Soule on Nature and the ESA

Re “When Nature Rages, Don’t Blame the Rats and Reptiles” (by Michael Soule, Commentary, Oct. 25), I believe a few facts are necessary to balance his mythology.

Soule believes that those who advocate reform of the Endangered Species Act are picking isolated examples of species to use as scapegoats. The number of other examples, in California alone, is legion. The Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (mitigation for which cost $2.5 million--$413,000 per fly) caused substantial delays in the construction of a hospital. The fairy shrimp, found in nearly every depression of earth, has now adopted rotted abandoned cars as its habitat, preventing the development of a junkyard. The point is that for every species there is at least one horror story.

Another misleading statement made by Soule is that 90% of endangered species’ original habitat has been destroyed by development. In California, no less than 52% of land is owned by either the state or federal government. Of the land which is privately owned, the vast majority of it has not been developed.

Landowners should be compensated for the impact which overzealous regulators have on their ability to use their land. Since species preservation benefits all people, the burden should not fall solely on individual property owners.

AMY GLAD

Executive Vice President

Building Industry Assn.

Diamond Bar

*

* Soule accuses the Competitive Enterprise Institute of “scapegoating” the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 1993 fire that swept Riverside County and destroyed 29 homes. It is Soule, and not CEI, who is guilty of scapegoating.

Soule blames the fire’s destruction on “hubris and greed.” If such logic were taken seriously, everyone who lives in California is guilty of “hubris and greed,” as every square inch of California is either prone to floods, fires, earthquakes or all three.

What Soule does not mention is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service threatened those landowners and local fire officials with criminal prosecution if they disked firebreaks in kangaroo rat habitat to protect themselves, their property or the public. This prohibition flouted both state and local laws that required disking firebreaks.

CEI opposes giving government-subsidized insurance and disaster relief to those who take on additional risks by living in hazardous areas, and we have never claimed that all of the 29 houses that burned to the ground would be standing today if not for the ESA. We believe that some houses might have been lost even without the ESA.

IKE C. SUGG

CEI, Washington

*

* The column raises interesting issues as to the regulatory scheme of the Endangered Species Act and fire suppression statewide. However, the preliminary issue of the ability of local officials to even reasonably engage in fire prevention and suppression because of continual state revenue transfers and refusal to reimburse for state-mandated costs should be the primary initial concern.

Even the fire protection districts in Soule’s residence, Santa Cruz County, have been adversely and continually affected by the transfers of local property tax revenue, which have been enacted by the Legislature and approved by the governor since September of 1992. Until this critical issue of preserving funding for public safety service demands at the local level is concretely addressed, there really is no point in dealing with the endangered species issue.

WILLIAM D. ROSS

Palo Alto