Sierra Club outlines dangers of Young-Pombo ESA reforms

By the Sierra Club

Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska) and Richard Pombo (R-California) on Thursday introduced their bill to gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Although they held hearings around the country, ostensibly to gather input for their legislation, the bill is very similar to S. 768, the industry-authored bill introduced by Senator Slade Gorton. Based on drafts of the bill, we expect it will:

• Override good science and good law by redefining "take" under the ESA. It would overturn the recent Supreme Court "Sweet Home" decision by "excluding" habitat destruction from the definition of "taking" a species. Essentially one would have to walk up to a endangered bird and shoot it in order to violate the law. Cutting down nesting trees would be fine, as long as the bird wasn't sitting in the nest. This would also fly in the face of sound science, ignoring the recent National Academy of Sciences report which reaffirmed the critical importance of habitat protection for saving imperiled species.

• End our nation's commitment to protecting biodiversity. The bill would give the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce the authority to decide that it's OK for a species to go extinct. They would no longer be required to attempt to recover species, they could merely choose a "conservation objective" that would simply prohibit a direct "take."

• Create a huge new taxpayer funded bureaucracy to pay people to comply with the ESA. We expect the Young-Pombo bill will contain the now familiar "takings" language (different from above "take" references) to pay landowners who claim that the value of their land has been reduced due to the ESA.

• Delay the listing of species and the implementation of recovery plans with another layer of bureaucracy. The bill establishes a taxpayer-funded peer review process which would force all listing decisions to go through a lengthy review, whether or not they are the subject of real scientific debate. Meanwhile, the species goes extinct.

• Make a travesty of habitat protection on public lands. Existing protection on National Forests and Bureau of Land Management lands could be overridden by other statutory goals such as "multiple use."

• Allow destructive federal projects to move ahead without requiring agencies to consult each other regarding the impacts of their activities. Section 7 of the ESA would no longer ensure agency consultation and coordination to reduce impacts.

Source: Sierra Club Action Alert -- September 7, 1995