18 



But, really, just three quick questions and three brief answers. 

 One of them is how important is biological diversity to the quality 

 of life for human beings? 



Secretary Babbitt. It is. Congressman, extraordinarily inter- 

 woven with the economy, the quality of life, productivity of our 

 land base, food fiber, and I think that realization of that impor- 

 tance has always been a part of our perception of the out of doors. 



I was serious when I took your rainbow answer back to the story 

 of the deluge in the Bible because I read the deluge and the cov- 

 enant that comes out of that particular event as an important affir- 

 mation of our relationship to the land and biodiversity. 



Mr. GiLCHREST. Thank you. 



The next one. We have the North American Wetlands Conserva- 

 tion Act and there is a great deal of controversy about wetlands, 

 about conservation, about managed growth, and so on. Could you 

 describe the need for the North American Wetlands Conservation 

 Act, if it were proposed in 1894, as it is proposed in 1994, and your 

 projected assessment of its importance in 2094? 



Secretary BABBITT. In 50 words or less, my answer would be 

 that — in 1894, I think it might have been possible to respond. 

 There is plenty of open space. There is not much pressure on the 

 land or on ecosystems, and that is one we will leave to our children 

 and grandchildren to wrestle with. 



In 1994, it is an urgent issue, and the statistics cited by Con- 

 gressman Dingell with respect to the decline of migratory bird pop- 

 ulations, I think speaks very eloquently to the urgency of that ef- 

 fort. 



There are many other statistical ways of getting at it, but I think 

 the extraordinary decline that continues to affect migratory bird 

 population, not just waterfowl but songbirds, passerines, and all of 

 the different bird groups say it all. 



In 2094, we will either have met — if we do not meet our respon- 

 sibilities in this generation, it may be a moot question in 2094. 



Mr. GiLCHREST. Thank you. The last question, and I only have 

 about 30 seconds, there is a great deal of talk about the Fifth 

 Amendment, about takings, about national legislation dealing with 

 that particular issue, about compensation and so on. 



Could you give us your brief perspective on why or why not the 

 issue of zoning and the issue of takings should or should not be in 

 the hands of basically local officials, dealt with, if necessary, in the ' 

 courts on a case-by-case basis? 



Secretary BABBITT. Well, it is an interesting set of issues, be- 

 cause there is a continuum. At the core, the Fifth Amendment of 

 the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the courts, 

 says that at the point that regulation impinges upon a landowner's 

 right to some reasonable economic use of his or her land, there is 

 a constitutionally protected taking. 



Now, obviously, that is at the very core. Because I do not view 

 myself as entitled to compensation when the DC zoning body says 

 you cannot erect a sky scraper in the back yard of your residence 

 in Northwest Washington. They have deprived me of an economic 

 use of my land. They have deprived me of the chance to make an 

 enormous project. It is not a taking, at least as generally under- 



