washington

A bill introduced in the US House of Representatives last week to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been welcomed by environmentalists. But it is unlikely to settle deep differences with ‘property rights’ advocates.

The Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997 (H.R. 2351), proposed by George Miller (Democrat, California), is the first ESA reauthorization bill to emerge in this session of Congress. The original act expired in 1992 after 20 years. Although its legal protection of endangered species remains, both environmentalists and property rights groups have been pressing for a new bill to remedy what they see as its shortcomings.

Miller's bill would make the primary goal of legislation the recovery of an endangered species to healthy status, rather than just the prevention of its extinction. That shift alone is likely to make it unacceptable to those who complain that the current act already places excessive restrictions on landowners.

Equally divisive is whether private owners of protected habitat who agree to conservation plans should be required to alter, or even scrap, development plans if the needs of a species changes. The Clinton administration, led by the Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, has promoted such Habitat Conservation Plans, more than 400 of which have been either approved or proposed.

Babbitt has further promised landowners that once agreement is reached on such a plan, the government could not impose further restrictions for as long as 100 years. But many scientists, and virtually all environmental groups, oppose this ‘no surprises’ policy, saying it is not flexible enough to accommodate new scientific information (see Nature 386, 530; 1997).

Rather than strictly guaranteeing no surprises, Miller's bill calls for bonds, trust funds and tax incentives to help alleviate any financial burdens on landowners caused by compliance with the act.

On the same day that Miller introduced his legislation, Babbitt met with four Democratic and Republican senators who have been trying for months to negotiate a compromise on the new act.

Babbitt is said to have encouraged them to settle their differences on ‘no surprises’ and other issues, such as whether government agencies need to consult each other when determining the effects of land use on endangered species. But, says an aide to Senator Dirk Kempthorne (Republican, Idaho), a key figure in the negotiations, no solution is yet in sight.