Blog

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has joined a coalition of 21 state attorneys general – co-leading alongside Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts – in filing two federal lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

What Is Being Challenged?

The state lawsuits target recent federal administrative revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations, focusing on three primary areas:

1. Definition of “Harm”: Reversing prior definitions that included significant habitat degradation or impairment of essential behavioral patterns as unlawful “harm.”
2. Critical Habitat Exclusion: Allowing federal agencies greater discretion to exclude areas from “critical habitat” designations based on economic or national security considerations.
3. Protections for “Threatened” Species: Rolling back regulations that automatically extend baseline ESA protections to newly listed threatened species.

Key Implications for Industry & Fisheries

• NOAA Fisheries Oversight: Because NOAA Fisheries administers ESA regulations for marine and anadromous species (such as salmonids), changes to ESA definitions directly touch coastal and watershed operations.
• Permitting & Consultation: Revisions to critical habitat rules and incidental take definitions influence federal consultations, water use allocations, and environmental review timelines for both wild capture fisheries and aquaculture facilities.
• Legal Uncertainty: The legal challenge creates an extended period of regulatory review while federal courts determine whether the rule changes comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

For California fish farmers and shellfish growers operating near coastal waters or state river systems, ESA regulations play a central role in facility permitting, discharge monitoring, and water management. CAA will continue tracking this litigation to keep members informed on how federal regulatory shifts – and California’s legal responses – impact local farm compliance and operational planning.