Saving species: A guide for the perplexed

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Policy is complicated.

The goals of policy - a strong economy, peace (or war, depending on circumstances), clean air - are simple. But in a diverse, sometimes disagreeable society with conflicting institutions, a sprawling government and an intricate legal system, achieving those goals requires gobs of ... well, process, and process can get confusing.

To this confusion, semi-official Washington has its own responses. It has developed its own jargon; no, more accurately, its own jargons - different ones for defense, social welfare, economic and environmental policy. Then it has developed an easy, if misleading, shorthand for judging policies - if the guys we don't like are for it, it has to be bad.

Both responses are on parade when it comes to the present dispute over changing the Endangered Species Act. Jargon reigns supreme, at least so it seems to those of us for whom "mitigation," "recovery teams" and "guaranteed revenue source," are not part of day-to-day chatter. And on both sides, much of the rhetoric consists of this condemnation by association.

Thus the Sierra Club asserts that the bill before the Senate can't be any good because it is backed by "a well-financed lobby of development interests." On the other side, one of those industry-financed "property rights' groups proclaims, "This bill is so bad even Bruce Babbitt likes it."

On both sides, these facts are right, or at least right enough. Interior Secretary Babbitt has endorsed the Senate bill (whether or not he actually likes it), and so have the loggers, miners, farmers and developers so un-loved by the Sierra Club, though these groups aren't crazy about it, either.

Herewith, then, an attempt - in plain English and without name-calling - to explain the situation, which appears to be a classic case of simple goals meeting complex process.

Almost everyone is for preserving species, and those who are not don't admit to it. Similarly, almost everyone accepts the proposition that owners of private land should be allowed to develop it and earn money from it, though this point arouses the most controversy.

True, many of these landowners already have so much money that one wonders how they manage to spend it. But some landowners are not rich, and anyway, rich people have rights, too.

The landowners and their well-paid lobbyists prefer the Senate bill, a bipartisan measure sponsored by Republicans Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho and John Chafee of Rhode Island and Democrats Max Baucus of Montana and Harry Reid of Nevada.

But so does the Clinton administration, which helps explain why it was approved by the Committee on Environment and Public Works by a 15-3 vote, with five out of the eight Democrats voting for it. It will not get to the floor until early next year.

The environmentalists prefer a bill sponsored in the House by George Miller of California, which will get nowhere, ever. Miller is a Democrat, and a Republican House is not about to pass major legislation sponsored by the other guys.

So let's return to the Senate version, which is likely to pass with few, if any, amendments. Despite what some environmentalists say, this isn't like the proposals to eviscerate the ESA made in the last Congress.

"This bill," said one environmental lobbyist, "is not Pombo-esque," referring to Richard Pombo, the California congressman who regards environmental regulation as an offense to Western Civilization.

The Senate bill would strengthen the Habitat Conservation Plan policy of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, under which landowners are allowed to log, farm or develop their property, even at some risk to endangered species habitat, if they "mitigate" the loss by creating habitat elsewhere (HCN, 8/4/97).

Specifically, the bill would codify into law Babbitt's "no surprises" policy, which guarantees landowners that the government won't unilaterally alter their HCPs, even if the species continues to decline, even if another endangered species is later discovered to be on their property.

Should that happen, says the Senate bill, the government would have to bear the burden of additional mitigation or whatever other steps were needed to preserve the endangered plant or animal.

Some environmentalists say, fine; if the people of the United States want to save a species, the people of the United States, not individual landowners, should bear the burden. Through their government, said people can create more habitat, or can compensate landowners for limiting productive use of their property.

Where will the money come from? Under the Senate bill, it would have to be appropriated by Congress each year as the need arises.

To which one need not be an environmental lobbyist to reply: "Yeah, right." In the balanced-budget era, no one can be confident that even a more liberal Congress than this one would pony up enough dough to pay for saving habitat.

So that's one objection to the bill. Environmentalists want some kind of guaranteed funding mechanism - they have not specified one - before they support the measure. They also want a provision guaranteeing that the HCPs will be scientifically monitored to see if they are working.

The other big problem is that the Senate bill - Miller's bill, too, for that matter - imposes ever more complex procedures for creating the HCPs, and even for listing new species. Thus we have a situation in which the very complexity of policy affects policy. Not that either HCPs or the listing procedure is now a model of simplicity. But the new procedures could be so involved and intricate that they would be difficult to implement.

Again, money comes into play. The agencies that enforce and administer the law - the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service - are, to understate the case, not overstaffed. The proposed procedures could take so much of their time and energy that they'd hardly have time to do anything else. If they performed their other tasks, they wouldn't have time to work on the HCPs or the listings.

Despite these objections, Senate passage seems assured, so let's turn back to the House, and to the Miller bill, which is doomed, but not irrelevant. It keeps picking up additional co-sponsors (at least two Republicans at last count), and even if it can't pass, it can serve as the counterweight toward which the Senate bill would have to move before the House passes any measure.

