The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was created more than 40 years ago and is considered by many to be an overwhelming success. Rarely has legislation ever remained in its original state over several decades; however, in its long history, the ESA has only been amended four times (1978, 1982, 1988, and 2004), with the most substantial amendments occurring in 1978. Despite many political attempts to reform the act, it seems to be largely shielded from modifications.

Under a new administration, however, efforts to delist a particular species or otherwise weaken the standing law have gained significant strength. Despite the efficacy of the act, concerns over burdensome regulations and negative impacts on private property rights have many concerned that the ESA is not as streamlined as it needs to be. Hearings began in February 2017 to “modernize” the ESA, yet it is unclear exactly how “modern” this law will become.

History of the Endangered Species Act

“Male Passenger Pigeon” Courtesy cotinis : License (Public Domain)

The now-extinct passenger pigeon is largely responsible for the expansion of wildlife conservation efforts in the early 1900s. Once the most abundant bird in North America, the passenger pigeon’s sudden extinction (occurring in less than 50 years) captivated Americans who watched as the bird died out. Prior to the passenger pigeon, the whooping crane also garnered widespread attention when it began to disappear rapidly in the late 1890s, though it is still alive today.

The Lacey Act of 1900 was the first federal law to actually regulate commercial animal markets. The act made it unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase any fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any state or federal laws. That piece of legislation was later followed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, which both met little opposition before being implemented.

Yet the official predecessor to what we now know as the Endangered Species Act was in fact the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. Initially, this act provided a means of listing native species as endangered and afforded them limited protections. This also signified a shift from regulating the taking of an animal to focusing more on habitat conservation and preservation. “Taking” an animal is defined in Section 3 of the act and can occur via direct and indirect actions. In Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for Greater Oregon, a Supreme Court case decided in 1995, the Court concluded that habitat modification can cause “harm” to a listed animal, thereby causing a “take.”

In 1973, President Richard Nixon sought to overhaul the current law and pass comprehensive endangered species legislation, which brought about the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Written by a team of lawyers and scientists, the new law incorporated dozens of new principles and ideas. Currently, the ESA’s stated purpose is to protect species and “the ecosystems upon which they depend.” The ESA is managed by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The FWS oversees terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the NOAA handles marine species.

The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978 implemented some significant changes to the ESA. It attempted to “retain the basic integrity of the ESA, while introducing some flexibility which will permit exemptions from the act’s requirements.” One of the most important changes was the creation of the Endangered Species Committee, commonly known as the “God Squad.” The committee is composed of seven Cabinet-level members, and members have the authority to allow the extinction of a species–hence the nickname–by completely exempting a federal agency from Section 7 requirements (after prior consultation with the FWS and NOAA). To date, only the whooping crane and the northern spotted owl have been exempted from Section 7.

Critical Provisions

The primary goal of the ESA is to prevent the extinction of plant and animal life; an ancillary goal is to recover and maintain populations as much as possible by removing or thwarting threats to their survival. There are a few sections of the act that are considered to be the most powerful in their effect: Sections 4, 7, and 9.

To be listed, a species must meet one of the five criteria listed in Section 4(a)(1) of the act. The listing process is lengthy, involving multiple steps before a species is accepted. A species may be delisted, but only after the committee considers if the threats have been eliminated or controlled. This is based on several factors, including population size and growth, and the stability of habitat quality and quantity. Section 4 also requires the designation of a “critical habitat” within one year of a species being placed on the endangered list, though it normally occurs several years afterwards. A critical habitat includes geographic areas that contain features essential to the conservation of the species and that may need special management or protection.

Section 7 prohibits any actions that jeopardize the survival of any endangered or threatened species, as well as actions that could destroy or adversely modify critical habitats of listed species. The section requires all federal agencies to engage in the consultation process with the FWS or NOAA before engaging in any action that may threaten a listed species. Each federal agency is required under Section 7 to confer with the Secretary of the Interior on any action to ensure that such activities are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction of or adverse modification of” designated critical habitats. As noted previously, the God Squad has the power to exempt a federal agency from this consultation process under Section 7, if they find no reasonable and prudent alternatives to the agency’s actions.

“Threatened northern spotted owl” Courtesy of USFWS Endangered Species : License (CC BY 2.0)

Lastly, Section 9 prohibits the “taking” of a listed species. It applies to both private and public actions, and applies whether a critical habitat has been designated or not. Section 9 also forbids possessing, selling, or transporting an animal that has been obtained by an unlawful “take,” as well as other prohibitions on imports, exports, and commercial activity. Section 3 of the act specifically defines a “take” as any activity that could “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct” a listed species. Harm can occur both directly and indirectly, even via certain habitat modifications.

