The Endangered Species Act and private property

What is the Endangered Species Act's (ESA) effect on private property? While ESA opponents portray the law as having draconian impacts on landowners, in fact:

Private property owners have fewer restrictions than federal agencies have under the ESA. Landowners whose lands provide habitat to endangered species are prohibited from "taking" an endangered species. Federal agencies, on the other hand, are prohibited from taking an endangered species and also must ensure that their activities do not jeopardize an endangered species or adversely modify or destroy its critical habitat. A private landowner is subject to this latter requirement only if a federal permit is required or the development is federally funded.

Private property owners whose land contains endangered plants have virtually no restrictions under the ESA on their property use. Plants listed as endangered under the ESA and found on private land are protected only to the extent that state law protects them. In most states, landowners are not required to provide any protection to endangered plants found on their property.

Private property owners can obtain permits to harm or even kill endangered species in the course of developing their land. The ESA authorizes landowners to obtain incidental take permits upon approval of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) which minimizes the impact of development on an endangered species.

Private property owners have not suffered takings of their property under the ESA. No federal court has ever found that operation of the ESA has taken private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Protection of endangered species and their habitats enhances private property values and greatly contributes to the health of the economy.

Conservation of forests, lakes, and streams--the habitats of endangered species--adds to property values. For example, according to the National Association of Home Builders, scenic views of water alone increase the value of a home by 28 percent.

By conserving habitats, the ESA also preserves the ecological functions on which communities depend for health and safety. For example, wetlands conserved under the ESA provide flood control for homes and purification of drinking water.

The ESA protects the booming wildlife recreation industry: over $55 billion is spent each year by people in the United States to fish, hunt and engage in non-consumptive wildlife recreation.

The ESA is essential to maintaining vital riparian and coastal habitats--the foundation of the commercial fishing industry. Salmon fishing in the Pacific Northwest alone has provided 60,000 jobs and $1 billion annually.

The ESA protects plant and animal species that save lives and contribute to a thriving pharmaceutical industry. This $79 billion industry depends on natural compounds from plant and animal species. These natural compounds account for forty percent of all prescriptions written annually.

Conservation of wild plant species enables the agricultural industry to develop new pest- and disease-resistant strains of common crops and to cultivate new crops that grow in marginal areas. For example, in the 1970's genetic material from a wild corn species in Mexico was used to stop a leaf fungus that wiped out 15 percent of the U.S. corn crop.

To encourage landowners to conserve endangered species and to further reduce the potential for conflicts under the ESA, the National Wildlife Federation supports the following, as part of ESA reauthorization: