[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 23, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E530-E531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT MUST BE REFORMED

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. KEN CALVERT

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 23, 1999

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act was originally 
enacted in 1973 with overwhelming support in the House by a vote of 355 
to 4 and in the Senate 92 to 0. The original intent: to conserve and 
protect American species of plant and wildlife that are threatened with 
extinction, with species taken off the list when their numbers have 
recovered. However, during ESA's 25 years, over 1,154 animals and 
plants have been listed as endangered or threatened yet only 27 species 
have been removed from the list. ESA has protected important species, 
including our Nation's most prized symbol--the bald eagle which is one 
of the few actually removed from the list. Today, it appears as though 
the Fish and Wildlife Service, especially within California, is working 
outside of the ESA and essentially undermining its original intent. 
Fish and Wildlife in California has overstepped their bounds.
  As the Congressman for western Riverside County in southern 
California, ESA enforcement is an important issue for me and my 
constituents because southern California is home to one-third of all 
listed endangered species. I have received a large number of complaints 
about the overzealous enforcement of ESA from landowners, farmers, 
former Fish and Wildlife employees, and community leaders. Complaints 
have increased dramatically in the last year compared to what I was 
hearing when I was first elected 6 years ago. A lot of my colleagues 
have been asking me about Fish and Wildlife's questionable enforcement 
of the ESA in southern California and in my district. I am here to 
share some clear examples of Fish and Wildlife's outrageous conduct in 
their enforcement of the ESA. Riverside County led the charge in 
working with the Federal Government to comply with the ESA, and had the 
original Stephen's kangaroo rat plan which ultimately took 8 years to 
get approval and cost over $42 million. Later on, Riverside County 
formed the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat 
Conservation Plan Advisory Committee in order to ensure a strong 
working relationship with conservation agencies and Fish and Wildlife.
  Yet, it seems to be a cardinal rule in dealing with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service that ``No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.'' Riverside 
County, the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, several 
cities, and Fish and Wildlife all signed a planning agreement which 
laid out a conservation plan for the entire western half of Riverside 
County. Under that agreement, Fish and Wildlife would be required to 
provide the benefits and the ultimate cost of the plan within 6 months 
of signing the agreement. Now, 2 years later, Fish and Wildlife is 
refusing to provide this information to the planning agency which they 
had contractually agreed to do. This was a bad faith effort on the part 
of Fish and Wildlife.
  Specifically, there are two recent cases where Fish and Wildlife has 
shown how destructive they can be in southern California. The first 
case is the Delhi-sands flower-loving fly. A handful of flies were 
discovered at the proposed site for the San Bernardino County hospital. 
Fish and Wildlife ordered the county to move the building 300 feet, at 
a cost of $3.5 million. That's about $10,000 a foot. The Galena 
Interchange, a freeway construction project in my district is being 
held hostage by this fly. The Galena Interchange is not an expansive 
new highway program--we are not talking about building the Golden Gate 
Bridge. It's a simple project connecting Interstate 15 to Galena Street 
and it received $20 million in Federal, State, and local funds last 
year for a desperately needed project. After the plans were designed 
and the funds allocated, Fish and Wildlife now claims the county needs 
to establish a preserve for the Delhi-sands flower-loving fly. Fish and 
Wildlife wants as many as 200 acres of the Inland Empire's priciest 
industrial land for habitat mitigation. Two hundred acres could cost as 
much as $32 million; $32 million for a $20 million project. On top of 
all of this, not one fly has been found in this area. Apparently, the 
Branch Chief of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office heard the buzz of 
the fly, but did not see it, and now wants $32 million. In testimony 
before the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, this person said--and 
I quote--``. . . if you hear a car down the street that's your favorite 
model, you kind know the engine sound and you know that it's the car 
that you like--so you know for someone that studies this sort of 
species you get a feel for the noise.'' This is ludicrous. Fish and 
Wildlife is using Dr. Seuss methods from ``Horton Hears a Who'' to make 
policy for millions of citizens. At the very least, we should amend the 
ESA to require than an endangered species must actually be seen, not 
just heard.
  The other case involves the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Once again, 
after poorly handling several listings, Fish and Wildlife has 
precipitated another crisis in southern California. Recently the 
Service published a ``survey protoco'' for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly, which requires landowners to survey their property for the 
Quino before beginning any development. They did so less than a month 
before the beginning of the butterfly's very short flying season. 
However, Fish and Wildlife went a step further and issued a survey 
protocol that prohibited development of all land until at least early 
June 2000. The other day, in a seeming reversal of this earlier 
position, Fish and Wildlife is allowing surveys to be done this year. 
But, the Service still reserved the right to invalidate any survey due 
to the shortened flying season. This is like the IRS giving you your 
tax bill and noting that they have the right to charge you more later--
which is something they have actually done and why Congress passed IRS 
reform legislation. Fish and Wildlife should take notice. So, the 
Service is allowing landowners to spend thousands of dollars to conduct 
a survey that they may or may not consider valid next year.

[[Page E531]]

  The current Fish and Wildlife problem has become so large, expensive, 
and harmful to our community that it cannot be overlooked any longer. 
In 1995, ESA costs exceeded $325 million of Federal money. However, the 
cost to local and State governments was billions and billions of 
dollars. Taxpayer funding has increased 800 percent since 1989. This is 
a call to common sense. Fish and Wildlife's district offices at the 
very least have the responsibility to balance the rights of species 
with the rights of landowners and taxpaying citizens of the United 
States. Local bureaucrats are undermining of Americans' desire to save 
truly endangered species by engaging in arbitrary and unreliable 
rulemaking. Our citizens and our endangered species deserve better. 
While we build a consensus in the Congress on how to update the 
Endangered Species Act, we should, at the very least, expect two 
things: (1) Fish and Wildlife must keep its commitments; and, (2) Fish 
and Wildlife should use its discretion, under the law, not as a weapon 
against landowners, but as a tool to help communities comply with the 
law.

                          ____________________