The Etowah Habitat Conservation Plan, or ObamaCare for minnows
By Sen. Chip Pearson
ATLANTA (August 21, 2009) – Disclaimer: Though this is a serious issue with serious implications, large amounts of sarcasm are used in the following opinion. Sometimes it’s better to laugh than to cry. Proceed at your own risk.
We’re from the government, and we’re here to help
While the country is gripped in the worst recession in a generation, Georgia’s unemployment rate is above 10%, and Obama-Pelosi-Reed et al are trying to take over one-sixth of the economy, you would think your federal government would have little time for mischief and meddling. Think again. While you’ve been working to feed your family and pay your taxes while praying you still have a job tomorrow, your public servants at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and their friends at UGA have squandered over $1.5 million on a program called the Etowah Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). I call it the Yazoo Land Deal II, or “the largest taking of private property since the removal of the Cherokees!”
An HCP is a plan that is often required by the FWS to protect endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Etowah HCP would encompass over 940,000 acres in seven of the fastest-growing counties in Georgia. Its effects would be long-lasting and devastating to taxpayers and landowners. It would lower land values, increase construction costs, remove land use decisions from local elected officials, and increase burdens on already overwhelmed counties and the citizens whose property taxes pay to operate them. As you’ll see, it’s not about the fish.
An HC What?
This plan began around 2002 when folks at the UGA Odum School of Ecology and others thought an HCP project would be a good way to protect the Etowah darters. Simple enough. Yet they must have also thought an HCP would be a great way to control states’ land use and growth. Now after six years, millions of dollars spent, minimal to no public comment or involvement, no feedback from landowners, and no scientific Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), we are at the official public comment period to see if this plan will be approved by the “Big FWS fish” in Washington, D.C.
Until now, landowners have paid consultants to draft and submit HCPs on their behalf for their property. If approved, the owner can do whatever he intends with his property. Occasionally, regional HCPs have been proposed or approved, mostly in the western states. If approved, the owner can do whatever he intends with his property. Yet the Etowah HCP has gone from a plan for one specific property to nearly a “Million Acres Rubber Stamp.” It’s not about the fish.
Temporarily extinct?
Reading through an HCP proposal can be some kind of dull. But you’ll often find obscure items that raise a red flag. One tidbit I came across was the concept of “extirpated.” Not being a scientist, I had to look up the definition, which I found next to “a little bit pregnant” in the dictionary. Extirpated means temporarily extinct. “Temporarily” extinct? I guess you have to be a scientist to understand that one. So what kind of catastrophic, apocalyptic event does it take to extirpate an entire species? An asteroid? An ice age? Global warming? Nope. This “temporary extinction” is caused by agriculture. One would hope the HCP would prevent such extinction, but it doesn’t. You see, it’s not about the fish.
Believe it or not, the environment is the best it’s ever been
The liberal national media would have you believe that the state of our environment is so dire we should all be “temporarily extinct” – permanently. However, a funny thing has happened as Etowah basin cities and counties have grown. The water has gotten cleaner. In his book “The Greening of Georgia,” Dr. Harold Brown of UGA (he’s a good Bulldog) says this: “In spite of lax enforcement of sediment control laws, if that is the case, and in spite of the land disturbance by construction in Atlanta, the sediment load of the Chattahoochee in the 1990’s is less than 20% of that in the 1930’s. Apparently the modern urban influence cannot match the extensive cultivation of the North Georgia hills in muddying the Chattahoochee.” Yes, I can read. Notice that he said the Chattahoochee, not the Etowah. Dr. Brown’s book also illustrates that prior agricultural practices were much worse than anything used today. Our state erosion laws are stiffer now, and federal stormwater laws are in place that didn’t exist in the 1990’s. Yet this “scientific plan” purposely excludes the very reason for the last temporary extinction. Only the federal government can spend our money on that kind of logic and call it science. But then, it’s not about the fish.
The $ 7,200 fish
At least $1.5 million in taxpayer money has been spent on the Etowah HCP effort so far. If this HCP is approved, how much more will it cost us? That question is a moving target. According to the FWS, the costs would be minimal. Yet back in 2006, HCP supporters said the cost per acre was $3000 to $5000 per acre! In fact, if you multiply the 940,000 acres by $5000 per acre, that equals $4.7 billion! Dividing $4.7 billion by the approximately 650,000 fish the FWS thinks are in danger leaves you with $7200 sushi! Everyone will be forced to shoulder these costs. Projects will cost more, developers will pay less for land, or both. Counties, cities and the state will pay more for schools, roads and libraries. In fact, you the taxpayer have already paid about $20,000 per acre or $2.5 million for ponds at the DOT intersection project at Georgia Hwy 20 and I-575. There are also unknown costs related to long term maintenance, as well as the $85 per acre that FWS says they need to manage this project going forward. That makes a $500 hammer from the Pentagon look like a bargain. And it’s still not about the fish.
The fox guarding the henhouse
Last session, the Georgia General Assembly passed two resolutions (SR 304, HR 578) urging the FWS to conduct the mandatory five-year review of endangered species and perform an EIS before reviewing the HCP. If you do your own HCP for your own property, an EIS would probably be required. Shouldn’t one for 940,000 acres also be required? Should we allow the FWS to critique their own work by doing the study on their HCP? That should be done by an unbiased third party.
The bottom line is this: just as ObamaCare is not about improving health care or delivery, the Etowah HCP as currently proposed is not about protecting fish. Both plans are about an out-of-control federal government wanting to micromanage every part of your life from the pill you take to where and how you live. They are not taking into consideration the taxpayers and landowners who will bear the cost burden of this HCP.
Thankfully, many counties and cities are avoiding this boondoggle as they learn how little science is actually involved in the plan. In fact, many counties and cities that previously were favorable to the plan are now reconsidering their support or are even pulling out. I encourage you to voice your opinion and tell your local officials and the FWS that the Etowah HCP as written should not be approved. Address your letters to David Dell of FWS at 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 or e-mail him at david_dell@fws.gov by August 31, 2009.
Sen. Chip Pearson serves as chairman of the Economic Development Committee. He represents the 51st Senate District which includes Dawson, Fannin, Gilmer, Lumpkin, Pickens, and Union counties and portions of Forsyth and White counties. He may be reached at 404.656.9921 or via e-mail at chip.pearson@senate.ga.gov.
COLUMN
For Immediate Release:
August 21, 2009
For Information Contact:
Raegan Weber, Director
Kallarin Richards, Senior Communications Specialist
kallarin.richards@senate.ga.gov
404.656.0028