July 29th, 2005 at 10:50 am
(Hat tip: Free Republic)
A California representative is proposing changes to the Endangered Species Act, such as compensating a land owner when “a government action aimed at protecting an endangered species has diminished a property’s value by at least 50 percent”, according to the Hawaii Reporter.
The article has a noteworthy case study about the ESA’s unintended consequences. By preventing a logger from cutting trees where an ESA-listed woodpecker resides, he’s been forced to accelerate cutting down less mature trees that don’t have woodpeckers. The result? The woodpeckers will eventually have less housing then when business was allowed to run normally. Oops.
The article also frames the ESA in terms of eminent domain. At least in eminent domain, assets are transferred from one party to another. When the ESA devalues property because somebody can’t do anything with it, assets are destroyed. “On the outskirts of Austin, Texas, Margaret Rector’s 15-acre property plummeted in value from $831,000 to $30,000 once it was declared suitable habitat for the Golden-Cheeked Warbler.”
In the case of renewable resources, the provider has market incentive not to destroy the place. Trees are planted as much as they are harvested; the key is to have enough land to allow what was planted to mature before it’s needed. In this respect they are like farms, with multi-year growing seasons.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
