S-5514-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-TX)
What it does
The bill would require the Secretary of the Interior, working with the four regional flyway councils, to issue regulations within 1 year for regional frameworks to manage double-crested cormorants. Each framework would have to keep take at a biologically sustainable level, list allowed methods and time periods, require public annual reporting, and require non-lethal measures. The frameworks would name who may carry out take, which must include licensed lake and pond managers and may include state and tribal wildlife agencies. The bill would also require a report on cormorant hunting licenses within 90 days, population surveys and framework updates every 5 years, and recommendations for National Wildlife Refuge units. The Act would end on January 1, 2034.
Who benefits
Fish farms, private lake and pond owners, and licensed lake and pond managers, who would be named as entities that may conduct take. Anglers and fishery managers in areas with documented cormorant conflicts. State and tribal wildlife agencies that would gain a framework for management actions. Other migratory birds, sensitive vegetation, and listed species that the frameworks must consider where cormorants are documented to harm them. Researchers and the public, who would get annual take reporting and regular population surveys.
Who is hurt
Double-crested cormorants, whose lethal take could expand in authorized settings. Non-target birds and species that could be harmed by take activities, despite required avoidance measures. Wildlife advocates and bird-watchers who oppose lethal control. The Fish and Wildlife Service, which would face a 1-year rulemaking deadline and recurring survey and update duties, and flyway councils that would bear coordination work. The bill states no funding level, so costs would fall on existing agency budgets. Refuge managers who would need to consider cormorant recommendations alongside other refuge purposes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that cormorants can damage fisheries, aquaculture, vegetation, and other nesting birds, and that current permit processes are fragmented and slow. They contend that regional frameworks built on population surveys, sustainability limits, public reporting, and required non-lethal measures would give managers a consistent and science-based tool. They also point to the 2034 sunset as a built-in check that lets Congress review results.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that cormorants are federally protected migratory birds and that broader authorized take, including by private lake and pond managers, risks harm to the species and to look-alike non-target birds. They contend that documented conflicts are often local, that non-lethal methods may be underused, and that the bill sets deadlines and survey duties without funding. They also argue that lethal control has a mixed record at reducing fishery impacts.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority rests on the Treaty Power and Necessary and Proper Clause, as upheld for migratory bird protection in Missouri v. Holland (1920), alongside the Commerce Clause. The bill directs rulemaking under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, so courts would review the resulting regulations independently after Loper Bright (2024).
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service) gains defined rulemaking duties, while Congress retains oversight through the required report and the 2034 sunset, and courts could review the regulations.
Historical precedent
The Fish and Wildlife Service has issued prior cormorant depredation orders and a public resource depredation order, which were vacated by a federal court in 2016, and has managed take through permits since.