PERSPECTIVE ON ENDANGERED SPECIES : When Nature Rages, Don’t Blame the Rats and Reptiles : People who build in fire- and flood-prone areas are the ones who are culpable when disaster strikes.

Fire season is upon us again in California, rekindling memories of the wildfires that caused so much controversy two years ago. And in Washington, it is open season on federal regulations that protect species at risk from habitat destruction. What’s the connection?

At 11:30 p.m. on Oct. 26, 1993, a wildfire erupted in Riverside County. The conflagration covered 12,000 acres in the first six hours. Walls of flames up to 150 feet high and tornado-like winds pushed the fire so fast that clearing hundreds of feet of ground around the 29 houses that burned would not have helped save them.

Although several politicians blamed the damage on government regulations, particularly the Endangered Species Act, more considered views prevailed. A report to Congress by the General Accounting Office cited county fire officials in noting that “the fire was of such force, magnitude, heat and speed that there was no way to suppress it when it was at its full force.” Local fire officials observed that the fire’s ferocity was caused by the tremendous fuel load in the region, exceptionally low humidity and winds up to 80 m.p.h.

Nonetheless, the Competitive Enterprise Institute blamed the loss of property on the Endangered Species Act, naming as the co-conspirator a small rodent, the endangered Stephens kangaroo rat. This high-jumping rodent makes its shallow burrows in sandy soils, rendering it vulnerable to plowing or disking. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asked the Riverside County Fire Department to cooperate in avoiding the disking of the mouse’s habitat; it recommended mowing the weeds around structures to create firebreaks within at least 100 feet of houses. As it turned out, even a firebreak of 100 feet would not have been enough to protect houses and mobile homes from a fire of such incredible speed and force.

On the Central California coast this year there was a similar debate. An endangered amphibian, the long-toed salamander, lives in lowlands near the towns of Watsonville and Pajaro. For several years, Santa Cruz County used the existence of the salamander to help justify its failure to clear vegetation and trapped sediment in the channel of the Pajaro River, although the county had been informed that the river and its levees were not salamander habitat.

After near-record rains earlier this year, levees gave way; the local farm bureau blamed flooding on the state for not clearing vegetation; experts said the levees had been damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and that the feds had not repaired them; the press pitted farmers against environmentalists.

So who was to blame for the flood? Farmers and residents knew they lived in a flood plain. The levees were in need of repair. The county dragged its feet on clearing the channel. And a very wet winter may have been a factor. Clearly, there was plenty of blame to pass around. But many locals still believe that the damage was caused by the endangered salamander.

Is there a pattern here? Yes: It’s called scapegoating. In Riverside County, the scapegoat is a mouse; up north, the scapegoat is a salamander. And in coastal Southern California, the scapegoat is a bird, the California gnatcatcher, barely clinging to remnants of its coastal sage scrub habitat. Developers in San Diego and Orange counties are fuming because the gnatcatcher may cost billions in potential profits.

The kangaroo rat, the salamander, the gnatcatcher and most endangered species in California have one other thing in common: 90% of their original habitat has been destroyed by development.

Opponents of the Endangered Species Act charge that it is un-American because it favors the survival of native species over profits and private property rights. “After all,” critics say, “what is more important, jobs or owls?” A better question might be this: Should lineages that evolved thousands of years before people arrived in California be allowed to persist, even if a few human beings may have to forgo some profits?

“Follow the money” is the advice of political pundits. Who profits from developing the last 10% of coastal habitats?

Scapegoating species won’t solve California’s economic or environmental woes. Endangered species are the symptoms, not the causes, of poor planning. Hubris and greed compel us to build on steep slopes, in fire-prone habitats and in flood plains. Hubris and greet compel us to dam every river. Too many people, too much sprawl and too little effort to conserve what was here before we came all combine to make matters worse.

If we and our political representatives wish to blame the messenger for our woes, then environmental protection laws will be repealed; Congress has already begun this campaign. But a quiet voice might ask: Do we Californians--do we Americans--have the generosity of spirit and the inventiveness of mind to find ways to coexist with the remnants of this land’s natural legacy?