Cosmetic changes only. The second version reflects the bill's passage in the House of Representatives, removing introductory information and adding an attestation. No substantive policy changes were made to the resolution itself.
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt".
- Sponsor
- Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 5, 2025
Bottom line
H.J. Res. 78 is a Congressional Review Act resolution that would overturn a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule listing the Longfin Smelt as an endangered species, thereby removing federal protections for the fish.
What it actually does
This joint resolution utilizes the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a final rule issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on July 30, 2024. The rule in question designated the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt as an endangered species. If enacted, H.J. Res. 78 would prevent the Longfin Smelt from receiving federal protections under the Endangered Species Act, effectively reversing the USFWS's determination.
Proponents argue
Proponents of this resolution argue that the USFWS rule imposes undue regulatory burdens on vital economic activities within the San Francisco Bay-Delta region, including critical water management for agriculture and urban consumption, as well as essential infrastructure projects. They contend that the scientific basis for the species listing may be flawed or that the economic costs associated with protecting the Longfin Smelt disproportionately outweigh the environmental benefits, hindering economic growth and water reliability.
Opponents contend
Opponents of this resolution, who support the USFWS rule, assert that the Longfin Smelt is a critically imperiled species facing severe threats to its survival from habitat degradation, water diversions, and climate change. They argue that federal protection under the Endangered Species Act is indispensable for the species' recovery and for maintaining the ecological integrity of the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem, emphasizing the broader importance of biodiversity and long-term environmental health.
The bill text is extremely short and can be read in under a minute, but understanding its implications requires knowledge of the underlying USFWS rule and the Congressional Review Act.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives...
Disapproval of USFWS Longfin Smelt Endangered Species Rule
This provision explicitly states that Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the endangered species status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt. By doing so, it declares that the specified rule, published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2024, will have no legal force or effect, effectively preventing the species from being listed as endangered and removing any associated federal protections.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that nullifying this rule will alleviate burdensome regulations on water management and economic development in the Bay-Delta region, allowing for greater flexibility in water allocation for agriculture and urban needs without perceived disproportionate environmental costs. They believe the economic benefits outweigh the conservation concerns.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this disapproval undermines the scientific process of the Endangered Species Act and removes crucial protections for a vulnerable species, potentially accelerating its decline and harming the overall ecological health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. They emphasize the importance of federal oversight for species recovery.
Tradeoffs
The resolution highlights the inherent tension between environmental protection, specifically species conservation under federal law, and economic interests, particularly water resource management and development in a critical agricultural and urban region. It forces a choice between regulatory flexibility and ecological preservation.
The resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows Congress to disapprove a federal agency rule within a specific timeframe. If a CRA resolution of disapproval is enacted, the rule has no force or effect, and the agency is prohibited from reissuing a 'substantially similar rule' in the future without specific statutory authorization.
under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for referencing statutory authority, not an attempt to conceal the provision's effect. However, the full implications of the CRA are often not immediately apparent without legal expertise.
Case for: Proponents of using the CRA argue it is a vital tool for congressional oversight, allowing elected representatives to check perceived overreach by unelected bureaucrats and ensure regulations align with legislative intent and public accountability. It provides a mechanism to reverse costly or ineffective rules.
Case against: Critics of CRA use argue that it can undermine science-based policymaking by allowing political considerations to overturn expert agency decisions. Furthermore, the prohibition on reissuing a 'substantially similar rule' can create a chilling effect on future regulatory action, preventing agencies from adapting to new scientific information or changing conditions.
Estimated impact: Prevents the USFWS from reissuing a similar rule regarding the Longfin Smelt without further congressional action, effectively ending federal ESA protection for the species for the foreseeable future and limiting the agency's future regulatory options on this specific issue.