Proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act would cut red tape and protect landowners while doing more to help wildlife, Clinton administration officials said.
But despite earning broad political and industry support, the bipartisan effort to rewrite the law drew fire from environmental groups and some property-rights groups at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
“The overall effect of the bill, in its current form, would be to seriously weaken the (act’s) essential protections,” National Wildlife Federation President Mark Van Putten said.
Other groups said the bill doesn’t go far enough to protect landowners. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which advocates free-market principles, has accused the Republicans of caving in to the environmental establishment.
Nevertheless, the Senate bill, sponsored by Environment Committee Chairman John H. Chafee, Rhode Island Republican, and Sens. Dirk Kempthorne, Idaho Republican, Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, and Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is the first viable attempt in five years to reauthorize the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Chafee plans to mark up the legislation this month and send it to a floor vote before the winter recess.
“Our bill reforms the Endangered Species Act and brings it up to date,” Chafee said. “The bill includes several incentives to encourage landowners to protect endangered plants and animals.”
The bill is the result of a year of closed-door negotiations that included the administration and members of both parties. In addition to bipartisan political support, it has the backing of the timber and agriculture industries, developers, and other business groups, which say the proposed changes would give landowners incentives to protect wildlife and shelter them from additional liability in the future.
The bill includes a Clinton “no surprises” policy, which promises landowners that once a wildlife protection plan is agreed to, the federal government won’t impose more restrictions without property owners’ permission.
“It is not, by any means, everything that everybody wants,” said Stuart Wells, director of legislation for the National Association of Home Builders. “All in all, we think this is a strong step forward. It gets the public in the process. It allows them to be partners.”
One drawback, noted even among the bill’s supporters, is that it calls for funding at about double current levels.
“Even if this level of increase is realized in appropriations, we remain concerned that the cost and complexity of some of the changes, particularly process changes, might exceed the authorized levels,” said Jamie R. Clark, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Without adequate appropriations, we will face significant litigation backlogs, and some species’ recovery may be stalled.”
The measure will face a rougher road in the House, where environmental groups are rallying around a bill sponsored by Rep. George Miller, California Democrat. Mr. Miller’s legislation wouldn’t compromise species protection, environmentalists say.
But it wouldn’t do enough for landowners, who have given no support to the Miller measure.