There will be a counterweight to this counterweight, of course. House Resource Committee Chairman Don Young says he will insist on stronger "property rights' provisions in the bill. But the political reality is that the House, on environmental issues at least, is more liberal than the Senate.

There are 30-some moderate Republican congressmen from the Northeast and Midwest who do not want to weaken the Endangered Species Act, especially in the months before the election. Suburban swing voters look askance at candidates who can successfully be painted as "anti-environment."

A likely prospect is that the House will make some of the changes demanded by the moderate environmentalists - easing the procedures, adding mandatory monitoring, maybe even finding a funding source. Perhaps the House will even add some of Miller's proposals, which call for trying to restore species and habitat, not just minimizing their decline.

Then it will be up to a House-Senate conference to resolve the differences. The outcome could be - don't bet the mortgage on this, now, but it's possible - a new ESA that pleases most people on both sides of the issue.

Policy really isn't that complicated. It just comes down to those two most simple factors: politics and money.

Jon Margolis translates Washington, D.C., bureaucratese into journalese for High Country News.

High Country News Classifieds
  • YELLOWSTONE TREASURES: THE TRAVELER'S COMPANION TO THE NATIONAL PARK
    Dreaming of a trip to Yellowstone Park? This book makes you the tour guide for your group! Janet Chapple shares plenty of history anecdotes and...
  • OLIVERBRANCH CONSULTING
    Non-Profit Management Professional specializing in Transitional Leadership, Strategic Collaborations, Communications and Grant Management/Writing.
  • SAGE GROUSE CCAA COORDINATOR
    The Powder Basin Watershed Council, headquartered in Baker City, Oregon, seeks a full-time Sage Grouse CCAA Coordinator. This position is part of a collaborative effort...
  • MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER
    High Country News, an award-winning media organization covering the communities and environment of the Western United States, seeks a Marketing Communications Manager to join our...
  • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - OKANOGAN LAND TRUST
    Executive Director, Okanogan Land Trust Position Announcement Do you enjoy rural living, wild places, family farms, challenging politics, and big conservation opportunities? Do you have...
  • GREAT VIEWS, SMALL FOOTPRINT
    Close to town but with a secluded feel, this eco-friendly home includes solar panels, a graywater reuse system, tankless hot water, solar tubes, and rainwater...
  • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
    Powder River Basin Resource Council, a progressive non-profit conservation organization based in Sheridan, Wyoming, seeks an Executive Director, preferably with grassroots organizing experience, excellent communication...
  • COMMUNITY ORGANIZER- NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL
    Organize with Northern Plains Resource Council to protect Montana's water quality, family farms and ranches, & unique quality of life. Starts $35.5k. Apply now- northernplains.org/careers
  • BEAUTIFUL, AUTHENTIC LIVE YULE LOG CENTERPIECE
    - beautiful 12" yule log made from holly wood, live fragrant firs, rich green and white holly, pinecones and red berries. $78 includes shipping. Our...
  • CRAZY HORSE MEMORIAL DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS FOR THE INDIAN UNIVERSITY OF NORTH AMERICA
    Crazy Horse Memorial, in the Black Hills of South Dakota, is currently accepting applications and nominations for the Director of Programs for The Indian University...
  • CRAZY HORSE MEMORIAL® MANAGER OF RESIDENCE LIFE FOR THE INDIAN UNIVERSITY OF NORTH AMERICA®
    Crazy Horse Memorial is currently accepting applications for the Manager of Residence Life for The Indian University of North America. This position is responsible for...
  • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
    Are you an art lover who dreams of living in the mountains? Is fundraising second nature to you? Do you have experience managing creative people?...
  • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
    The Public Lands Foundation, a non-profit organization supporting the multiple-use management of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, seeks an experienced leader...
  • COLD WEATHER CRAFTS
    Unique handmade gifts from the Gunnison Valley. Soy lotion candles, jewelry, art, custom photo mandalas and more. Check out the website and buy Christmas locally...
  • EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
    High Country News, an award-winning media organization covering the communities and environment of the Western United States, seeks an Editor-In-Chief to join our senior team...
  • LENDER OWNED FIX & FLIP
    2 houses on 37+ acres. Gated subdivision, Penrose Colorado. $400k. Possible lender financing. Bob Kunkler Brokers Welcome.
  • HISTORIC LODGE AND RESTAURANT - FULLY EQUIPPED
    Built in 1901, The Crazy Mountain Inn has 11 guest rooms in a town-center building on 7 city lots (.58 acres). The inn and restaurant...
  • POLLINATOR OASIS
    Seeking an experienced, hardworking partner to help restore a desert watershed/wetland while also creating a pollinator oasis at the mouth of an upland canyon. Compensation:...
  • ELLIE SAYS IT'S SAFE! A GUIDE DOG'S JOURNEY THROUGH LIFE
    by Don Hagedorn. A story of how lives of the visually impaired are improved through the love and courage of guide dogs. Available on Amazon.
  • COMING TO TUCSON?
    Popular vacation house, furnished, 2 bed/1 bath, yard, dog-friendly. Lee at [email protected] or 520-791-9246.