Update on Endangered Species Act and other bills of interest

A Message from Marge...

(Marge Welch, Executive Director, Property Rights Congress)
from Property Rights Congress website: http://www.freedom.org/prc/

April 19, 2001

See Marges' testimony on Interior Appropriations

ESA REFORM - AT LONG LAST

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has not been reauthorized since 1991. Many of the most visible and well-known "shut downs" have occurred since then, including the Mexican Spotted Owl "citizens lawsuits" that closed the national forests, wolf and grizzly bear recoveries, salmon restorations, road and trail closures, dam removals and/or "modifications" and dozens of wildlife refuge proposals. It has been the most threatening to property owners and natural resource producers without even being reauthorized. Please contact the President, Secretary Norton, your Congressmen and newspapers and support this action to curb those "citizens lawsuits." It is important for them all to know that it is not just "logging and mining interests" that the Act "annoys." This from the New York Times April 14, 2001:

A Threatened Act

It was probably just a matter of time before the Bush administration tried to shorten the reach of the Endangered Species Act. The act is the most controversial of the great wave of environmental statutes enacted in the early 1970's. It also greatly annoys some of President Bush's core constituencies, like the logging and mining interests, which argue that by protecting habitat for the spotted owl and other species, the law inhibits economic development. Mr. Bush's own appointee as interior secretary, Gale Norton, once filed a brief challenging the constitutionality of the act, and now she is in charge of administering it.

So it was no surprise that Mr. Bush's new budget contained a provision that would weaken the act in the short run and could presage broader attacks in the future. In simplest terms, the provision would - for one year - relieve Ms. Norton's Fish and Wildlife Service of the obligation to address citizens' petitions or court orders aimed at getting new plants and animals on the endangered species list, as well as the related obligation to protect their habitats. The service would be required to honor existing court orders, but protecting new species would be left entirely to Ms. Norton and her subordinates.

For conservationists, that is not a happy prospect. Nearly every important move to protect endangered species, from Pacific salmon to the spotted owl, has originated not with the government but with citizens' petitions and lawsuits. Remove those private efforts from the equation, and some of the greatest environmental triumphs of the last 30 years would not have happened. As one critic noted, "the administration has pulled up the drawbridge on Noah's Ark, at least for a year."

The administration says that the purpose of the provision is to give it time to reorder its priorities. It argues, with some justification, that Fish and Wildlife has been overwhelmed with hundreds of petitions and lawsuits asking it to list new species and that this, in turn, has limited the agency's ability to devise rescue plans for species it has already identified as needing protection. It also points out that last November the Clinton administration, feeling similarly besieged, declared a moratorium on considering new listings so that it could address old ones.

But getting one's house in order is not a justification for devaluing the role of individual citizens and the courts. Moreover, Congress has a habit of rolling over one-year moratoriums into succeeding years. Should that happen, a one-year deterrent to citizen lawsuits could become a permanent deterrent, with unfortunate consequences.

The best answer would be to increase the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget for listing and protecting endangered or threatened species. Although the Bush administration has requested that the current budget of $6.3 million be increased by about $2 million, that will still leave the agency well short of the $80 million to $120 million it says it needs over the next five years to handle both old and new listings. Endangered species in this country have never had an easy time of it. Their prospects are diminishing under Mr. Bush. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/14/opinion/

NEPA Reform - (National Environmental Policy Act)
This is another action that is long over due. Urge your Senators to co-sponsor it. State and County governments are often left out of the NEPA process until the proposals are already under way. This Legislation will correct that. Again, I cannot impress upon you enough the importance of developing a good relationship with your County Commissioners. They need your support.
Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-LA) who Chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee spoke about this at the National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI) conference shown on C-SPAN on Thursday, March 8. He spoke of the lack of "due process" for the local people who will be affected by these kinds of proposals. and that his Committee will be working toward balancing these "environmental" problems with natural resosurce production and the protection of private property. He spoke of a proposal in his district in Louisiana regarding bear recovery. The "agency" decided it needed 1.3 million acres for bear "protections" much of which was private property. Upon his insistance, the agency finally scheduled two public meetings which were very well attended by property owners. All the residents did, was ask a few specific questions, which the agency could not answer. Those questions were, "Why do you need 1.3 million acres for bears in Louisiana?" and "What kinds of land uses on our private property will be affected?" They could not adequately answer those questions and he said that the issue "went away." Tauzin also stated that the negative, crisis-creating rhetoric must stop. He said that it gets us no where and ceates problems that do not exist. No companion House Bill is reported as yet.
State and Local Government Participation Act of 2001 (Introduced in the Senate)
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 301
To amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to require that Federal agencies consult with State agencies and county and local governments on environmental impact statements.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 8, 2001
Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. MURKOWSKI, and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
A BILL
To amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to require that Federal agencies consult with State agencies and county and local governments on environmental impact statements.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `State and Local Government Participation Act of 2001'.
SEC. 2. CONSULTATION WITH STATE AGENCIES AND COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS.
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is amended in the first sentence after clause (v) by striking `any Federal agency which has' and by inserting in lieu thereof `each Federal agency, State agency, county government, and local government that has'.

