Imagine that you are a fifth generation farmer in the Bootheel. One day the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knocks on your door. They tell you that your farm is home to the kangaroo rat, which is protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

 

Then they inform you that because of the designation you can no longer cultivate 800 acres of tillable land – your sole source of income. If you do, the EPA will fine you, take your farm equipment and might even put you in jail. The brush on the land grows thick and heavy because the land can't be tilled. There is a fire, which destroys the habitat for the kangaroo rat and ruins the farm. The farmer loses everything – and so does the rat.

While this exact situation didn't happen here in Missouri, the first hand horror stories about the ESA are all too familiar to many Missourians. Whether it is farmers facing ESA concerns along the Missouri River, residents threatened by ESA-related delays with the St. Johns-New Madrid Floodway project or the fear that the Mark Twain National Forest could be lost to wildfires caused because overgrowth can 't be cleared, the stories are becoming all too common.

 

When the Endangered Species Act was first enacted in 1973, there were 109 species listed for the purpose of protection. Today, almost 1,000 species are listed. Twenty-four of those species – sixteen animals and eight plants – are located in Missouri. But despite the best of intentions, the effectiveness of the ESA is, at best, questionable. After 30 years, only 20 species have been "delisted" or removed from the species list: seven because of extinction and six because of data errors committed during the original listing. In total, only six species in 30 years have officially been declared as actual "recovering" populations.

 

Instead, people have become the new endangered species. A 2000 report by the Environmental Policy Taskforce of the National Center for Public Policy Research, detailed 100 of the most egregious examples of regulatory abuse linked to the ESA. Some are stories about people who fell prey to poorly written laws. Others were affected by contradictory and confusing regulations. Still others were dehumanized and harassed by abusive government officials. All of these people share one similarity – they were victimized by unreasonable regulations that frequently do not make sense for people or the environment.

 

While the number of people negatively affected by the ESA grows, the expenses associated with endangered species protection have grown too. It is estimated that the ESA cost consumers and taxpayers more than a billion a year in litigation, lost profits, lost jobs and rising operating costs for both government and business. Taxpayers are also paying more for salaries and staff. The EPA staff has nearly tripled, from 6,000 employees in 1971 to more than 17,000 employees today.

 

I believe we need to reform the Endangered Species Act to prevent the "human element" from losing out. This law has been misapplied too many times to fit a short-sighted and counterproductive agenda. It has been used as a weapon against farmers, ranchers, businesses and property owners and has resulted in unjust "takings." This runs contrary to constitutional principles and I think we have to do a much better job of protecting fundamental private property rights as well as the environment. These two goals are NOT mutually exclusive.

 

This year, as Congress begins looking at legislation to reform the ESA, we must remember those 100 stories – the faces of suffering caused by ridiculous government overregulation. They are the reason we will fight for legislation that both preserves and promotes stewardship of the environment while protecting private property rights. The legislation will remember the real stewards of the land like those living near the Mark Twain National Forest, those who farm along the Missouri River and those who are working to protect communities along the Mississippi River from future flooding. Most of all, the laws will be based on common sense and sound science. Only then can we ensure that our most precious resources of all – our people – aren't sacrificed in the name of protecting the piping plover, the least tern or the pallid sturgeon.