MontG(!)McB ESA 1Acv3.

3 Vector Version

Endangered Species Act 1AC (v3.3)

Letter to Senator James Inhofe, signed by Senator Malcolm Wallop, David A. Ridenour [Vice President, National
Center for Public Policy Research], Hon. Edwin Meese, III [Former U.S. Attorney General], Hon. Don Hodel
[Former U.S. Sec. of Interior & Energy] and 85 major national and state policy organizations, February 27, 2006
[http://www.nationalcenter.org/ESAPropertyRights022706.pdf] [Brackets added for acronym clarification][CpM]
[The Endangered Species Act] has failed miserably in its
“As you know, the ESA
stated purpose: Recovering threatened and endangered species. In the
three-decade history of the Act, less than one percent of the species listed as
either endangered or threatened have recovered.
Failure comes at a steep price under the ESA. Not only have species
populations suffered, but the Act has cost billions of dollars and deprived
landowners of the use of their land and, often, their savings.
The Endangered Species Act has failed not because it isn’t strong enough,
expansive enough, or funded enough, but because its incentives are wrong.”

End quote

My partner and I agree with the Vice President of the National Center for Public Policy Research
that the Endangered Species Act’s incentives are messed up. Today we will be proposing a
critical reform to the Endangered Species Act, and thus we stand resolved: that the United States
Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy.

To start us off today, we’ll define the resolution in

OBSERVATION 1: Definitions

All definition sources are available upon request.

Significant: sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention. New Oxford American

Dictionary, 2nd Edition

Reform: “To change to a better state, form, etc.; improve by alteration, substitution, abolition,
etc.” 2009 Random House Dictionary

Environmental Policy: the official rules or regulations concerning the environment adopted,
implemented, and enforced by some governmental agency. “Environmental Science: A Global
Concern”, 7th Edition authored by: William P. Cunningham, University of Minnesota, Mary Ann Cunningham,
Vassar College, and Barbara Woodworth Saigo, St. Cloud State University.

Endangered Species Act: [A] “US law passed in 1973 to protect critically imperiled species
from extinction due to "the consequences of economic growth and development untempered by
adequate concern and conservation"” http://www.pbs.org/kqed/oceanadventures/glossary/

Now let’s look at an important fact about the Endangered Species Act in

ESA 1Acv3.3 Page 1

MontG(!)McB ESA 1Acv3.3 Vector Version

OBSERVATION 2: Background

The Endangered Species Act, or ESA, uses restrictions and penalties to control how the owners
of land that is inhabited by a protected species use their property. You can flow this first point as

1. ESA uses harsh restrictions

Jonathan H. Adler [Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law &
Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law], “Perverse Incentives and the Endangered
Species Act,” RFF Weekly Policy Commentary, 4 August 2008 [brackets added for clarity]
[http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/08_08_04_Adler_Endangered_Species.aspx][CpM]
In the most basic terms, the ESA discourages the creation and maintenance of species habitat on private land by
penalizing it. Specifically, under Section 9 of the [Endangered Species] act, it is illegal for a
private landowner to engage in activities that could harm an endangered species, including
habitat modification, without first obtaining a federal permit. Knowing violations can lead to fines of up to
$25,000 and even jail time.

Such regulations can reduce private land values and antagonize private landowners who might otherwise
cooperate with conservation efforts. This is because Section 9 turns endangered species into
economic liabilities. The discovery of an endangered species on private land imposes costs
but few, if any, benefits.

I’d like to now consider the impact of these restrictions in

OBSERVATION 3: Harms

First, it’s important to note that the penalties enforced by the ESA are burdensome to
landowners. You can flow this simply as

1. Hurt Landowners

Letter to Senator James Inhofe, signed by Senator Malcolm Wallop, David A. Ridenour [Vice
President, National Center for Public Policy Research], Hon. Edwin Meese, III [Former U.S. Attorney
General], Hon. Don Hodel [Former U.S. Sec. of Interior & Energy] and 85 major national and state
policy organizations, February 27, 2006 [http://www.nationalcenter.org/ESAPropertyRights022706.pdf]
“Today, private landowners live in fear of the ESA. Those who harbor endangered species on
their property or merely own land suitable for such species can find themselves subject to
severe land use restrictions.”

We can see then that the Endangered Species Act is harmful to property owners. What about the
endangered species themselves, though? The Act helps them at least, right? Actually, because the
ESA is such a burden to landowners, species on private land are targeted for extermination by
those scared to lose control of their land. You can flow this next point as

2. Hurt Species

ESA 1Acv3.3 Page 2

MontG(!)McB ESA 1Acv3.3 Vector Version

Brian Seasholes (expert on a wide variety of issues related to wildlife, land use and property rights,
private approaches to conservation in the United States and around the world, and the U.S. Endangered
Species Act; master's degree in geography from the University of Wisconsin-Madison) “Bad for Species,
Bad for People: What’s Wrong with the Endangered Species Act and How to Fix It,”
National Center for Policy Analysis [The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and
promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the
strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.], 1 Sept 2007, [CpM]
[http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st303]
Majestic bald eagles, powerful grizzly bears, stately gray wolves — these and other
charismatic species typically come to mind whenever the Endangered Species Act (ESA or
the Act) is discussed. Beneath this feel-good veneer, however, lies the troubling reality that
the ESA has been detrimental to the very species it is supposed to protect. The reason:
The law's harsh penalties induce landowners to rid their property of species and habitat. In
short, because the ESA is bad for people, it is bad for species.

