Group challenges species protection
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A conservative legal foundation filed twin federal lawsuits last week challenging federal protections for 42 species, 15 of which live only in shallow seasonal pools across much of California and in far southern Oregon.
The Pacific Legal Foundation says the critical habitat designations that together cover 1.5 million acres in 42 counties drive up housing costs and taxes and harm private property rights without doing much to save species.
The suits, filed simultaneously in Fresno and Sacramento federal courts on behalf of building and agriculture associations, also challenge critical habitat designations for 27 other species, 21 of which are rare plants.
The suits claim the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s designations are haphazard and impose “huge social and economic costs” on property owners. The Sacramento-based legal foundation has filed other suits challenging what it says are flawed Endangered Species Act protections for hundreds of species.
Center for Biological Diversity policy director Kieran Suckling responded that research shows species with designated critical habitat are twice as likely to recover. He accused the foundation of shopping for a conservative judge by filing similar suits in two federal courts.
The critical habitat provisions in particular have been criticized by the Bush administration and others who say changes are needed in the Endangered Species Act. The wildlife service itself has said the habitat designations often are of minimal value to protecting species.
The designations guide projects that involve federal funds, but don’t bar development or other environmental damage. The regulatory requirements for most private property owners are no greater than under the Endangered Species Act itself, which prohibits the killing or removal of a protected species or its habitat.
But foundation attorney Reed Hopper said the designation gives the federal government “veto power over any use of that property, whether it is public or private.”
The two suits contend the habitat designations for the 42 species fail to meet scientific and legal standards set by a federal judge in a 2003 decision on the foundation’s challenge to land deemed critical for the Alameda whipsnake.
Suckling said his organization’s legal analysis shows none of the 42 habitat designations has the same flaws as the whipsnake decision.
The foundation says the service does a poor job surveying and mapping where the various species live, determining areas needed for the species to survive, and evaluating the economic impact of including the areas in habitat designations. As a result, they claim the service routinely includes more land than is necessary.
Wildlife service spokesman Jim Nickles declined comment, citing the pending litigation. But the foundation said the service has contended that a lack of money and time prevents designations from being more precise.
The suits were filed on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Northern California, the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, California Building Industry Association, and California State Grange.