Colorado Sues Federal Agencies Over New Wildlife Habitat Rules

Steamboat Springs —Will your property taxes go up, or will your back porch get quieter? That is the question on every Western Slope resident’s mind as Colorado joins a legal fight over federal wildlife rules.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser filed the suit alongside 21 other states, including Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Washington. The target is clear: two rule changes published in July by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Steamboat Pilot reported on the filings this week.

The changes do two specific things. First, they rescind the definition of “harm.” For decades, that word protected against the disruption or destruction of habitat used by endangered species. Second, they create a new process for designating “critical habitat,” removing the regulation that automatically afforded those protections to listed species.

Make no mistake, this hits close to home. Weiser’s release notes that Colorado is home to over 30 threatened and endangered species critical to stable ecosystems. The Steamboat Pilot highlights that these rules directly affect land use in our valleys and mountains.

The federal government claims the goal is to return the act to its original intent, reverse overreach, and promote efficiency. They argue that including habitat degradation in the definition of “harm” was government overregulation. The Fish and Wildlife Service says the original 1973 act only banned actions that directly hurt an animal, like shooting or trapping it.

Read that again. Directly hurt an animal. Not the place where it lives.

The lawsuits allege this interpretation is a stretch. Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 because human development was killing species off. The Fish and Wildlife Service adopted the broader definition of “harm” two years later, including habitat destruction. The Supreme Court upheld that interpretation in 1995. To reverse it now is to rewrite a settled legal standard, not restore an original one.

Weiser argues the changes put species and their habitats at risk. He says they undermine the comprehensive protections Congress mandated. The suits claim the new rules make it easier for private companies and individuals to modify or degrade habitats without facing legal hurdles.

For folks around here, that means development projects face fewer barriers if they touch land used by a listed species. The short version: it gets easier to build, and harder for wildlife to survive.

The new lawsuit filed in September argues that altering the definition reduces protections for habitat. It challenges the federal government’s move to strip away the automatic safeguards that have guided land management in Colorado for decades.

Weiser is not alone in this fight. Attorneys general from New York, Oregon, and Virginia are all on the complaint. This is a multi-state consensus that the federal agency overstepped its authority.

What isn’t being said is how this affects your daily life right now. The rules are already in effect. If you own land near a riparian buffer or a known habitat corridor, the legal shield that used to be there is thinner. The federal agency says this brings “clarity and predictability.” Developers will love that word.

The Steamboat Pilot notes the changes were published in July, but the legal battle is just beginning. The courts will decide if “harm” means a dead animal or a destroyed home. Until then, the definition is in flux.

Weiser’s office says these changes undermine Congress’ intent. The federal government says they restore it. One of them is wrong.

The lawsuit was filed in September. It seeks to reinstate the definition of “harm” and the automatic critical habitat protections. If the states win, the rules revert to their pre-July status. If they lose, the federal definition stands.

There is no middle ground here. You either protect the habitat, or you don’t. The federal government chose not to.

For now, the legal fight is in federal court. The outcome will shape how we manage land, water, and wildlife across the entire West for years to come.

Weiser’s release was blunt: The changes put threatened and endangered species at risk. He didn’t soften it with “could” or “might.” He said they put them at risk.

That is the hard fact. The rest is procedure.