The National Center for Policy Analysis explains:

H. Sterling Burnett [Environmental Policy Analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis. Bryon
Allen was a Kock Foundation intern with the NCPA. The NCPA is a non-partisan, non-profit research and
education organization based in Dallas, Texas.] “How to Fix the Failed Endangered Species Act,”
National Center for Policy Analysis, November 1, 1998 [http://www.ncpa.org/commentaries/how-to-
fix-the-failed-endangered-species-act][CpM]
The ESA has failed because it creates perverse incentives to destroy species and their
habitat. More than 75 percent of the listed species depend on private land for all or part of their habitat. Yet
if people provide suitable habitat for an endangered species their land becomes subject to
severe regulation if not confiscation. As a former Fish and Wildlife service official stated, "The
incentives are wrong here. I have a rare metal on my property, its value goes up. But if a rare bird occupies
my land, its value disappears. We've got to turn it around to make the landowner want the bird on his
property."
Property owners are faced with three undesirable options: kill an endangered species
member - or "shoot, shovel, and shut up" - destroy habitat before a species sets up house, or
lose the use and value of their land. Clinging to this approach will condemn the very
species we want to protect.
Paying landowners when their property is restricted, in contrast, would keep them from facing a choice
between their own welfare and that of the endangered species.

To summarize, the restrictions posed by the Endangered Species Act are hurting innocent
landowners, and are causing many of them to harm species in an attempt to keep their land
restriction free. Today, we propose a solution to this problem that we present in

Observation 4: Plan

ESA 1Acv3.3 Page 3

MontG(!)McB ESA 1Acv3.3 Vector Version

We propose the following simple mandate, to be implemented and enforced by any necessary
federal body:

1. The Endangered Species Act will be amended such that Section 9(a)(1)(B) shall no
longer apply to private landowners’ personal property.

Our agency will be Congress and the President, and our plan requires no funding as it is purely
legislative.

Wow. That was kinda confusing. Let me summarize our mandate real quick. Remember how
earlier we talked about the regulations and penalties that were hurting landowners and species?
Basically, all we are doing is removing those restrictions in the Endangered Species Act that are
causing more harm than good.

Alright, let’s finish today by looking at two benefits of our plan in

Observation 5: Advantages

Our first advantage stems directly from our plan text. By repealing the regulations and penalties
in the Endangered Species Act, landowners will no longer face devalued property, and lost
savings. Thus, our first advantage is

1. Landowners are benefited.

This is important, because as the Heritage Foundation observed back in 1999,

Becky Dunlop [Mrs. Dunlop is the Vice President of External Relations at The Heritage Foundation. Areas of
Expertise: Property Rights, Environmental Regulation, Federalism], “Effects of Environmental Policy on Private
Property Rights,” Speech before the National Hardwood Lumber Association, Published by the Heritage
Foundation [The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute], May
21, 1999, [http://www.heritage.org/press/environmental-policy.cfm] [CpM]
The first principle of NWI’s American Conservation Ethic is that people are the most important resource.
The foremost measure of the quality of our environment is human health and well-being. A
policy cannot be good for the environment if it is bad for people. Human intellect and knowledge are
the only means by which the environment can be willfully improved.

But that’s not all! Under our plan, we also directly help the environment. Our second advantage
is

2. Protected Species.

ESA 1Acv3.3 Page 4

MontG(!)McB ESA 1Acv3.3 Vector Version

In 2005, the National Center for Public Policy Research asserted, quote
David A. Ridenour [Vice President of the National Center for Public Policy Research], “"TESRA" Endangered
Species Act Reform Proposal Would Do More Harm Than Good,” National Center for Public Policy
Research [The NCPPA is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and
dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems], August 2005
[http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA531TESRA.html] [Brackets added for clarity][CpM]
For ESA reform to come close to working, both for species and for people, the perverse
incentives of the law must be eliminated. This can be achieved in a number of ways.
One way this might be achieved is by providing an economically viable means for landowners who lose property
rights under the ESA to receive full and fair compensation for their losses.
The draft TESRA legislation falls far short of this and, because it would expand the ESA to cover "invasive species"
and require landowners to transfer property titles to the federal government when compensated, could further
exacerbate problems.
Another possible reform would be to take away the federal government's blunt instrument of regulation in favor of
voluntary, time-sensitive leasing arrangements. This way, not only would landowners have the incentive to preserve
species, but the federal government's inventory of land - already to big for it to handle - wouldn't grow. These
leasing arrangements could be terminated, or not renewed, once a species has recovered, or either the landowner or
government determines they are no longer worthwhile. Yet another alternative [One way] is to exempt private
property entirely from the ESA. Eliminating the perverse incentives - even without establishing
a system of positive incentives - would do more for rare species than the ESA has done in its
32 years on the books.
If all else fails, the ESA could be repealed. Although the political will likely doesn't currently exist for repealing the
law, it's clear that endangered and threatened species would be better off without the ESA. If the ESA continues this
abysmal performance - more species de-listed due to data error and extinction than due to recovery - a popular
consensus for repealing the Act may develop.

In 2007, the NCPA noted that

Brian Seasholes “Bad for Species, Bad for People: What’s Wrong with the Endangered Species Act and How to Fix
It,” National Center for Policy Analysis 1 Sept 2007, [CpM] [http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st303]
America's landowners are ready, willing and able to conserve endangered species. Sadly, the
main impediment to doing so is the Endangered Species Act.

Today, be voting affirmative, you will be removing that impediment. By eliminating the ESA’s
strict penalties, you will be benefiting America’s citizens, and you will help protect imperiled
species. I therefore urge an affirmative ballot, and I now stand open for cross examination.

ESA 1Acv3.3 Page 5