by Carolyn Chase
he City and County of San Diego, the U.S. Department
of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish & Game are about to embark on a grand experiment in implementing
both the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, called the Multiple
Species Conservation Plan, or MSCP. The MSCP is a visionary and valiant
attempt to carve out connected open space preserves that will hopefully
provide enough habitat to prevent local plant and animal extinctions.
The theory goes like this: species go extinct
because we build on top of their habitat. So, we'll figure out how much
habitat space is needed for the critters, save it, and viola! mo
more extinction.
The reality is more along the lines of: how
much is left that is worth saving and that we can afford to try and save.
For five years, representatives of the Mayor's Office, landowners, the building
industry, government staff from all relevant bodies and a few hardy conservation
volunteers have struggled to pull together a workable plan.
I applaud their efforts. It has already made
a difference.
But it's optimistic or a bit naive to say that
these plans are about conservation. After all, at the heart of the model
is the premise that we are going to kill endangered species in order to
save them. This premise can only make sense if you understand the property-rights
orientation of the approach, combined with realization of just how bad the
prospects are for endangered species with the status quo.
The guiding force of the contractual arrangements
implementing the plans is the landowner assurances. The contracts are about
developers and land speculators getting certainty about building, and not
having to worry that they could be stopped by such mundane considerations
as endangered species. In exchange for the right to "take" endangered
species habitat, they will be paying into a mitigation pot at a predetermined
rate. We are hoping and I mean that term literally because there is limited
scientific justification that this will be enough. In addition, taxpayers
will be asked to make up the difference by buying much of the land to make
up the preserve. What if it's not enough? Aside from changing management
of the agreed-upon open space, the only option is to buy more land on the
open market if it's available. The feds and the state are agreeing that
"no additional land, no additional land restrictions and no additional
financial compensation beyond that required pursuant to this Agreement....."
shall be required of the local jurisdiction and so-called "Third Party
Beneficiaries." (i.e., the developers).
The signing of the so-called "Implementing
Agreement" by the city, state and federal officials will no doubt be
touted as a "model for the nation." But the industry-brokers in
this region are well on their way to turning this into a mega-opolis only
slightly nicer than L.A. What any environmentalist or conservation group
could achieve at the negotiating table is not necessarily the best deal
for conservation or the public good.
The idea of differing stakeholders sitting
down to work together is certainly an aspect to be applauded. But it does
not mean that what we have today is the best answer for conservation.
The idea that connected blocks of open space
should be identified and conserved or purchased should be a part of such
a model. However, the premise that protections for natural resources outside
such an open space preserve should be reduced or eliminated is not the best
answer for conservation or people's quality of life in the remaining urbanized
areas.
Specifically, the idea that no more land and
no more money and no additional "land use restrictions" will ever
be required of local jurisdictions or property owners is not soundly based
in either science or the fairness within which the rest of American public
might wish to see conservation take place. Instead, it represents the political
trade-offs and culture of today.
But since this is the best we could do today,
I applaud it and at the same time call for semper vigilanti. I am
looking forward to future negotiations over the conservation of wetlands
and other important community issues governing decisions to be made on development
outside the preserve.
Note: The County Board of Supervisors is scheduled
to approve their MSCP Subarea Plan for portions of the County on July 23,
beginning at 10am when they will take additional public testimony.
Corrections:
The byline on the article A gentle place our June issue should have been given to Linda DiBona... One reader wrote to tell me that there are more ticket machines at the Old Town Trolley Station than the one I was able to find, and that you can purchase tickets at the store inside the station, though it was not open when I was there. . . Finally, the email address for Californians for Quality of Life, cqual
znet.com, was not working for a time last month, so if you tried to send a message and it bounced back, try again. It's working now. We apologize for these errors.
