Species Protection and Sense

Today, the final day of the 1997 session, the California Legislature has an opportunity to adopt a reasonable reform of the state’s Endangered Species Act. Among other things, the legislation might prevent future horror stories of the sort that have generated public animosity toward this law.

No longer, for instance, would there be punishment if a farmer’s tractor accidentally squashed a kangaroo rat or a shopping mall developer wiped out a nest of an endangered bird without knowing it was there--examples of cases from recent years.

The state Fish and Game Department has issued more than 150 permits since 1989 to allow the “incidental taking” of endangered species as a byproduct of development. But a state appeals court has ruled the department had no such authority. The case is now before the state Supreme Court.

SB 879, by Sen. Patrick Johnston (D-Stockton), restores the state’s authority to issue such permits to developers, but with major new conditions. The permitting process would be subject to public review, and the developer must fully mitigate any damage caused.

A companion measure, SB 231, by Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno), applies to farmers and also calls for incentives for creating wildlife habitat on farmlands.

Some environmental groups participated in crafting the compromise plan. Others, with the support of Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), bitterly opposed it, claiming the measures weaken existing law.

In fact, this legislation should provide more effective protection for California’s endangered and threatened species. A key will be vigorous implementation by the state Fish and Game Department--something that Gov. Pete Wilson needs to promise when he signs the measures into law.