Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill transfers all Endangered Species Act (ESA) responsibilities for anadromous and catadromous fish (migratory fish that move between fresh/estuarine and ocean waters) from the Secretary of Commerce / NOAA Fisheries to the Secretary of the Interior. It adds statutory definitions for those terms, allows reconsideration requests of NMFS final determinations made within three years before the transfer, preserves existing orders/permits/contracts, and makes conforming references and authority transfers so Interior may exercise the transferred ESA functions.
Progressives stress loss of NOAA Fisheries scientific expertise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory transfer of specific ESA functions from the Department of Commerce/NMFS to the Department of the Interior.
This bill transfers all Endangered Species Act (ESA) responsibilities for anadromous and catadromous fish (migratory fish that move between fresh/estuarine and ocean waters) from the Secretary of Commerce / NOAA Fisheries to the Secretary of the Interior.
It adds statutory definitions for those terms, allows reconsideration requests of NMFS final determinations made within three years before the transfer, preserves existing orders/permits/contracts, and makes conforming references and authority transfers so Interior may exercise the transferred ESA functions.
Technically narrow but touches sensitive resource-management turf; absent clear bipartisan coalition or appropriations path, prospects are limited.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory transfer of specific ESA functions from the Department of Commerce/NMFS to the Department of the Interior. It is strong on legal integration with the existing statute (targeted amendments, definitions, and comprehensive savings clauses) and specifies a limited administrative mechanism for reconsideration of recent NMFS determinations. It is weaker on implementation mechanics and resourcing.
Progressives stress loss of NOAA Fisheries scientific expertise.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress loss of NOAA Fisheries scientific expertise.
Likely skeptical.
Supporters of strong species protections may worry shifting NOAA Fisheries functions to Interior will weaken marine science-based conservation and invite politicization.
They would look for protections of scientific capacity, continuity of critical protections, and limits on reopening recent determinations.
Mixed/pragmatic.
The consolidation could reduce interagency overlap but raises concerns about implementation details, scientific capacity, costs, and legal uncertainty during transition.
Support depends on safeguards, funding, and a clear transition plan.
Generally favorable.
Views consolidation as sensible, reducing duplication and improving regulatory coherence between freshwater and land management.
Sees opportunity to streamline regulation and clarify agency roles while protecting industry and state coordination.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow but touches sensitive resource-management turf; absent clear bipartisan coalition or appropriations path, prospects are limited.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress loss of NOAA Fisheries scientific expertise.
Technically narrow but touches sensitive resource-management turf; absent clear bipartisan coalition or appropriations path, prospects are…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward statutory transfer of specific ESA functions from the Department of Commerce/NMFS to the Department of the Interior. It is strong on legal integr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.