The US Supreme Court issued rulings in two cases last week, drastically limiting the ability of federal agencies to rely on agency expertise when developing regulations.  The Supreme Court’s decision could effectively neuter federal agencies, putting decisions on natural resources management and conservation in the hands of politicians informed by the wishes of powerful lobbies and constituencies.

What does this have to do with conservation?  With fisheries? For starters, many anadromous and saltwater sportfish are managed through interjurisdictional fisheries boards- everything from salmon to stripers.  In fact, it was a spat between commercial fishermen and the National Marine Fisheries Service that kicked off one of the cases in question.  Fisheries managers monitor stocks and environmental conditions, setting science-based limits designed to maintain sustainable fisheries and avert the sort of collapses which have been common- and from which many species are still recovering.  The Court’s overturning of Chevron deference leaves many questions of how those data would be interpreted and applied in the future. 

This decision follows on the heels of last year’s Sackett decision, which drastically reduced the regulatory authority of federal agencies when it comes to streams and wetlands.  Emerging contaminants such as PFAS and 6PPD-Q are causing significant damage to aquatic systems- the risk these contaminants pose, and the science to back it up, are developing faster than the pace of Congress.   The Court’s decision raises questions about whether this research would continue, or whether it would be valued in future rulemaking processes. 

Our nation’s greatest recreational resource is our public lands, and many of the decisions regarding how those lands are managed are made by forestry, grassland and range, fish, and wildlife experts.  Sensitive ecological and cultural sites are protected after extensive review.   Everything from trails to roadless areas to designated wilderness are jeopardized through the Court’s recent decision. Moreover, the Court’s ruling is ambiguous regarding the role public comment and activism would play under this new regime. We celebrate the hard work done to protect places like Bristol Bay from Pebble Mine– whether such activism will have a place within future regulatory decisions is, now, an open question. 

But perhaps the most insidious impact would be the trickle-down effects to state legislatures. We’ve seen politicians jump at the opportunity to shake things up when this Court takes a stand, and it’s possible- if not likely- we’ll see state legislatures emboldened to attack environmental regulations, and the independence, professionalism, and expertise of state agencies tasked with conserving and managing fish and wildlife. 

Consider this your warning.  Be prepared to fight for the places you love.