When I first heard that Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Tracy) wanted to sell off all of the nation’s parks to developers I wrote him off as a nut case. That may have been a bit hasty.
Last week, to the horror of environmental defenders, the House passed his revision of the Endangered Species Act. Environmentalists vow to fight the destruction of this safeguard for species hovering on the brink of extinction. These animals are not always threatened because they’ve failed to evolve to meet the challenges of civilization encroaching on their habitat. Sometimes the patchwork of small green belts and parks amid suburban sprawl leaves them without access to diverse populations that would ensure a more resilient gene pool. In the case of top predators, they often die from eating poisoned rodents or are shot by frightened homeowners.
When we moved to the mountains in 1961, we were fleeing the city and its suburbs, where we were continually harassed by people who had deliberately moved into houses at the edge of agricultural districts. Where they once thought seeing horses across the street was quaint, they soon complained about flies and dust. Inevitably they would try to change the zoning on adjacent lands. Sometimes they succeeded.
Adjusting to life in open ranch country at the eastern edge of the Los Padres National Forest was in some ways easy, in others, total culture shock. Still, everything was so beautiful. Wildlife was abundant, although the coyote population was sparse, having fallen to bounty hunters. And we lost several dogs to strychnine bait used by neighboring ranchers to control ground squirrels.
The Endangered Species Act was seen by most as an unnecessary intrusion on ranchers’ control over their land. Of course, we thought it unnecessary because we were already protecting wildlife. Then we began to hear horror stories from farmers who were jailed for tilling their fields because endangered kangaroo rats were lurking nearby. People opposed to any kind of development used the legislation to prevent landowners from building even one new house on their property. We were outraged at the unfairness.
Then, in the early ’80s, my family bought several parcels adjoining the ranch, primarily to protect our canyon from development. When my children inherited the property from their father, they discovered he had filed a plat map for a subdivision of eight 20-acre parcels zoned as single-family ranch estates. The process to comply with the Endangered Species Act was onerous. They had to pay a bundle for biota studies, wildlife studies, the whole nine yards, fearing all the while that some “weed or lizard” would prevent the sale. They really wanted the land to remain as it was but they needed to clear their father’s debts. As it turned out, nothing was found and four of the parcels were sold. To this day there has been only one house, other than mine, built in the canyon.
In the decades since, I’ve come to appreciate the Endangered Species Act, as the valleys to the north and south became, for the most part, ugly sprawl, encroaching on established wildlife corridors. Rows of ugly boxes march up the ridge lines from Castaic, courtesy of huge developers. None of this was done by small farmers and ranchers, who apparently haven’t the clout that Newhall Land Co. has with L.A. County.
Our neighbor, Tejon Ranch, which straddles both L.A. and Kern counties, is well on its way to building three huge residential developments that will strain natural resources and further clog highways. Guess no endangered species were found on their land, although we’ve always seen flyovers by endangered California condors wandering out of the Sespe Condor Sanctuary some 20 miles due south.
Land conservancy organizations have had some success in buying properties that must be sold and bargaining with owners to keep the land from development. The trouble is that large scale developments will be approved because plans can include significant set-asides for wildlife. Smaller holdings of older farmers hoping to retire seem subject to the use-it-or-lose-it rationale.
I heard an NPR interview with Rep. Pombo explaining his reasons for dismantling the Endangered Species Act. He said the bit about selling our national parks to developers was just a ploy to get attention. Well, that’s a relief. He said he became a politician because he grew up on ranchland in the San Joaquin Valley and realized that animals like the kit fox might prevent him and his neighbors from the rightful use of their land. To farm, to graze cattle, to build a new house. Right. What he didn’t say, is he champions their right to sell to large developers.
What I need now is the expertise of the lawyers at NRDC to ferret out all the whereases and wherefores in this bill and tell me how it may be interpreted and what is likely to happen if and when it passes the Senate.
Pombo may not be a nut case, but I still view his efforts with deep suspicion.