A coalition of 21 State Attorneys General – co-led by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington – has filed two separate federal lawsuits challenging major revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) issued by federal agencies.

What’s Being Challenged

The lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NOAA Fisheries, contest three primary regulatory changes:

• Rescission of the “Harm” Definition: Reversing long-standing rules where “harm” explicitly included significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures protected species.
• Critical Habitat Exclusion Rules: Requiring regulators to weigh economic impacts and national security factors when designating critical habitats, allowing specific geographic areas to be excluded if economic costs outweigh conservation benefits.
• Repeal of “Blanket” 4(d) Protections: Removing automatic baseline protections for newly listed threatened species in favor of species-specific rules evaluated case by case.

The state coalition argues these rollbacks violate the ESA, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), asserting they weaken safeguards for vulnerable aquatic species and ecosystems.

Because trout operations rely directly on clean surface water flows, river diversions, and specific watershed protections, ESA administrative shifts directly impact farm operations:

• Regulatory & Permitting Uncertainty: Water discharge permits (NPDES), intake structure rules, and land-use requirements are frequently tied to federal ESA habitat classifications. Ongoing legal battles between state attorneys general and federal agencies create overlapping or conflicting compliance targets for growers operating across state lines.
• Watershed Coexistence: US trout producers often operate in shared river basins alongside wild salmonids, bull trout, and other native fish. Shifts in how critical habitat or threatened species designations are enforced can alter localized water allocation rights, federal loan approvals, and environmental review timelines.
• State vs. Federal Oversight: In states challenging the rollbacks, producers may see stricter state-level environmental enforcement fill any perceived gaps in federal oversight, highlighting the importance of staying tuned to state-level Department of Natural Resources updates.