{"id":443152,"date":"2026-05-09T05:12:39","date_gmt":"2026-05-09T12:12:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=443152"},"modified":"2026-05-09T05:12:41","modified_gmt":"2026-05-09T12:12:41","slug":"endangered-species-act-regulatory-overkill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=443152","title":{"rendered":"Endangered Species Act regulatory overkill"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From CFACT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By David Wojick<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The regulatory machinery of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is incredibly overdone, often making the reasonable use of regulated land impossible. Congress needs to fix this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law itself is pretty simple but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has interpreted it in an extreme way. The law says you cannot harm an endangered species. FWS has interpreted \u201charm\u201d to include any change in the species\u2019 habitat that might affect it. Cutting down a tree that an endangered bird might happen to nest in is considered harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law actually allows for property development within an endangered species habitat. It is called an \u201cincidental take\u201d permit because every habitat change is considered a \u201ctaking\u201d of the species. FWS has stretched this language to the limit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is that FWS has made incidental take permits so expensive that only rich landowners can afford them. Since most of us are not rich this incredible fee structure has made reasonable development impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This taking fee overkill can be seen in an example from Florida. A landowner with a modest five acre plot wanted to build a house on that land. The incidental take fee was a choking $139,440 which made building impossible. The landowner has asked the Court to overturn this destructive fee structure but it is really Congress\u2019s job to do that. See the case here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Federal Court Allows Property Rights Challenge to Proceed in Charlotte County ESA Case<\/a><\/blockquote>