Abstract
This Comment will focus on the current problems of the ESA and suggest how the ESA can be rewritten to accommodate both environmental and private property interests. Section I will discuss procedure under the ESA. In Section II, the Comment examines the controversial "harm" definition frequently arising in ESA litigation. In Section III, the Comment will dispel the myth that the ESA is currently operating as originally intended and will discuss the reasons why private property owners criticize the current ESA. Section IV will examine a proposal for reauthorizing the ESA written by Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) that Congress failed to adopt in 1997.1" Further, in Section V, the Comment will focus on suggestions for improving the Kempthorne Reauthorization Bill as the basis for future legislation geared toward ESA reform and reauthorization. Finally, in Section VI, this Comment will conclude that the ESA should not be reauthorized without first being rewritten to ensure a balance between strong, effective species protection and a genuine respect for property rights and economic interests.
Recommended Citation
Diana Kirchheim, The Endangered Species Act: Does "Endangered" Refer to Species, Private Property Rights, the Act Itself, or All of the Above?, 22 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 803 (1999).
