HR-9299-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Hillary Scholten (D-MI)
What it does
This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Geological Survey, to establish a grant program funding the use of environmental DNA (eDNA) — genetic material collected from water or sediment samples — in sport fish surveys. Eligible recipients would include state, local, and tribal governments, universities, and nonprofit organizations. The bill would authorize $4 million per year from fiscal years 2027 through 2033 (totaling $28 million), with grants used to expand survey coverage, improve population estimates, detect invasive species, and monitor endangered fish species.
Who benefits
Recreational anglers and the sport fishing industry, who would benefit from more accurate fish population data and better-managed fisheries. State and tribal fish and wildlife agencies, which would gain access to modern survey tools and federal funding. Universities and research institutions that would receive grants to develop eDNA methodology. Boating and outdoor recreation businesses that depend on healthy fisheries. Communities in rural or remote areas where traditional fish surveys are infrequent, and which would gain expanded monitoring coverage. Conservation organizations focused on endangered freshwater fish species.
Who is hurt
Contractors and firms that currently provide traditional fish survey services (e.g., electrofishing, netting) may see reduced demand if eDNA methods displace conventional approaches. Taxpayers bear the cost of the $28 million authorization. Entities that do not qualify as eligible recipients — such as private companies — are excluded from grant competition. States or tribes that lack the technical capacity to implement eDNA programs may be at a disadvantage in competing for grants relative to well-resourced universities or larger agencies.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that eDNA technology offers a faster, less invasive, and more cost-effective method of detecting fish species than traditional netting or electrofishing, and that it can reach remote or under-surveyed waters where conventional surveys are impractical. They contend that better population data directly improves fisheries management decisions — such as setting catch limits — which protects both fish stocks and the $49 billion recreational fishing industry. They also argue the program's collaborative structure, which prioritizes applicants working across agencies, maximizes the return on a modest federal investment.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that eDNA technology, while promising, remains scientifically immature for large-scale fisheries management — studies have shown that eDNA signals can degrade rapidly, vary with water temperature and flow, and may not reliably distinguish between live populations and shed genetic material from deceased fish. They contend that $28 million in federal spending duplicates research already underway at state agencies and universities with existing funding streams, and that the bill lacks performance benchmarks or accountability mechanisms strong enough to ensure grants produce actionable management data rather than academic research with limited practical application.
Constitutional context
The bill rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which has long supported federal fisheries management legislation. The grant program is a straightforward exercise of the spending power, and no major questions doctrine concerns arise because the bill explicitly authorizes the program and its scope is narrow and well-defined — distinguishing it from the broad agency action at issue in West Virginia v. EPA (2022).
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Secretary of the Interior via USGS) gains administrative authority to design and award grants; Congress retains control through the annual appropriations process, as the $4 million per year is authorized but not automatically appropriated.
Historical precedent
The Sport Fish Restoration Program, established under the Dingell-Johnson Act of 1950 and administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has long provided federal funding to states for sport fish research and management, representing a direct precedent for federally funded fisheries science grants.