Just One More Week
 
Industry Pulse Check Closes June 15. Learn more
 

ESA Resolution Defining Habitat Introduced in House and Senate

Environmental Issues
Published
Contact: Michael Mittelholzer
[email protected]
AVP, Environmental Policy
(202) 266-8660

In a move supported by NAHB, the House and Senate have introduced an identical Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that would retain the regulatory definition of habitat within the Endangered Species act (ESA). The ESA protects listed (i.e., endangered and threatened) species and their designated critical habitat from either manmade or naturally occurring threats. Surprisingly, since the ESA was established 50 years ago, the term “habitat” has never been defined.

Meanwhile the designation of critical habitat under the ESA by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), directly impacts NAHB members when their property is located within areas designated as critical habitat, and their activities require obtaining either a federal permit (e.g., federal wetland permit) or to receive any federal funding.

In December 2020, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling under Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. FWS, the Trump administration finalized a rule that defined the term “habitat” as “the abiotic and biotic setting that currently or periodically contains the resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life processes of a species.”

The Trump administration’s rule was in response to a FWS critical habitat designation in the state of Louisiana declaring more than 1,500 acres of private land as critical habitat for a species of frog that had not been found within the state for  50 years.

In overturning FWS’s critical habitat designation, the U.S. Supreme Court noted the lack of any regulatory definition for the term habitat under the ESA made it difficult for the court to assess the merits of FWS’s unoccupied critical habitat designation. By defining habitat, the 2020 rule provided some clarity and transparency to landowners as to when their property could be regulated under the ESA.

On June 24, 2022, the Biden administration rescinded the 2020 rule, eliminating the habitat definition, leaving regulated parties in the dark as to how federal regulators might conduct future critical habitat designations.

The action by Republicans in the House and Senate to use the CRA to introduce a resolution of disapproval over the Biden administration’s rescission of the habitat rule is intended to restore regulatory clarity for affected landowners.

“There is an important distinction between ‘habitat’ and ‘critical habitat’ for an endangered species,” said Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), the lead Senate sponsor of the resolution. “By scrapping the definition of habitat within the ESA, the Biden administration is causing chaos and confusion among private property owners throughout Wyoming and the west. Two-thirds of all endangered species are located on private lands, so private property owners need to be partners in species recovery, not the enemy.”

A critical habitat designation has major impacts on landowners and developers, as it reduces the value of any private property within a designation because prospective landowners recognize the burdens that accompany a designation. It also greatly impacts any land with a federal nexus through permits or funding, as a critical habitat triggers significant scrutiny, resulting in burdensome limitations on land use and costly mitigation requirements that can delay housing projects and increase construction costs.

Other senators who cosponsored the CRA include John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) cosponsored the CRA.

Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.) introduced a companion CRA in the House alongside Reps. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.), Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.), Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), David Valadao (R-Calif.) and Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.).

Subscribe to NAHBNow

Log in or create account to subscribe to notifications of new posts.

Log in to subscribe

Latest from NAHBNow

Codes and Standards

Jun 09, 2026

Connecticut Moves Toward 6-Year Building Code Cycle in Possible Trend

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont has signed into law a bill that lays the groundwork to expand the state’s building code adoption cycle to every six years rather than the current three years.

Economics

Jun 09, 2026

Regulatory Costs Jump 40% in Five Years, Add $131,734 to New Home Prices

A new study by NAHB finds that regulations at the federal, state and local levels add $131,734 to the cost of a new single-family home—26.4% of the average sales price of $499,500 as of January 2026.

View all

Latest Economic News

Economics

Jun 10, 2026

Inflation Surpassed 4% in May

Inflation accelerated to a new three-year high in May, driven by continued increases in energy costs from the Iran war. Energy costs drove more than 60% of the monthly increase, with national gasoline prices jumping more than a dollar since the war began.

Economics

Jun 10, 2026

Home Building Regulatory Cost Burdens Increased 40% from 2021 to 2026

A new NAHB study shows that, on average, regulations imposed by government at all levels account for $131,734, or 26.4%, of the final price of a new single-family home built for sale. Of this amount, $46,795 is due to a higher price for the finished lot, attributable to regulations imposed during the lot’s development.

Economics

Jun 09, 2026

Existing Home Sales Increased in May

Existing home sales rose to a five-month high in May as more first-time buyers stepped back into the market. The share of first-time buyer reached 35% in May, the highest since June 2020. However, sales remained weak compared to historical norms, with still-tight inventory continued to push up home prices.