Since H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005, passed in the House of Representatives, I have spoken with many people and environmental organizations in Hawai'i who have expressed concerns about this measure. I deeply appreciate the input of these committed folks who took the time to communicate their views to me.

Although I believe this measure was necessary to begin the dialogue needed to strengthen the protection of endangered species, I am mindful of the shortcomings in the measure that need to be remedied. From my conversations, it is clear there are two main points of contention: Eliminating the critical habitat designation process and landowner compensation.

My intent has always been to replace the critical habitat designation process with procedures that provide greater protection for the habitat of endangered or threatened species. By integrating habitat identification into the recovery planning process as more scientific information becomes available about a species, resources can be used more effectively. However, I understand the need for mechanisms to ensure that habitat remains protected from private or governmental actions that would have an adverse impact. There are various ways to achieve this goal and I am confident we can put into place measures to guarantee the proper oversight.

Closely related is the issue of compensation for landowners who are unable to use a portion or all of their property as intended. No one wants to see a landowner getting paid over and over again for the same tract of land simply because he or she has a portfolio of slightly different development proposals. Nor do we want federal money going to a developer who purchases property with no commercial value hoping it will one day be important to the recovery of a species. Unquestionably these abuses should be prohibited.

The compensation provision of H.R. 3824 is intended to fairly reimburse the relatively small number of property owners who purchase land with a specific legal use in mind and later find out their proposed use may be prohibited by the Endangered Species Act. Compensation in these instances is not only fair and just, it is essential to transforming property owners into willing participants in the species conservation effort. Too many farmers and ranchers now view the Endangered Species Act as an enemy. The political potency of this perception is growing. Failure to recognize this as a legitimate point of view could be fatal to the ESA itself.

Fears have been expressed that compensation would demand so much money that it would drain the environmental budget. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates outlays totaling $10 million for the period 2006-10, and averaging less than $20 million annually thereafter. These figures represent a small percentage of the environmental expenditures. Providing technical assistance, increased incentives for conservation efforts and compensation when there is no other alternative will go a long way to making the Endangered Species Act a collaborative effort rather than a contentious one.

I have taken to heart the views of Hawai'i's environmental organizations and asked them for suggestions on legislative language to strengthen the protection of habitat, foreclose possible abuses of the landowner compensation system and make the Endangered Species Act more collaborative.

H.R. 3824 has a long way to go in the legislative process. It must still be considered by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the full Senate, and a House-Senate conference committee. The bill will undergo many changes during that process. We all share a commitment to our environment, and I will work to see that endangered species habitat, land owner compensation and other issues of concern are addressed as this legislation moves forward.

Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, represents Hawai'i in the U.S. House of Representatives. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.