Policy Corner: California Fights Back on Endangered Species Protections
California’s condors and sea otters are two of conservation’s great comeback stories – species that were once on the brink of extinction and have rebounded thanks in large part to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That 50-year-old law is now facing one of the most significant rollbacks in its history, and California is fighting back in court.
Last week, Attorney General Rob Bonta, joined by a coalition of 21 state attorneys general, filed two lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s recent changes to the ESA. At the center of the fight is a single but enormously consequential change: the administration rescinded the longstanding definition of “harm” under the Act – a definition that, since the early 1980s, has made it illegal to destroy or damage the places endangered species live, breed, and feed. Without it, habitat destruction itself may no longer count as illegal “harm” to a species, even though most biologists agree habitat loss is the single biggest threat facing endangered species today.
The changes don’t stop there. The administration is also making it easier for federal agencies to avoid designating “critical habitat” for at-risk species, and it has eliminated automatic protections for newly-listed threatened species – meaning wildlife officials must now write custom protection rules for each species one at a time. That’s a heavy lift for an agency that has reportedly lost more than a third of its staff, and which currently has 400 species waiting for a protection decision.
Why this matters here at home
California is home to more threatened and endangered species than any other state. It’s natural to assume the state’s own Endangered Species Act would fill any gap left by federal rollbacks – but legal experts point out that California’s law, as written, doesn’t clearly protect habitat at all. It primarily prohibits killing or injuring individual members of a listed species, not damaging the places they live. That means the very thing under threat federally – habitat protection – may not have a reliable backstop at the state level either.
What this means for our work
At Tuleyome, so much of what we do, protecting oak woodlands, wildlife corridors, and watershed habitat across our region – depends on the basic principle that a species' home matters as much as the species itself. A condor or a Clear Lake hitch can’t survive court-ordered protection from hunting alone if the habitat it depends on is quietly bulldozed, drilled, or logged out from under it. This lawsuit is about defending that basic principle at the federal level, and it’s a reminder of why local land protection and legislative advocacy matters now more than ever – because the safety net above us may have real holes in it.
RECENT ARTICLES




