Jonah Chester covers flooding, sea level rise and climate change for the Post and Courier's Rising Waters Lab.
The fate of dozens of endangered species across South Carolina, from the mountains to the sea, might soon be in the hands of Congress.
In a hearing late last month, Republican members of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources outlined a proposed plan to bring both the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act under tighter legislative control. Environmental groups worry the move could be a first step towards rolling back protections for America's most vulnerable species.
Nearly 60 species in South Carolina, including part-time migratory and full-time residents, are protected under the Endangered Species Act, according to the S.C. Department of Natural Resources.
The laws were both authorized by Congress and administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Those agencies are facing layoffs, budget cuts and an uncertain future under the administration of President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year overturning the Chevron deference doctrine -- which formed the foundation for many federal environmental rules -- put the executive branch agencies' regulatory authority into question.
"The Supreme Court's decision ... highlights the responsibility this committee has to address the ambiguity of our current laws by clarifying the limits of their authorities," said Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., the Natural Resource Committee's chair. There are no South Carolina delegates on the committee.
The committee proposed policies that would delegate more endangered species management authority to states, protect private landowners from "punitive" critical habitat designations when they're "voluntarily investing in species conservation," and bar courts from reviewing any species delisting decision for at least five years after the decision.
Congressional Republicans and others at the hearing argued that elected representatives, instead of unelected agency officials, should make the calls on future environmental decisions. They contend both the MMPA and ESA are anti-business, have expanded far beyond their original goals as dictated by Congress, and were driven by political ideology under the Biden administration.
"These two laws are designed to recover listed species and protect marine mammals," Westerman said. "They were not intended to be blunt instruments weaponized against land-owners, the energy sector, the recreational and commercial fishing industries and infrastructure projects."
Environmental groups contend the laws should be overseen by the trained scientist and researchers of the federal agencies -- not politicians without a scientific background, and more of an interest in business-friendly policies over conservation.
"This is about so much more than saving faraway, elusive species -- or seeing less birds at your backyard feeder," Ramona McGee, the Law Center's Wildlife Program Leader, wrote in a statement. "Animals, plants and their habitat help protect our clean water, clean air and our food supply. Allowing species to languish and suffer for the sake of development or extractive industries will make our country less safe for people as well."
Backlogs in the Endangered Species Act listing process have bedeviled many presidential administrations and Fish and Wildlife directors. The waitlist for listing decisions is nearly as old as the act itself, and has swelled to encompass hundreds of species. That includes about 40 across South Carolina, according to a list provided by the Center for Biological Diversity. Some of those Palmetto State species have been under review by the agency since the 1980s.
McGee wrote that the program still is one of the best tools for saving wildlife from annihilation. Some of its notable accomplishments have included the recovery of the American alligator and the bald eagle.
"The types of rollbacks contemplated during (the) committee hearing would erase the hard work of wildlife managers who honorably protect our public trust," she said. "Mass firings of public servants who work with applicants to design and issue permits to protect imperiled species is the real threat to permitting hurdles, not the ESA."
Right whales
For the North Atlantic right whale, changes to either law could have far-reaching and potentially catastrophic impacts. South Carolina falls along the whales' East Coast migration path.
NOAA estimates that there are fewer than 400 right whales left in the world, and about 70 of them are estimated to be child-bearing females. Most years, fewer than 25 right whale calves are born -- well below the 50-per-year target necessary to recover the species. More than 20 percent of their population has died off since 2017, part of what NOAA calls an "Unusual Mortality Event."
The species has been considered endangered by the federal government since 1970, predating the modern Endangered Species Act's passage by President Richard Nixon in 1973. And the Marine Mammal Protection Act grants them additional protections from hunting, harassing and killing, among other safeguards. The MMPA's protections also extend to species that aren't endangered, like bottlenose dolphins -- a critical and iconic mammal in the Lowcountry's aquatic ecosystem.
Some Republicans contend that the MMPA hinders offshore industries with unnecessarily burdensome regulations.
"While my home state of Wyoming is not directly impacted by the MMPA, this law impacts industries that are important to all Americans, not just the coastal states," said Rep. Harriet Maxine Hageman, R-Wyo. "These include our fishing industries, ports, maritime transportation and offshore energy development."
While "well-intended," Hageman said that the MMPA has become "ambiguous" and "outdated" since its passage in 1972.
Gib Brogan, the fisheries campaign director at the non-profit advocacy group Oceana, countered that the MMPA is "narrowly crafted," and argued that it strikes a proper balance between the needs of humans and aquatic mammals. He said that any weakening of the MMPA or ESA could move the right whale, and other species, even closer to extinction.
"If we kill more than two (right whales) every three years, the species won't recover," he said. Even without overhauling the MMPA, Brogan is concerned that cuts to NOAA could hinder efforts to protect the critically endangered species.
"An underfunded, understaffed federal government is not going to be in a place to develop meaningful protections," he said. "Extinction is very much part of the conversation right now, and I'm afraid that the cuts to NOAA are only only going to accelerate that extinction."