Last fall, the House of Representatives approved a bipartisan bill I coauthored with my Democratic colleague, Rep. Dennis Cardoza of California, entitled the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 (TESRA). This legislation would update and modernize the Endangered Species Act for the first time in more than 10 years by taking broad, bold steps focusing on recovering species, establishing meaningful scientific standards, requiring more openness and greater roles for states and affected members of the public.

WORTH FORUM How should private property owners be compensated when their land is designated a protected habitat under federal conservation laws? A debate over changes to the Endangered Species Act.

Under current law, landowners are merely regulatory subjects, forced to swallow federal edicts in the name of conserving not only endangered eagles and manatees but also bugs, rats and the like. They are compelled to personally bear the costs of a national conservation program.

Not too surprisingly, this approach has been a failure. About 1,300 domestic species are now on the endangered list, but only 10 have ever been recovered and removed from the list–a success rate of less than 1 percent. The endangered species list has been a one-way street: Species go on, but seldom come off.

If we are serious about recovering endangered species, landowners must be part of the solution. The single most important change we can make to better address species recovery is to make private property owners partners rather than impediments to conserving species. This is vital because the vast majority of endangered species have habitat on private property.

Due Process
Under my bill, property owners are encouraged to participate in conservation through agreements to manage land to benefit endangered species. Property owners deserve the right to get a straight answer from the government if use of their property–whether for farming, ranching, building a home or any other purpose that would otherwise be consistent with state and local law–would encounter endangered species restrictions.

If a property owner finds that his property use is restricted because Uncle Sam needs it for our national endangered species effort, then he would become eligible for compensation for the lost fair-market value of his property. The fair-market value would be determined by two appraisers, one representing the government and one representing the property owner, to ensure the compensation is just for both. If we are going to have a national conservation program, individual landowners should not be forced to suffer a loss for national species recovery.

Opponents argue my bill removes the law’s regulatory hammer that ensures property owners will "voluntarily" hand over lands needed for habitat. Property owners forced to give up use of some of their property are hardly doing something voluntarily. These regulatory takings have created the unintended and adverse consequence of putting property owners and species at odds. This often leads to the "shoot, shovel and shut up" syndrome that spurs landowners to destroy habitat out of fear of regulatory takings.

Those wedded to the current failed endangered species program disingenuously label compensating property owners as a cash cow for developers. This is hardly the case. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that this TESRA provision would cost less than $10 million over the next five years, a rounding error in Washington terms.

Those who will ultimately benefit from TESRA’s compensation provision are small landowners–family farmers and mom-and-pop ranchers. Species will benefit, too. When we eliminate the threat of lost property value, we can actively attract owners of valuable habitat to species recovery efforts. When that happens, the endangered species list will stop serving as the hotel where species check in, but never check out.

Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.) is chairman of the House Resources Committee.