There’s news today about a case in which the Supreme Court had to answer this question: what did Congress mean by the term “critical habitat” in the Endangered Species Act?
The court answered the question: “critical habitat” does not include land where the endangered species in question could not currently live. If it’s an area where the species couldn’t live, then it’s not that species’ habitat. All of the justices agreed.
Seems like a common-sense answer to me.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.