Proven Success Rate

Currently, there are a variety of species listed as threatened or endangered, including 374 mammals, 338 birds, 185 fish, and 138 reptile species, as well as many more insects, clams, snails, and others. The FWS also acknowledges that roughly 40 species on the list are robust enough in populations to be taken off the protected list. About one percent of the 2,000 species on the list have been delisted because they recovered from extinction.

“Bald Eagle” Courtesy of Pen Waggener : License (CC BY 2.0)

Over the course of its history, the ESA has been nearly 100 percent successful at preventing listed species from going completely extinct. Its successes include the gray wolf, bald eagle, and American crocodile, which are all now thriving species. Very few laws in the U.S. can tout such a high success rate. Only 30 species have disappeared after being placed on the list; many scientists argue that adding species to the list earlier, far before they reach the critical state of endangerment, would add immensely to the ESA’s success.

What Does the Future Hold?

There is now a push to “modernize” the ESA, which defenders of the law contend is an effort to weaken or gut the act completely. Hundreds of bills, introduced primarily by Republican lawmakers, are now seeking to delist a species or somehow weaken the ESA, though most have been unsuccessful. However, the ideal environment to implement significant changes to the act appears to be brewing on Capitol Hill.

Those in favor of overhauling the ESA argue that it imposes too many far-reaching regulatory burdens, particularly on the agricultural industry. Lawmakers point out that the ESA has had a negative impact on drilling, logging, and mining, along with stifling economic growth in these industries. Moreover, private property rights are a concern since the ESA can impose restrictions on property owners’ use of their land because of a listed species. There are estimations that roughly three-quarters of species listed under the ESA reside on private land. One lawmaker recently stated that the act has “never been used for the rehabilitation of a species,” claiming that it has only been utilized to control land.

Still, opponents of any changes to the law argue that the Obama Administration began delisting species significantly, removing a record 29 species from the ESA–more than all previous administrations combined. Modernization of the ESA, environmentalists and activists state, is merely an effort to destroy “the nation’s premier and most effective wildlife conservation law.” Some states, like California, are moving to pre-empt any significant changes to the ESA by passing legislation that would add state-level protections for species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

Conclusion

Few laws have ever been as successful as the ESA, which has an almost 100 percent success rate in strengthening the population of listed species. Species take decades to recover, hence the low number of animals delisted since the act’s inception. However, there are legitimate concerns about the act’s effect on industries and private landowners. Now, with a new political landscape, significant changes to the law may be on the horizon. What that means for the hundreds of species still extremely threatened or in severe danger of extinction, is still up for debate.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Endangered Species Act: Should it be Modernized? appeared first on Law Street.

Public lands dot significant portions of America’s landscape from coast to coast. Managed by a variety of agencies, these lands and waters are home to diverse ecosystems and prime settings for recreational activities. With an immense amount of annual foot traffic and billions of dollars of revenue generated, public lands play a substantial role in American lives.

For decades, there have been debates over whether or not these lands should be turned over to the states or private organizations. Now changes could become a reality, as Capitol Hill is filled with lawmakers who support transferring millions of acres of public lands away from the federal government. But the consequences of such a transfer may have more negative impacts than positive, and many citizens feel that access to public land is an American birthright.

Background of Federal Lands and Agencies

The majority of public lands in the U.S. are held in trust by the federal government and managed by a variety of agencies. According to a 2014 report, the federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, which is about 28 percent of all the land in the United States. Four agencies own over 600 million acres of that land: the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. The lands are utilized primarily for recreation, preservation, and natural resource development.

U.S. Forest Service

President Benjamin Harrison established the National Forest system with 13 million acres and 15 forest reserves through the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which gave the president power to set aside and reserve public lands. Conserving land for the people was a national priority, as was obtaining acknowledgement that forested areas needed special protection from the exploitation of natural resources. With 155 forests and 20 grasslands currently totaling over 191 million acres, these lands overseen by the United States Forest Service reach diverse populations and are extremely popular destinations for a variety of outdoor and recreational activities. According to a National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report, there were over 180 million visits made to National Forest sites in 2015.

“US Federal Land Agencies” Courtesy of National Atlas of the United States: License Public Domain

The Bureau of Land Management

The BLM is responsible for managing 247.3 million acres of public land–one-eighth of all the landmasses in the country. From grazing permits to mining and coal leases, the agency administers 205,498 miles of fishable streams, 2.2 million acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 4,500 miles of National Scenic, Historic, and Recreation Trails in addition to multiple-use trails for recreation purposes. The BLM collects a significant amount of revenue from public lands. In 2016, the agency made $2 billion in royalty revenue from federal leases; the Outdoor Industry Association also estimates that $40 billion in federal tax revenue comes from the recreation industry on public lands.

