By Senator Mike Crapo, (R-Idaho)

The U.S. Senate recently passed S. 990, better known as the American Wildlife Enhancement Act.  The Act is intended to protect private property rights by involving citizens, state and local entities while expanding opportunities for wildlife protection that in the past has led to conflicts.   Unfortunately, some have sought to compare S. 990 to a bill I voted against--the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA).  S. 990 is not about land condemnation.  It is not about more federal purchases of private property.  It is about giving landowners and states local control over wildlife and habitat issues under the model of the time-tested Pittman-Robertson grant program supported by sportsmen and sporting groups nationwide.

These critics confuse S. 990 with what they call “Son of CARA.”  The facts are I voted against CARA, but I support S. 990 because it brings a huge change in the fight to stop federal bureaucrats and agencies from diminishing states’ rights and private property rights.  S. 990 sends money directly to states and private landowners for relief from the unfunded mandates of the Endangered Species Act.  It allows states and citizens to address wildlife and habitat needs their way, not the federal government’s way, and do so with a requirement for public consultation.  S. 990 is in response to property owners who are calling for compensation for improving habitat on their land.  Now, there is money to offer that compensation.

Here are the facts:

·        No Federal Land Acquisition:  S. 990 contains no provision for federal purchase of private property and in fact does not allow or encourage land condemnation in any way.  There is no federal land grab and there will be no more federal lands purchased.  Not one acre.  Further, anyone reading the bill carefully will note there is no language making such land condemnation possible and that this bill applies increased accountability to state purchases of land by requiring local consultation and control.  In fact, between 1991 and 2001, less than five percent of the Pittman-Robertson fund, the model for funding this bill, was used for land acquisition; and none of this was federal land acquisition.  Furthermore, S. 990 is an authorization bill only and funding would have to be debated before both the House and Senate on an annual basis, and then funded only if the legislation is having the desired effect, namely protection of private property rights while improving habitat.

·        State and Local Controls:  S. 990 moves decision-making away from federal control to state leaders, local citizens and property owners.  There is no provision, as critics charge that the “government can grab your land for any reason.”  This bill expands the funding model of Pittman-Robertson that allocates federal taxes on the sale of guns and ammunition for the improvement of habitat and education.  S. 990 adds new revenue so states and landowners can improve habitat for both game and non-game species, and rightfully moves those land use decisions to the state and local level.  If a property owner wants to let land lie fallow for wildlife, he can be paid to do so.  If a property owner wants to plant willows to aid salmon recovery, he can now do so and be paid for it.  Too often in the past, the government has expected to improve public values at private expense.  S. 990 requires local consultation.  The result will be improved and compensated habitat for wildlife and threatened or endangered species that has local support. 

·        Help for Private Property Owners:  The funding in S. 990 also provides, through compensation for habitat improvement, new and critical financial assistance for private property owners who might otherwise face federal regulations and threats from the federal government.  Critics want to paint this bill as all about land acquisition but it is really about giving landowners an additional tool to protect their rights and create and improve habitat.  My record in Congress includes attempts to get direct financial payments to private property owners who suffer a loss in property valuation due to threats from federal agencies over endangered species or other wildlife issues.  That bill did not pass, but this measure has the critical bi-partisan support to push relief for landowners closer to reality.

·        Limits on Who is Involved:  Critics charge that “extreme” environmental groups, or “left-wing, animal rights” groups will be involved.  S. 990 carries specific language barring funding for any effort that seeks to promote an “anti-hunting or trapping” agenda.  The truth is that almost any other small private landowner or group interested in wildlife can work with state and local officials under this plan.  The Pittman-Robertson model, on which this program is based, has won the praise of diverse groups like the National Rifle Association, Ducks Unlimited, and the Nature Conservancy.   It is again worth noting funding through this bill can provide increased financial relief to private property owners who face the threat of federal regulations.

·        No federal reviews:  Opponents argue that S. 990 exempts state and local activities from review by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  Yes, that is the point.  Keep the federal agencies and the federal bureaucrats out of the process!  Again, the states are in control of how wildlife conservation dollars are spent in their areas.  Recreation, sporting activities, and related law enforcement are also eligible with the support of local citizens and local officials.  This bill puts funding in the hands of states and property owners and others interested to assist in wildlife conservation and related efforts.

Criticism of S. 990 without understanding the intent of the legislation ignores  the long-running record of support many of us in Congress have for property rights issues.  My voting record regarding private property rights and states’ rights is very solid and I have worked closely and successfully with private property advocacy groups in shaping several pieces of federal legislation.

I have long believed that resolution of environmental and resource conflicts will be based on the degree of real collaboration between state, local, and federal agencies and private citizens.  Federally imposed actions rarely succeed and inevitably create enormous conflict.  Decisions that are made with authoritative participation by the people who live closest to the area of concern succeed with public support.  My support of  S. 990 is heavily influenced by my belief in the power of collaboration.

Most believe that the basic objectives of the Endangered Species Act, and other similar federal Acts are well intended.  However, the fact is that the implementation of these laws is very heavy-handed, usually unilateral, rarely successful, often dangerous to private property rights, and highly influenced by political agendas that go far beyond the objectives of original legislation.  State and local governments, and especially private citizens, are put on the defensive and have few, if any, resources with which to either fight federal initiatives or pay for their implementation.  S. 990 provides resources and a structure with which these groups can either manage local situations or prevent federal action.  We will have some resources to initiate action rather than constantly be reactive and defensive.

S. 990 is a grant program to put states, local governments, sporting and conservation groups, and property owners looking to assist wildlife, in charge of issues regarding wildlife and endangered species.  The cause of all of us who are committed to, and work hard in defense of, private property and states’ rights, is helped tremendously by dealing factually with each other.  Our opponents provide constant challenges—let’s not do their work for them.