Endangered Species Act Now On Endangered List And The Northwest Has A Big Stake In Outcome Of Debate

The Endangered Species Act was considered a godsend back when it was new.

One of the most popular environmental laws ever passed, it would preserve national treasures such as the bald eagle.

Now, 23 years later, it is one of the most divisive issues in the Northwest, pitting environmentalists against industrialists and dividing Congress, which either must reform it or renew it.

“The act is today being applied in a manner far beyond what any of us envisioned when we wrote it 20 years ago,” said Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore., one of the few original co-sponsors of the act still in office.

Protecting the spotted owl has cost thousands of jobs and hamstrung salvage logging, he contends.

The law makes it illegal to harm, kill, buy or sell any endangered or threatened species.

One criticism of the law is that decisions to list a species are based on a review of scientific data that does not consider the economic effect on businesses or communities.

Considering those effects is one of several key changes Congress will debate this year. Others include:

Giving states more influence over implementing the act.

Shifting the emphasis to preserving entire habitats rather than individual species.

Compensating landowners when federal regulations lessen the value of their property.

The GOP’s “Contract With America” does not mention the Endangered Species Act. But weakening the law is in the spirit of Republican calls to curb federal regulations.

Democrats say the law has flaws but warn against a major rewriting effort.

“We have to balance our economy with the very sound goal of having a good, healthy environment,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. “But my feeling is that this Congress is going to go too far.”

One change that has support among environmentalists and Northwest lawmakers would allow states to operate their own endangered species laws under guidelines approved by Congress.

Rep. Helen Chenoweth, R-Idaho, said the states should list the species, then work with the U.S. Interior Department to draft a conservation plan. An independent agency such as the National Academy of Sciences should resolve interstate conflicts, she said.

“I am adamantly opposed to the federal government deciding what’s best for Idaho land, Idaho water and Idaho people,” Chenoweth said.

Environmental groups agree to a point but are hesitant to give the states too much power, said Nick Boutis of the Endangered Species Act Coalition.

“Some states would do a better job than the federal government, and other states certainly would do a poorer job,” Boutis said. “You’ve got people out there who just don’t give a damn about protecting endangered species.”

Shifting the emphasis to preserving entire habitats also enjoys both regional and bipartisan support.

By identifying “vulnerable habitats” sooner, the government could give private landowners financial incentives to preserve the land, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said.

Babbitt opposes a plan that would make him conduct a “cost-benefit analysis” before adding a new species to the list.

That’s a major change from the current law, which says decisions are made first on scientific data. The effect on jobs and businesses now are considered late in the process, by a Cabinet-level committee known as the God Squad.

Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., said considering a wide range of “human, economic and social values” would make the law fairer to businesses and communities. He intends to offer such legislation later this month.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, agrees: “There is a point at which we can afford, and it is in society’s best interest, to let a species become endangered and allow the human species to prevail.”

The idea of cost-benefit studies isn’t new. Industry groups have pushed it for years, and met stiff opposition from environmentalists.

“They’re saying it doesn’t matter how dangerous something is to the environment if it costs too much to protect you from it,” said John Adams of the National Resources Defense Council. “How can we put a dollar value on the laws that preserve our children’s quality of life?”

Boutis said he fears charismatic animals like the grizzly bear or the bald eagle will be saved, but obscure insects and plants won’t. To save the bald eagle, he argues, we must protect the fish they eat, and the insects the fish eat.

Environmentalists say their biggest concern is a proposal to make the government reimburse landowners when federal regulations devalue their property.

Republicans who control the House and Senate believe that should happen, but they don’t agree on when compensation should start.

Babbitt contends those proposals would be used to scuttle new environmental laws, by making them too expensive.

Craig argues the real purpose is not to provide compensation but to discourage agencies from writing bad regulations.

“If his agency damages the value of private property, that is a taking and I say you have to compensate people for that,” the Idaho Republican said.

Meanwhile, a House-Senate conference committee is hammering out an agreement for a temporary halt to any new listings of endangered or threatened species.

Supporters say it will allow breathing room while lawmakers try to reform the law. Environmentalists say it sets the act up to be gutted.

They plan to launch a national ad campaign this week to mobilize opposition to the changes.

“Twenty-five years of environmental progress is at stake,” Adams said.

MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: An endangered act Several bills could weaken the Endangered Species Act even before the reauthorization debate begins:

Regulatory moratorium House version halts the listing of new endangered for up to two years. Senate version lasts for six months. Status: Passed by House, in subcommittee in Senate.

Landowner compensation Requires the government to compensate landowners if federal rules devalue their property by 20 percent. Status: Passed by House, several versions pending in Senate subcomittee.

Cost-benefit analysis Mandates that the government consider economics before listing species as endangered or threatened. Status: Passed by House, pending in Senate subcommittee.

Timber salvage act Speeds up the sale of “salvage” timber on some federal lands, even if endangered species are on the property. Status: Passed by House, pending in Senate subcommittee.

Recission bill House version would remove $2 million in remaining 1995 funds for activities to list species as endangered or threatened. Senate version cuts $1.5 million. Status: In Senate-House conference committee.