The Western Concentration

Other agencies such as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers participate in federal land management and administration. Most of the federal land ownership is concentrated in the western part of the country, contributing to greater controversy over ownership and use of federal lands in the area.

Public Trust Doctrine

The public trust doctrine is a long-standing principle that the government holds some lands in trust for public use, regardless of any private property ownership. Generally, this applies to land, water, and natural resources, such as beaches and navigable rivers. While the doctrine itself varies heavily from state to state, the public may fully enjoy any public trust lands, waters, and natural resources for a “wide variety of recognized public uses.” These rights became established in the U.S. after Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, an 1892 case that held that the government cannot alienate a public right to lands under navigable waters.

“Fall Color at Natural Arch – Daniel Boone National Forest” Courtesy of US Forest Service -Southeast : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Additionally, the public trust doctrine puts a limit on private rights. A landowner may not alter their property in such a way that it would interfere with use of public land. Moreover, the doctrine specifically protects the land from misuse by the state. A state may not convey public trust lands if the conveyance could substantially impair public use of lands or waters. Thus, any move to privatize public lands may be in direct violation of the public trust doctrine, particularly if the sale would then impair the public’s use of such land or water.

Plans to Privatize Public Lands

The collective ownership of these lands, however, could possibly change if lawmakers continue down their current course. House Bill 3650, introduced to the House of Representatives in September 2015, directs the Department of Agriculture to “convey to a state up to 2 million acres of eligible portions of the National Forest System.” These portions of conveyed land will be administered and managed “primarily for timber production.” On June 15, 2016, the Natural Resources Committee voted to adopt H.R. 3650; it is currently awaiting the next stage in the lawmaking process.

Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah introduced a piece of legislation at the end of January 2017 that was later dubbed the Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act. In a press release for H.R. 621, Chaffetz claimed that 3.3 million acres of land maintained by the BLM “served no purpose for taxpayers.” If the bill passed, ten states were poised to lose federal land. However, he withdrew the legislation in February 2017 after facing harsh criticism from his constituents.

“Gunnison National Forest Colorado” Courtesy of David : License (CC BY 2.0)

Despite the withdrawal of H.R. 621, Republican lawmakers still laid out a plan to give away roughly 640 million acres of land in early 2017. Lawmakers overwrote the value of federal lands by changing a single line of rules for the House of Representatives, making it easy to dispose of federal property–even if it ends up losing money for the government and there’s no compensation for American citizens. In essence, the change states that transferring public land to “state, local government or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays.” The land would be given to the states, and then could possibly be sold to private owners.

As a result, places like the Grand Canyon National Park and Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which are rich in uranium and copper respectively, may be up for grabs first. The oil-rich lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could also be vulnerable for sale. According to Alan Rowsome, the senior director of government relations for The Wilderness Society, it seems very likely that Alaska’s national lands will be open for drilling under a Republican-controlled House. Many western states are already taking the necessary actions to prepare for public land transfers.

Criticism of Privatization

First things first: critics fear that local governments with small budgets will not be able to manage the land once it is transferred to them by the federal government. In the summer of 2016, the Forest Service spent $240 million a week to fight forest fires, and the Department of Interior has estimated that the cost of deferred maintenance is around $11 billion. Over time, whenever federal land has been given to states, it has become less accessible. Between 2000 and 2009, Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of public land; in Colorado, citizens may only use 20 percent of state trust land for hunting and fishing.

Private ownership of public tracts of land has profound consequences, as it will probably affect land managed and regulated by conservation programs or private entities, likely reducing public access. Public access to National Forests contributes greatly to state economies; a report completed by the Outdoor Industry Association found that the outdoor industry directly impacts over six million jobs and contributes to $646 billion in outdoor recreation spending. The Outdoor Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of groups that support outdoor activities, has argued that any action to transfer lands to private hands is a “public land heist.”

A 2016 Harvard Kennedy School study, found that 95 percent of the American public believes in the importance of protecting national parks and 80 percent would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to do so. Such an overwhelming response certainly indicates that protecting public places is incredibly important to Americans.

Conclusion

While there is still time before these resolutions become law, plans to privatize our forests have been set in motion on numerous occasions. If Americans’ access is restricted and these lands are exploited for a profit, the primary purpose of establishing public lands for citizen use will disappear. In the famous words of President Teddy Roosevelt, champion of conservation and public lands, “I believe that the natural resources must be used for the benefit of all our people, and not monopolized for the benefit of the few . . . Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.”

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Land is Your Land: Should Public Lands Be Privatized? appeared first on Law Street.