revenue Code to provide federal tax incentives for landowners to enter into <br />conservation easements for the protection of endangered species. <br /> <br />On September 30, 1997 the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee marked up <br />and reported S.ll80. It was approved by a 15-3 vote after only a hour-and-a-half session. Some <br />thirty amendments have been filed, but the most controversial were withheld and will be offered <br />when the bill goes to the senate floor. <br /> <br />The Bill as reported is 76 pages long in text fonn. The major changes the Bill would <br />bring to ESA are summarized as follows. <br /> <br />l. It improves the listing process, ensuring that decisions made under ESA are based on good <br />science. It also requires independent peer review of all listing and delisting decisions. <br />2. It enhances the recovery planning process so that the emphasis is placed on actually <br />recovering species rather than simply listing them. <br />3. Landowners will enjoy greater flexibility and predictability in conservation plans, candidate <br />conservation agreements, a "no surprises" policy, and "safe-harbor" agreements. <br />4. The consultation process is streamlined to give federal agencies greater authority to decide <br />whether an activity will adversely affect a species. <br />5. "Take" enforcement actions would have to be based on sound science and equitable <br />assumptions. The burden of proof of a taking would be shifted from landowners onto <br />government agencies. <br />