As a third-generation farmer, I see that it is the men and women who are closest to our lands—our farmers and ranchers—who are the true conservationists and stewards of our resources. Responsible public land management, including protecting endangered species, is a critical issue for farmers, businesses, and landowners in our rural communities, and it is Congress’ duty to ensure that public land management promotes economic development, not burdensome regulations and red tape. Unfortunately, regulations designed to protect our resources often miss the mark entirely, and there is no better example than the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Over the past five decades, the ESA has become a weapon used by the Biden Administration and the extreme environmental lobby’s army of serial litigators to halt economic development and progress in rural communities. We need flexible tools—not a one-size-fits-all solution—in order to be successful in our shared goal of recovery. Unfortunately, it seems that they are intent on doubling down on this misguided plan of action.
Last month, the Biden Administration released a decision reversing critical reforms to the ESA implemented during previous administrations. This reinstated the blanket 4(d) rule, which automatically provides endangered level protections to species listed only as threatened. Now, Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are required to manage threatened species with specifically tailored plans, leading to less flexibility for landowners and stakeholders.
This reversal also mandates new critical habitat changes. The former plans allowed FWS and NOAA to research and share the economic impacts of a listing determination while also providing flexibility in defining what constitutes a critical habitat. This allowed the agencies to only designate unoccupied areas as critical habitat if absolutely necessary. However, under the Biden Administration’s new proposal, they must again categorize unoccupied land as critical habitat, just in case. This will halt all progress in affected regions and will tie up landowners in mountains of unnecessary bureaucratic red tape, ceasing any economic progress for rural communities.
This proposal also reverses a rule which established standards to ensure effects analysis for proposed actions is limited to only “activities that are reasonably certain to occur.” This action essentially means that federal agencies can consider worst-case scenarios for species, even if they are unlikely to happen, which will make things much more difficult for landowners.
The decision to reverse critical reforms to the ESA is yet another example of how the Biden Administration is beholden to the climate lobby. These misguided changes won’t improve the ESA’s goal of recovering species but will instead further impede private landowners’ rights. With only 5% of listed species having been recovered or delisted under the ESA, it is clear that the program needs drastic reform to save species without burdening rural communities, but ensuring that our farmers, ranchers, and landowners have a seat at the table is crucial in making responsible and realistic decisions.
