[House Report 119-285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-285
======================================================================
CORMORANT RELIEF ACT OF 2025
_______
September 15, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Westerman, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2293]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2293) to require the Secretary of the Interior
to reissue certain regulations relating to the taking of
double-crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Cormorant Relief Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. REGULATIONS RELATING TO TAKING OF DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANTS AT
AQUACULTURE FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall reissue the original depredation
order in accordance with subsection (b).
(b) Requirements.--The depredation order reissued under subsection
(a) shall be the same as the original depredation order, except that
the depredation order reissued under subsection (a) shall--
(1) apply to--
(A) each of the States of California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin
and any other State or territory of the United States
the Secretary determines appropriate in addition to and
in the same manner as each of the States to which the
original depredation order applied; and
(B) lake managers and pond managers in addition to
and in the same manner as each of the entities to which
the original depredation order applied;
(2) incorporate modern terminology;
(3) simplify the provisions contained in the original
depredation order related to compliance with other Federal law;
(4) modernize the recordkeeping requirements contained in the
original depredation order; and
(5) remove the June 30, 2014, expiration date contained in
the original depredation order.
(c) Renewal.--Not less than once every 5 years after the date on
which the Secretary reissues the original depredation order under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall renew the depredation order
reissued under subsection (a).
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to
waive the obligation of the Secretary to comply with the--
(1) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.); or
(2) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.).
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Lake manager.--The term ``lake manager'' means a person
that is licensed by a State regulatory agency to manage a
private lake.
(2) Original depredation order.--The term ``original
depredation order'' means the depredation order for double-
crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities contained in
section 21.47 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (as in
effect on January 1, 2016).
(3) Pond manager.--The term ``pond manager'' means a person
that is licensed by a State regulatory agency to manage a
private pond.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior, acting through the Director of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The purpose of H.R. 2293 is to require the Secretary of the
Interior to reissue certain regulations relating to the taking
of double-crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Double-crested cormorants (cormorants) are one of six
cormorant species that are native to North America, with their
largest concentration being in the Great Lakes region.
Cormorants were listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) in 1972, as the abundance of the species decreased
considerably due to the use of chemicals such as dichloro-
diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT).\1\ Today, however, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) estimates the population of
cormorants in the continental U.S. and Canada to be between
871,001 and 1,031,757 birds.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``Expanding Management of Conflicts Associated with Double-
crested Cormorants.'' Frequently Asked Questions. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/node/417891.
\2\``Expanding Management of Conflicts Associated with Double-
crested Cormorants.'' Frequently Asked Questions. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/node/417891.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cormorants' diet consists mostly of fish, eating on average
a pound of fish per day. According to the FWS, ``[t]hey are
opportunistic and generalist feeders, preying on many species
of fish by concentrating on those that are easiest to
catch.''\3\ This makes commercial aquaculture facilities
optimal feeding grounds for cormorants, causing significant
damage and economic harm to these facilities. According to a
2021 study, economic losses to fish farms from cormorants are
estimated to be $64.7 million per year, including the cost of
non-lethal management techniques, and the revenue lost from
cormorant depredation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Id.
\4\Engle CR, Christie TW, Dorr BS, et al. Principal economic
effects of cormorant predation on catfish farms. J World Aquacult. Soc.
2021;52:41-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, the FWS created an Aquaculture Depredation Order
(Aquaculture Order) under the authorities provided in the
MBTA.\5\ The Aquaculture Order allowed the Department of
Agriculture's Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS)
Wildlife Services to work with fish farmers to implement non-
lethal and lethal techniques to prevent cormorants from eating
fish in commercial aquaculture ponds. Fish farmers were
required to report the number of cormorants killed each year.
The intent of the Aquaculture Order was to reduce
administrative costs for the FWS and provide more timely relief
for fish farmers. The Aquaculture Order was renewed three
times, in 2003, 2009, and 2014 for five-year increments.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\50 CFR 21.47.
\6\79 FR 12458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, the FWS also issued a Public Resource Depredation
Order (Public Order), which was intended to reduce the risks to
public resources from cormorants through both lethal and non-
lethal means.\7\ The Public Order was renewed three times, in
2003, 2008, and 2014,\8\ with its 2014 renewal triggering a
lawsuit from the organization Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER) on the grounds that the
renewal violated the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).\9\ The Aquaculture Order was also challenged in PEER's
lawsuit. On May 25, 2016, Judge John D. Bates of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in PEER's
favor, concluding the FWS violated NEPA by reissuing the Public
Order without an adequate Environmental Assessment (EA). Judge
Bates also vacated the Aquaculture Order for not having an
adequate EA.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\50 CFR 21.48.
\8\79 FR 12458.
\9\Memorandum Opinion on Vacatur. Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, et al., v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, et al. 5/25/2016. 5_26_16_Cormorant_Court_Ruling_and_
Order.pdf.
\10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the removal of the Aquaculture and Public Orders, the
FWS created an individual permit system based on a Population
Take Limit (PTL) model. The PTL model is based upon nest counts
and currently allows an annual take of up to 121,504
cormorants.\11\ When the FWS issues a permit to take a
cormorant, it indicates the number of cormorants allowed to be
taken under that permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\``Expanding Management of Conflicts Associated with Double-
crested Cormorants.'' Frequently Asked Questions. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/node/417891.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2293, as amended, requires the FWS to reissue the
Aquaculture Order. The bill makes more states eligible and
allows lake and pond managers to utilize the Aquaculture Order.
An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) was
adopted at markup to make technical and clarifying changes to
the bill. These include allowing the FWS to make changes to the
Aquaculture Order, such as incorporating modern terminology,
simplifying provisions pertaining to compliance with other
federal laws, and modernizing recordkeeping requirements. The
ANS also requires the Aquaculture Order to be renewed every
five years and states the bill does not waive the FWS'
obligations under NEPA or the MBTA.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 2293 was introduced on March 24, 2025, by
Representative Mike Ezell (R-MS). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. On April 8,
2025, the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries held a
hearing on the bill. On July 15, 2025, the Committee on Natural
Resources met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Water,
Wildlife and Fisheries was discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 2293 by unanimous consent. Rep. Mike
Ezell (R-MS) offered an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
designated Ezell_033 ANS. The Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute was agreed to by unanimous consent. The bill, as
amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by unanimous consent.
HEARINGS
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII, the
following hearing was used to develop or consider this measure:
hearing by the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
held on April 8, 2025.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 establishes that this Act may be cited as the
``Cormorant Relief Act of 2025''.
Section 2. Regulations relating to taking of double-crested cormorants
at aquaculture facilities
Section 2 requires the FWS to reinstate the Aquaculture
Depredation Order for double-crested cormorants and adds
additional states to the order and includes definitions for
``Lake Manager'' and ``Pond Manager.'' In addition, this
section gives the FWS the ability to make changes to the
Aquaculture Order related to incorporating modern terminology,
simplifying provisions pertaining compliance with other federal
laws, modernizing recordkeeping requirements, and removal of
the original expiration date. The Aquaculture Order is required
to be renewed every 5 years and nothing in the bill waives the
FWS' obligations under NEPA and MBTA.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to
clause 3(c)(3) of House rule XIII and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested
but not received from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office a budgetary analysis and a cost estimate of this bill.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to require the Secretary of the
Interior to reissue certain regulations relating to the taking
of double-crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT
An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chair of
the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee, if such
estimate is not publicly available on the Congressional Budget
Office website.
EXISTING PROGRAMS
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
As ordered reported by the Committee on Natural Resources,
H.R. 2293 would make no changes in existing law.
[all]