Technical corrections only. The two versions of H.R. 2293 are substantively identical, with changes limited to the legislative status information indicating the bill's progression from being engrossed in the House to being referred in the Senate. No policy changes were made between v3 and v4.
Cormorant Relief Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 10, 2025
Bottom line
This bill permanently reauthorizes and expands a federal order allowing the lethal control of double-crested cormorants to protect aquaculture facilities, now including private lake and pond managers across a wider range of states, while requiring periodic renewals and adherence to existing environmental laws.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a specific depredation order for double-crested cormorants, originally found in 50 CFR 21.47 (as of Jan 1, 2016). This reissued order expands its geographic scope to include several new states and territories, extends its applicability to private lake and pond managers, and removes its previous expiration date, making it permanent subject to 5-year renewals. It also requires the order to incorporate modern terminology, simplify compliance provisions, and modernize recordkeeping.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that double-crested cormorants pose a significant threat to aquaculture operations and private fisheries, causing substantial economic losses by preying on farmed fish. They contend that the previous depredation order was effective but its expiration created regulatory uncertainty and left producers vulnerable. Reissuing and expanding the order provides necessary tools for wildlife management, protecting livelihoods and ensuring food security, while the renewal requirement ensures ongoing review.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that expanding lethal control measures for cormorants could negatively impact local ecosystems and bird populations, especially if not carefully managed. They might contend that non-lethal deterrents should be prioritized, and that a permanent order removes necessary oversight and environmental review. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for over-culling and the broader ecological implications of widespread cormorant removal.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2(a)
Mandate to Reissue Original Depredation Order
This provision requires the Secretary of the Interior to re-establish the depredation order for double-crested cormorants that was previously codified in 50 CFR 21.47, as it existed on January 1, 2016. This means the federal government must bring back the specific rules allowing the taking of cormorants to protect aquaculture facilities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this reissuance is crucial to restore a proven management tool that lapsed, providing immediate relief and regulatory clarity to aquaculture operators.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that simply reissuing an old order without a thorough contemporary review of its environmental impacts is irresponsible and could lead to unintended ecological consequences.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for immediate regulatory action to protect aquaculture with the need for updated environmental assessment.
Section 2(b)(1)(A)
Expansion of Geographic Applicability
The reissued depredation order will now explicitly apply to an additional twelve states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It also allows the Secretary to include any other state or U.S. territory deemed appropriate, significantly broadening the areas where cormorant control is permitted.
Section 2(b)(1)(B) and 2(e)(1), 2(e)(3)
Inclusion of Private Lake and Pond Managers
The reissued order extends the authority to take cormorants to "lake managers" and "pond managers," defined as persons licensed by a State regulatory agency to manage private lakes or ponds. This broadens the scope of eligible entities beyond traditional aquaculture facilities, allowing them to implement cormorant control measures.
Section 2(b)(5) and 2(c)
Permanent Authorization with Periodic Renewal
The bill removes the previous June 30, 2014, expiration date from the original depredation order, effectively making it permanent. However, it also mandates that the Secretary must renew the reissued order at least once every five years, ensuring ongoing, albeit less frequent, review.
This section explicitly states that nothing in the Act should be construed to waive the Secretary's obligation to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to clarify that new legislation does not implicitly override existing foundational environmental laws, rather than an attempt to hide it.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clause ensures that environmental protections remain in place, requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct appropriate environmental reviews (e.g., Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements under NEPA) before reissuing and renewing the depredation order, and to ensure actions comply with migratory bird protections.
Case against: Opponents might argue that while the clause is present, the bill's mandate to "reissue the original depredation order" might be interpreted by some as limiting the scope of environmental review, potentially leading to legal challenges over the adequacy of such reviews.
Estimated impact: Ensures continued adherence to major environmental statutes, potentially influencing the specific terms or conditions of the reissued depredation order.