SCOOP: The Interior Department is redefining "harm" in the Endangered Species Act; Rep. Celeste Maloy explains why this matters

The Supreme Court’s landmark Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision that overturned decades of Chevron deference is coming to the Department of Interior.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a little-noticed proposed rulemaking that would “rescind the regulatory definition of ‘harm’ under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).”

97 percent of species added to the endangered species list stay there. The Interior Department’s goal in redefining “harm” aims to increase the flexibility and transparency of the law.

Some of Congress’s top experts on natural resources told the Washington Reporter that the move, spearheaded by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, is long overdue.

“I’m impressed to see the agencies taking a serious and responsible approach to bringing their regulations in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright,” Rep. Celeste Maloy (R., Utah), who serves on the House Committee on Natural Resources, told the Reporter.

“This proposed rule aims to align the definition with the plain text of the ESA, as informed by historical and legal interpretations of ‘take’ as an affirmative act directly affecting wildlife,” the Interior Department said.

Under Burgum’s stewardship, FWS “propose[s] that the statutory definition of ‘take’ — encompassing actions like harass, pursue, hunt, or kill — is sufficient without further elaboration of ‘harm’ by regulation,” per his department.

While these moves will not affect existing permits, Maloy said that she’s ready to see more. “I hope to see more of this in the next few months and years,” she added.