- Targeted stakeholdersPreserves existing water operations by avoiding ESA-driven restrictions on diversions and dam operations.
- Targeted stakeholdersReduces immediate compliance costs for water agencies, farmers, and infrastructure projects.
- Targeted stakeholdersProtects jobs tied to water delivery, agriculture, and related construction by preventing new constraints.
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".
Received in the Senate.
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule that listed the San Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population segment of the longfin smelt as an endangered species (89 Fed.
Reg. 61029, July 30, 2024).
The text states the rule "shall have no force or effect." The House passed the resolution on May 1, 2025, and it was received in the Senate.
Narrow, administratively simple measure increases prospects, but Senate politics and possible executive veto reduce overall chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, functional disapproval resolution that identifies the targeted rule, invokes the applicable statutory vehicle, and states the operative effect (nullification). It follows the expected form for a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution.
Protection of imperiled species versus limiting federal regulatory burden
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
- Federal agenciesEliminates federal endangered status, likely slowing recovery and increasing extinction risk for the population.
- Federal agenciesReduces federal funding and coordinated conservation actions for habitat restoration and monitoring.
- Targeted stakeholdersUndermines scientific listing determinations, potentially weakening future Endangered Species Act implementation.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Protection of imperiled species versus limiting federal regulatory burden
Likely strongly opposed to the resolution because it overturns an ESA listing based on federal scientific findings.
They would view the disapproval as undermining species protections and the Endangered Species Act's enforcement.
Mixed reaction: respects scientific process but worries about economic and water-management impacts.
Prefers targeted mitigation, added resources, or phased implementation over outright nullification.
Likely supportive of the resolution as a check on federal overreach and to avoid new restrictions on agriculture, water supply, and infrastructure.
Sees disapproval as protecting jobs and local control.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administratively simple measure increases prospects, but Senate politics and possible executive veto reduce overall chances.
- Executive branch position on disapproval
- Senate majority willingness to consider and vote
Recent votes on the bill.
Passed
On Passage
Go deeper than the headline read.
Protection of imperiled species versus limiting federal regulatory burden
Narrow, administratively simple measure increases prospects, but Senate politics and possible executive veto reduce overall chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, functional disapproval resolution that identifies the targeted rule, invokes the applicable statutory vehicle, and states the operative effect (nullific…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.