The Federal Endangered Species Act ESA of 1973 - Essay Example

? Number] Takings- Environmental Law The Federal Endangered Species Act ESA of 1973 was regulated to ensure that species and animals would be protected by the inauguration of their conservation programs. The objective was basically to protect those species and animals that are left very few in the world. Due to the change in the overall ecosystem, species of animals and plants from the world are finishing. This remains a big concern for the environmentalists therefore the commencement of this act was vital and eminent. There are further sub clauses of the law that exemplifies the whole paradigm of protecting and preserving species (Lazarus 32). The term ‘takings’ has significant role in the environmental law as the term elucidates that those species who are catalogued endangered under the provision of ESA are protected and it does not allow individuals to harm them or take them along. The ‘taking’ terminology suggests that taking those species away. The harming issue has been remained under the great debate that either under the ESA acts harming is allowed or not. Several law cases have been filed and culprits got away from them as they came under the harming category. This process carried till 1999, when finally ESA came with the clear cut definition of harming and declared it as an essential part of the act too. According to the new provision of ESA 1999, any individual found harming the species would have to face the law (Steven 58). There are serious punishments regulated in case of ESA violations. Great amount of $50,000 and a year in prison are the highest amount of penalty to the culprit. The renowned takings law case of Great Oregon v. Babbitt 1994 is one of the major examples of the cases that were resolved by the Supreme Court. The case arose on the issue of harming species and invalidation of ESA takings. The appeal was done by Sweet Home regarding this matter. The case went through prior consideration of the court and collected all the relevant evidence in this regard. Upon inspection and examination of circumstances rampant, the court concluded that actually killings and injuries of rare species took place which is a violation of ESA. At that time specific definition of ‘harm’ was not given by ESA and ambiguity on this matter remained, but U.S Supreme Court made things crystal clear by giving this important historic ruling (Steven 74-85). Success and Failure of NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act NEPA is one of the most important established environmental laws of the United States. The main agenda of NEPA is to safe, preserve and conserve species prevailing everywhere in the country. The protection of environment is foremost important task of NEPA. The inauguration of NEPA has been criticized significantly all over the United States as its implications and application is not considered resourceful and powerful in the country. There are numerous success and failure stories of NEPA. The involvement of people in NEPA programs is tremendous. The awareness element has been established among the people and people have started to take it very seriously. By the help of volunteers, awareness measures among regions have been started too. The outcomes achieved till date present a promising picture (Vallero 67). The Forest Service funded Vegetation Management Project was launched successfully by NEPA so that issues regarding the forest health would be eradicated. The vegetation concerns were also present in Crooked River which was addressed by the implementation of this project. The Rural Development Community Facilities Program proposed that building of hostel for students would be beneficiary for individuals and college too. NEPA took over this proposal and built the apartments in order to facilitate students. NEPA has been providing services to the defence sector of the United States too. Their services are highly regarded as they made precise plans for the successful inauguration of defence endeavours. The Energy Conservation Investment Program was launched by NEPA to financially stabilize Defence Department. The reports circulated by The Department of Defence confirmed in its annual report that tremendous benefits have been achieved by the commencement of NEPA programs. The program helped them to launch high efficiency energy system too (Luther 83-98). The failure stories of NEPA are not pretty much as most of the projects launched by NEPA are after the prior consultation process. After the strategic formulation phase, NEPA launches the program. Moreover there were certain initiatives where NEPA had to take step forward because of constraints attached and they did not worked out very well, but overall NEPA’s success rate is pretty higher. The failure in NEPA’s with respect to environmental harm is not very much and their success rate is highly commendable and regarded in the United States. They have given horizon and orientation to individuals about the conditions ubiquitous around them (Luther 103). Procedural and Substantive Environment Law The environment law can be either procedural or substantive. The procedural environmental law indicates that set framework and procedures need to be followed while bringing the culprit to the court. There must be no loose ends while filing the case. The systematic way must be followed in which all the requirements of the law must be fulfilled. Basically following of a procedure is the agenda of procedural environmental law. The regulations and acts that are a part of the legislations are procedural laws. Required protocols are followed while examining the case. The law enforcers are not allowed to go out of the law window in order to catch the culprit. Certain parameters are obstacles are marked that ensures methodological way of doing things is happening (Manaster and Daniel 44). Substantive law essentially deals with the legal relationship of objects with the people. The tasks, duties and roles of people are discussed in the substantive law while procedural law converse about the rules that are set and need to be followed. There is no independent power in the procedural law while independent powers are found in the substantive law. The procedural law implication can be done in non legal circumstances while substantive laws cannot be implied in the illegal circumstances. The procedural law more emphasizes on the steps that needs to be followed in the law suits. The substantive law believes in the supremacy of facts and structures. The whole case revolves around the chronicle of facts and figures in substantive law (Manaster and Daniel 62). The example of procedural environmental law can be taken from the Endangered Species Act ESA. It advocates precise set of planning, schedule and procedures in order to arrest the culprits. For instance one of the species of plants is rare and as per the list of ESA, takings of that specie are not allowed (Steven 70). The major purpose behind this notion remains that preservation and protection of that specie would sustain but an individual violates it, than he/she has to ultimately face the procedural environmental law case in which each and every thing is stated concretely. There are no chances of errors and ambiguities in the system and the individual found red handed will have to face serious law suit. The example of substantive law suit can be of Great Oregon v. Babbitt case. There were many cases in those years where people got escaped because of the absence of evidence and tried to cover themselves in the ‘harm’ bracket. The ‘harm’ term bracket was not well defined by ESA due to which culprits got carried away. The case of Great Oregon v. Babbitt was purely based on substantive law in which the court deducted the whole matter in the presence of facts and figures, and presented the verdict against the culprit for violation of the law (Steven 55-60). Work Cited Lazarus, Richard J. The making of environmental law, University of Chicago Press, 2004. Print. Luther, L.. Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Disaster Response, Recovery, and Mitigation Projects. DIANE Publishing, 2010. Print. Manaster, A. Kenneth, and Daniel P. Selmi, Administrative Law Issues, Vol. 1, California Environmental Law & Land Use Practice, 2012. Print. Steven Ferrey. Environmental Law: Examples & Explanations. Aspen Law & Business, 2010. Print. Vallero, Daniel. Environmental biotechnology: A biosystems approach. Academic Press, 2010. Print. Read More