Environmentalists sued the Trump administration Tuesday over a change to the Endangered Species Act that they say could cripple the landmark law that helped save some of Florida’s most beloved animals, from manatees and sea turtles to Key deer and alligators.
Under revisions to rules, the definition of harm would no longer include damage to habitat that species need to survive.
”It just decimates the meaning and the on-the-ground impact of the Endangered Species Act,” said Alex Muir, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity's Florida and Caribbean program.
READ MORE: 'God squad' sued over waiving endangered species rules for drilling in the Gulf
In filing the lawsuit, the Center along with several groups from western states, say the change "could immediately harm wildlife including Florida manatees." They argue it contradicts decades of science and legal precedent, including rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Preventing harm to wildlife by protecting where they live, eat and sleep is a basic foundation of the Endangered Species Act,” Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said in a statement. “Now more than ever, imperiled fish, birds and wildlife need protection to survive and recover.”
Oil and construction industry groups have generally supported the rule change. After it was announced Friday, the American Petroleum Institute said it supports "commonsense [Endangered Species Act] policies that protect wildlife and support American energy leadership," NPR reported.
Currently rules require factoring in habitat when the law is invoked to adequately assess a species’ risk of going extinct. That often includes impacts to wetlands, pine rockland, beaches, hammocks, swamps and many Florida places most threatened by over-development, flood control, pollution and climate change. The understanding of the rule is based in part on a 1995 Supreme Court ruling that included habitat destruction in the definition of harm to species.
"As the ruling explained, that definition was supported by the ordinary meaning of 'harm,' the purpose of the Endangered Species Act and multiple indications of congressional intent," the Center said in a statement Tuesday.
But the administration now says that long-held understanding of the law enacted by Congress is incorrect.
”They're going back to the statute, pointing to the definition of take in the statute and saying, ‘It means to kill, it means to harm, it means to capture, it means to harass. Those are sufficient. We don't need to extrapolate upon that to include harm to habitat that could result in a loss of reproduction, a loss of shelter, a loss of food,’” Muiur said. “But obviously we all know, what do we need to live? Shelter, food, water, air.”
Loss of habitat has been the primary driver in species’ extinctions, according to the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.
“Although extinctions occur naturally, scientific evidence strongly indicates that the current rate of extinction is much higher than the natural or background rate of the past. The main force driving this higher rate of loss is habitat loss,” the Service said in a report listing the benefits to saving species, from keeping crops healthy to acting as alarms for dangerous pollution.
The change is the latest in a series of decisions by the administration and courts to weaken environmental protections, including a March decision when the so-called “God squad” committee, which includes cabinet members, exempted drilling activities in the Gulf of Mexico from Endangered Species Act rules.
“ The administration has set a goal to go after foundational environmental statutes that we all rely on for clean water, a healthy environment, and to protect our endangered species,” Muir said.
Since the act was passed in 1973, the longest period of time has now elapsed without a species being added to the list. So far, the Trump administration has added 24 since 2017, fewer than any administration entering a second term. President Bill Clinton holds the two-term record for the number of species added and the most in a single term, adding 304 during his first term. President George H.W. Bush tied for second during his term in office, with 264 species added between 1990 and 1993, according to Wildlife Service records, followed by President Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan in their second terms.
What makes this change so damaging, Muir said, is it impedes the ultimate goal of the act.
”The goal of the statute really is we want to see the species recover and thrive. It's not until they've recovered that they can be delisted,” she said. “And without habitat protections, delisting is going to be a really challenging goal to meet for any species that’s listed.”
