Hat tip to Colorado Peak Politics for shedding light on a lawsuit filed late last month by 17 states, including Colorado, against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over a new agency policy enacted under the oft-debated Endangered Species Act.

In a post Tuesday, the conservative Colorado Peak Politics, which supports the states’ Nov. 29 suit (filed on behalf of Colorado by Attorney General Cynthia Coffman), summarizes the new federal policy thusly (with links to the court proceedings):

It’s all in the alleged name of endangered species to provide so-called critical habitat, but this time it’s on land where the critters don’t actually exist, and it extends to private property.

Here’s an example from the lawsuit of what these new rules do:

“The Services could declare desert land as critical habitat for a fish and then prevent the construction of a highway through those desert lands, under the theory that it would prevent the future formation of a stream that might one day support the species.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service responds that these are common-sense changes.

Each side inevitably will have its partisans in these face-offs over the extent of federal power to regulate wildlife, wetlands, public lands (in this case, evidently, even private lands) and the like. And, of course, this legal challenge is just getting underway, so there doubtless will be plenty of time for wide-ranging voices to weigh in.

What seems particularly noteworthy at this early stage of the litigation is how little news coverage we were able to track down on the issue. Even mighty Google wheezed and sputtered for us and was able to cough up only a few stray mainstream-media mentions, all muted and fairly brief.

Agree or disagree with the states’ attorneys general on this one, clearly, it was a big enough deal for them to have gotten involved in the first place, to say nothing of the fact they followed through with court action.

If there’s at least a semblance of a credible case here that, as Colorado Peak Politics put it, the new federal policy “is nothing short of declaring eminent domain,” you’d think there would be more interest. Especially given the perennial potential of issues like this to incite property-rights advocates and their political allies.

Don’t worry, we’re not suggesting a conspiracy, certainly not in this year of epic conspiracy mongering with which we couldn’t possibly compete. However, it’s just as hard to imagine there are so many multi-state lawsuits against the feds swirling around in any given year-launched, perhaps, by state AGs who have too much time on their hands-that the media have simply tired of the concept.