Why Improve ESA?

Economy and Jobs

The Problem

There are a multitude of examples of the economic disruption and damage caused by various aspects of the Endangered Species Act. Critical habitat designations, faulty science based listing and beauracratic project delays have all contributed to the increasing price tag of the Act.  Below are just a few examples.

• According to the Wall Street Journal, misdirected spotted owl protections which resulted from the use of “bad science” under the ESA resulted in at least 130,000 lost jobs, after more than 900 paper mills, pulp mills and sawmills in the Northwest were shut down in the 1990s.  The timber industry was crippled.
• The California Resource Management Institute estimates that the economic impact associated with the designation of critical habitat for the California Gnatcatcher songbird to be in excess of $5.5 billion.
• The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that the economic impact of critical habitat designations for vernal pools is $992 million.

How H.R. 3824 could minimize the economic disruption of ESA

• H.R. 3824 would compensate private property owners for the fair market value of property that cannot be used as a result of the Act.
• H.R. 3824 replaces the use of critical habitat with an integrated recovery planning process that focuses the law on recovery and minimizes the conflicts that often lead to litigation.

H.R. 3824 requires that the best available science should be made available to the Secretary of the Interior at the time of the listing decision or required action.

Read H.R. 3824 for yourself or see a section by section analysis of the bill.