U.S. COURT DECISION FAVORS ENVIRONMENTAL RULES ON PRIVATE LANDS

In what has been called the major environmental case of the past 10 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has not gone beyond the intent of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In so doing, the high court came down on the side of the environment against landowners. The case, Babbitt vs. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, challenged logging restrictions on private land that was home for the endangered red cockaded woodpecker and the

July 10, 1995

2 min read

In so doing, the high court came down on the side of the environment against landowners.

The case, Babbitt vs. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, challenged logging restrictions on private land that was home for the endangered red cockaded woodpecker and the threatened northern spotted owl.

Sweet Home plaintiffs claimed that the law was not meant to prevent activities like logging that would not directly harm a species. They lost in district court and won in a eats court.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said Congress' wording of the statute meant that the government could prevent direct and indirect harm to wildlife.

The opinion said the normal definition of the word harm "naturally encompasses habitat modification that results in injury or death to members of an endangered or threatened species."

REACTION

Environmentalists hailed the decision. They said 90% of the 781 creatures on the endangered species lists depend on private land to some extent.

Interior Sec. Bruce Babbitt called the opinion a 11 common sense" interpretation but said Interior will continue to aggressively pursue a variety of reforms to make ESA less onerous to private landowners.

Sen. Robert Packwood (R-Ore.) said the opinion "makes it imperative that Congress amend ESA so people count as much as bugs and birds and plants."

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), House resources committee chairman, said the high court ruling "clearly puts the spotlight on protecting private property rights."

Young wants reform legislation to advance this month to his committee.

He said, "Even if the court had ruled the other way, we anticipated that private property protections would be a focal Point of our reform bill. The federal government has no right to 'take' a person's property without just compensation."