The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution allows the federal government to take land for the public good as long as “just compensation” is provided. But in the case of the ESA, the government can forbid you from using your property – harming both the property’s value and usefulness – without doing a single thing to reimburse you. In fact, you still have to pay taxes on your property, whether or not you’re allowed to touch it.
This hardly seems fair. If your property value suddenly declines as a direct result of a federal regulation, the least the federal government should do is reimburse you for your loss. After all, that’s what the government does when it takes your land outright. But as Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute notes, “the American people would prefer to see the cost of public good fall on the backs of a few landowners rather than on their own backs.”
Instead, private landowners – many of whom enjoyed and protected the wildlife on their land in the years preceding the implementation of the ESA – find themselves suddenly at odds with the animals. In a process referred to as “Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up,” many landowners who find endangered species on their land get rid of them before federal officials can show up and declare the land unusable. This is a tragedy, of course, but easy to understand when we realize that one endangered woodpecker – or even a tree where that endangered woodpecker might like to hang out – can cause acres of land to be deemed off-limits and thus essentially worthless to the owner.
R.J. Smith, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, says these perverse incentives make the ESA, in its current form, “bad for humans and bad for species.” Thus, as Congress considers reauthorizing the ESA this spring, the National Center, CEI, Capital Research Center, and a number of other Constitution-loving policy groups are calling for ESA reform to include protections for private property owners.
The environmentalists on the other side of this issue won’t budge. Despite the fact that most right-leaning groups are choosing at this time to focus on strengthening property rights and not repealing the ESA (one exception being Stewards of the Range), most Green groups won’t listen to common sense. They seem to agree with the Animal Liberation Front that animals take priority over people.
A few more examples of ESA-induced craziness:
It’s time for our federal officials to take responsibility for their actions. No longer should private property owners suffer, regardless of whether ESA restrictions are necessary. By compensating private landowners for property affected by land-use restrictions, the federal government will have to decide how much such regulations are really worth. If the feds don’t want to pay the bill, they can simply waive the restrictions and let landowners live in peace.
You can help endangered property owners by contacting Congress and telling our leaders to make sure property rights are included in any attempt to reform the Endangered Species Act. Tell them to reverse the trend and to put people first.