Passed
216 Yea195 Nay22 Not voting1/2 required
HJRES-78-119
Received in the Senate.
Sponsored by Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rule published July 30, 2024, that listed the San Francisco Bay-Delta population of the Longfin Smelt as an endangered species. If enacted, the rule would have no legal force or effect, removing the federal endangered species protections that came with that listing. Under the CRA, a rule disapproved this way cannot be reissued in substantially the same form without new congressional authorization.
Who benefits
Water agencies and agricultural users in California's Central Valley who draw water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as endangered species protections for the smelt have historically been used to restrict water pumping operations. Large-scale farms and agribusinesses dependent on Delta water exports. Municipal water utilities serving Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley. Construction and development interests near the Bay-Delta whose projects may have faced additional environmental review. California state and local governments seeking greater flexibility over water management decisions.
Who is hurt
Environmental and conservation organizations that advocated for the listing. Commercial and recreational fishing industries that depend on a healthy Bay-Delta ecosystem, as the smelt is an indicator species for overall ecosystem health. Indigenous tribes with cultural and subsistence ties to the Bay-Delta. Scientists and researchers who rely on Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections to study and monitor the species. Future generations who may bear costs if the Longfin Smelt population declines further or goes extinct. Downstream communities whose water quality and ecosystem services depend on a functioning Delta.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the FWS listing imposes severe water delivery restrictions on millions of Californians and hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland, based on a regulatory determination that lacks sufficient scientific certainty. They contend that the smelt listing has been used to reduce water exports from the Delta by billions of gallons annually, threatening food production and water security for communities across California. They further argue that the CRA is the appropriate constitutional tool for Congress to reassert oversight over agency rulemaking that has sweeping economic consequences without clear statutory mandate.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the FWS listing was based on peer-reviewed scientific data showing the Bay-Delta Longfin Smelt population has declined dramatically, and that removing ESA protections eliminates the primary legal mechanism preventing the species' extinction. They contend that the Longfin Smelt serves as a keystone indicator of Delta ecosystem health, meaning its decline signals broader ecological degradation that would ultimately harm the fishing industry, water quality, and the very agricultural users the resolution aims to help. They further argue that using the CRA to block the rule permanently forecloses future agency action on substantially the same grounds, bypassing the normal scientific review process.
Constitutional context
The Endangered Species Act rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), upheld broadly under Wickard v. Filburn's aggregation principle. The Congressional Review Act itself is a straightforward exercise of Congress's Article I power to oversee and nullify agency rules. Post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts would independently review FWS's statutory interpretation underlying the listing rather than deferring to the agency, which is relevant context for why Congress may view CRA disapproval as an appropriate check on agency action.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to permanently nullify this FWS rule; the primary check is a presidential veto, and if enacted, the CRA bars FWS from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization, significantly limiting future executive branch action on this specific listing.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used the Congressional Review Act to nullify environmental agency rules, most notably in 2017 when it disapproved the Stream Protection Rule issued by the Office of Surface Mining, similarly blocking a natural resource protection regulation and barring its reissuance in substantially the same form.
Passed