S-322: Another very worthy Bill. This is especially good for all of the western states. But I am concerned about the states in the eastern half of the US with less than 25% of the land is owned by the US. S322 is a good start and could possibly be amended to include other states, especially if we petition our own Senators to include us. Urge your Senators to co-sponsor it. No companion House Bill is reported as yet.
No Net Loss of Private Land Act (Introduced in the Senate)
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 322
To limit the acquisition by the United States of land located in a State in which 25 percent or more of the land in that State is owned by the United States.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 14, 2001
Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. HELMS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
A BILL
To limit the acquisition by the United States of land located in a State in which 25 percent or more of the land in that State is owned by the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `No Net Loss of Private Land Act'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ACQUISITION OF LAND.

(a) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other law, the United States may acquire an interest in 100 or more acres of land within a State described in subsection (c) only if, before any such acquisition, the United States disposes of the surface estate to land in that State in accordance with subsection (b).
(b) DISPOSITION OF SURFACE ESTATE- The disposition of the surface estate in land by the United States qualifies for the purposes of this section if--

(1) the value of the surface estate of the land disposed of by the United States is approximately equal to the value of the interest in land subject to this section that is to be acquired by the United States, as determined by the head of the department, agency, or independent establishment concerned; and
(2) the head of the department, agency, or independent establishment concerned certifies that the United States has disposed of land for the purpose of this section.

(c) AFFECTED STATES- A State is described in this section if--

(1) it is 1 of the States of the United States; and
(2) 25 percent or more of the land within that State is owned by the United States.

(d) ACQUISITION- For the purpose of this section, the term `acquire' includes acquisition by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, exchange, devise, and condemnation.
(e) APPLICABILITY- This section does not apply to--

(1) any land held in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual or held by an Indian tribe or individual subject to a restriction by the United States against alienation;
(2) real property acquired pursuant to a foreclosure under title 18, United States Code;
(3) real property acquired by any department, agency, or independent establishment in its capacity as a receiver, conserver, or liquidating agent which is held by that department, agency, or independent establishment in its capacity as a receiver, conserver, or liquidating agent pending disposal;
(4) real property that is subject to seizure, levy, or lien under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(5) real property that is securing a debt owed to the United States.

(e) WAIVER- The head of a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States may waive the requirements of this section with respect to the acquisition of land by that department, agency, or instrumentality during any period in which there is in effect a declaration of war or a national emergency declared by the President.

HR-488 Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House) has gained 65 co-sponsors, all the usual suspects. These "sleepers" must be watched closely. Even if they don't get passed on their own merits they can get tacked on to another Bill as an amendment. They have requested "Executive Comment" from Secretary Norton. We need to urge Secretary Norton and our US Congressmen to oppose it.
Sponsor: Rep Shays, Christopher (introduced 2/6/2001) Latest Major Action: 2/15/2001 House committee/subcommittee actions Title: To designate as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, national park and preserve study areas, wild land recovery areas, and biological connecting corridors certain public lands in the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming, and for other purposes.
STATUS:
2/6/2001: Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
2/15/2001: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
2/15/2001: Referred to the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health.
2/15/2001: Executive Comment Requested from USDA, Interior.

Another one to oppose.
HR-1494 National Forest Protection and Restoration Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House) is another sleeper. Rep. Cynthia McKinney's annual "zero harvest" Bill to stop all commercial logging on federal lands. She has introduced this legislation every year for the past three or four sessions. She introduced it on April 4 and it already has 72 co-sponsors. Another one to watch so it doesn't get amended on to another bill.
Sponsor: Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. (introduced 4/4/2001) Latest Major Action: 4/4/2001 Referred to House committee Title: To save taxpayers money, reduce the deficit, cut corporate welfare, protect communities from wildfires, and protect and restore America's natural heritage by eliminating the fiscally wasteful and ecologically destructive commercial logging program on Federal public lands, restoring native biodiversity in our Federal public forests, and facilitating the economic recovery and diversification of communities affected by the Federal logging program. Cosponsors (72)

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)
In his budget address to Congress, President Bush said that he would "fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund." His statement raised a lot of concern among property rights activists and rightfully so since it has become such a scareword since we have been threatened with the land acquisitions mandated by CARA. But he was not referring to the LWCF as proposed by CARA. The LWCF was established in 1965 to be funded through "user fees" that we pay to go into National Parks, taxes on motorboat fuel and funds from the Outer Continental Shelf oil royalties. It was intended mostly to provide access to and maintanance of existing facilities and to provide "assistance" to states - not mandates. It has been amended several times and has come to mean more acquisition. As it exists today, it is supposed to be in force until 2015 at $900,000,000 per year. That's plenty. Not the $3 billion per year as provided for in CARA. According to US Government web site the last action on CARA was February 14, 2001 when it was introduced and referred to committee.
(LWCF as it exists now including amendments through 1987:) >From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [Laws in effect as of January 23, 2000] [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between January 23, 2000 and November 13, 2000] [CITE: 16USC460l-4]
TITLE 16--CONSERVATION
CHAPTER 1--NATIONAL PARKS, MILITARY PARKS, MONUMENTS, AND SEASHORES
SUBCHAPTER LXIX--OUTDOOR RECREATION PROGRAMS
Part B--Land and Water Conservation Fund
Sec. 460l-4. Land and water conservation provisions; statement of purposes
The purposes of this part are to assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all citizens of the United States of America of present and future generations and visitors who are lawfully present within the boundaries of the United States of America such quality and quantity of outdoor recreation resources as may be available and are necessary and desirable for individual active participation in such recreation and to strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of the United States by (1) providing funds for and authorizing Federal assistance to the States in planning, acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and facilities and (2) providing funds for the Federal acquisition and development of certain lands and other areas. (Pub. L. 88-578, title I, Sec. 1(b), Sept. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 897.)
Sec. 460l-5. Land and water conservation fund; establishment; covering certain revenues and collections into fund
During the period ending September 30, 2015, there shall be covered into the land and water conservation fund in the Treasury of the United States, which fund is hereby established and is hereinafter referred to as the ``fund'', the following revenues and collections:

(a) Surplus property sales
All proceeds (except so much thereof as may be otherwise obligated, credited, or paid under authority of those provisions of law set forth in section 485(b)(e),\1\ title 40, or the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1963 (76 Stat. 725) or in any later appropriation Act) hereafter received from any disposal of surplus real property and related personal property under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended [40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.], notwithstanding any provision of law that such proceeds shall be credited to miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. Nothing in this part shall affect existing laws or regulations concerning disposal of real or personal surplus property to schools, hospitals, and States and their political subdivisions.
(b) Motorboat fuels tax The amounts provided for in section 460l-11 of this title.
(c) Other revenues

(1) In addition to the sum of the revenues and collections estimated by the Secretary of the Interior to be covered into the fund pursuant to this section, as amended, there are authorized to be appropriated annually to the fund out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated such amounts as are necessary to make the income of the fund not less than $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1977, and $900,000,000 for fiscal year 1978 and for each fiscal year thereafter through September 30, 2015.
(2) To the extent that any such sums so appropriated are not sufficient to make the total annual income of the fund equivalent to the amounts provided in clause (1), an amount sufficient to cover the remainder thereof shall be credited to the fund from revenues due and payable to the United States for deposit in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.): Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of section 460l-6 of this title, moneys covered into the fund under this paragraph shall remain in the fund until appropriated by the Congress to carry out the purpose of this part.

H.R.701 Conservation and Reinvestment Act Sponsor: Rep Young, Don (introduced 2/14/2001) Latest Major Action: 2/14/2001 Referred to House committee Title: To use royalties from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production to establish a fund to meet the outdoor conservation and recreation needs of the American people, and for other purposes.
Cosponsors (102)
2/14/2001: Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
(CARA provides for, in part:) `(e) LIST OF PROPOSED FEDERAL ACQUISITIONS- `(ii) consider the use of equal value land exchanges, where feasible and suitable, as an alternative means of land acquisition; (My note:Like in the "Monopoly" game. I'll trade you an apartment in town for your rural piece of Heaven)
`(iii) consider the use of permanent conservation easements, where feasible and suitable, as an alternative means of acquisition; (My note: If you don't know about conservation easements, you really should. They may not take "title" to the land but they might as well since you can never use it again.)
`(iv) identify those properties that are proposed to be acquired from willing sellers and specify any for which adverse condemnation is requested; and (My note: If there are NO willing sellers, how do they propose to create them?)
`(v) establish priorities based on such factors as important or special resource attributes, threats to resource integrity, timely availability, owner hardship, cost escalation, public recreation use values, and similar considerations. (My note: Read this one real closely. When they establish their "priorities" your priorities go down the drain. Vague provisions written into this paragraph leaves it wide open to their "priorities" and eco-interpretation.)

I think you can see the difference. This is not what Bush promised to fund. It is important that everyone else knows the difference too. Grassroots is making a tremendous impact on the new administration but we have only just begun.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]