The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the ‘‘original depredation order’’ for double‑crested cormorants (the order published at 50 C.F.R. §21.47 as of January 1, 2016) and requires that the reissued order be identical to that original order except for two specified expansions. First, the reissued order must apply to an additional set of States—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—on par with the States covered by the original order.
Second, the order must also apply to ‘‘lake managers’’ and ‘‘pond managers’’ who are licensed by State regulatory agencies.
If enacted, the measure restores a prior federal take authorization for aquaculture operators and expressly broadens who may lawfully control double‑crested cormorants at private ponds and lakes. That change matters operationally (who can remove birds and where), administratively (it forces the Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue a past regulatory posture within a fixed deadline), and legally (it narrows discretion around regulatory updates and raises questions about environmental review and monitoring).
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue, within one year, the depredation order for double‑crested cormorants that appeared at 50 C.F.R. §21.47 as of January 1, 2016. The reissued order must be the same as that earlier order except it must extend the order’s geographic reach to 12 named States and extend covered actors to State‑licensed lake and pond managers.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include aquaculture operators and private pond or lake managers who hold state licenses; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (which must reissue and administer the order); and State wildlife or regulatory agencies that license lake/pond managers. Indirectly affected stakeholders include commercial and recreational fisheries, suppliers of deterrence and removal services, and conservation organizations tracking migratory‑bird protections.
Why It Matters
The statute would restore a prior federal authorization for depredation control and lock in its text while expanding the set of jurisdictions and private actors that can use it. That alters who may lawfully conduct lethal or non‑lethal control at aquaculture sites and private waters, reduces agency discretion over the order’s content, and raises practical questions about implementation, oversight, and conservation trade‑offs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill centers on one administrative action: reissuing an earlier federal depredation order governing ‘‘takings’’ of double‑crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities. That original order (identified in the bill by citation and date) authorized certain control measures against cormorants to reduce losses at aquaculture operations.
This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to put that exact regulatory text back into effect, but to do so with two explicit expansions.
First, the bill adds twelve specific States to the list of places where the order applies. Those States are listed by name in the statute; the reissued order must treat them the same way the original order treated the States it already covered.
Second, the bill adds two new categories of covered actors—‘‘lake managers’’ and ‘‘pond managers’’—and defines both as persons licensed by a State regulatory agency to manage private lakes or ponds. In short, the measure widens both the spatial footprint and the roster of entities that may rely on the depredation order.Practically, the measure forces a short, one‑year timetable for completing the reissuance and constrains the text of the reissued regulation to the earlier version except for the listed expansions.
The language does not create new substantive conditions, monitoring requirements, funding, or reporting obligations beyond what already existed in the 2016 regulatory text; it simply reinstates that previous regulatory posture and extends its legal applicability. That approach transfers responsibility for operational implementation—permitting, reporting, and on‑the‑ground enforcement—to the Fish and Wildlife Service and to State licensing authorities without adding new resources or procedural guardrails in the statute.Because the bill prescribes the content of the reissued order, it reduces agency discretion to update regulatory language in light of new science or changed circumstances.
It also leaves several practical questions open: how State license regimes will interlock with federal authorization, whether and how the Service will apply contemporary environmental review standards, and how impacts on cormorant populations will be monitored and addressed going forward.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill compels the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the 50 C.F.R. §21.47 depredation order for double‑crested cormorants within one year of enactment.
The reissued order must be identical to the original 2016 text except that it must also apply to 12 additional States: CA, CO, CT, IL, IN, IA, MI, MO, NJ, OH, PA, and WI.
The statute extends the order’s coverage to ‘‘lake managers’’ and ‘‘pond managers,’’ defined as persons licensed by a State regulatory agency to manage private lakes or ponds.
The bill defines ‘‘original depredation order’’ by citation and date: the depredation order in section 21.47 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2016.
The statute fixes the content of the reissued regulation (no substantive changes allowed beyond the listed expansions) and does not provide new funding, monitoring mandates, or additional implementation guidance.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the bill’s name: ‘‘Cormorant Relief Act of 2025.’
Definitions
Establishes three key statutory terms: ‘‘lake manager’’ and ‘‘pond manager’’ (each defined as a person licensed by a State regulatory agency to manage a private lake or pond) and ‘‘original depredation order’’ (the text of 50 C.F.R. §21.47 as of Jan 1, 2016). It also defines ‘‘Secretary’’ to mean the Interior Secretary acting through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These definitions determine who may rely on the later reissued order and anchor the statutory citation the Service must restore.
Reissuance deadline
Requires the Secretary to reissue the original depredation order within one year of the Act’s enactment. The provision is mandatory (‘‘shall’’) and sets a firm administrative timeline rather than directing the Secretary to exercise discretionary rulemaking. That timeline compresses the Service’s procedural window for publishing and implementing the regulation.
Scope of the reissued order
Mandates that the reissued depredation order be the same as the original order except for two expansions: (1) it must apply in twelve additional States listed by name, and (2) it must apply to State‑licensed lake managers and pond managers in the same manner as the entities covered by the original order. The text binds the Service to a previously existing regulatory posture while extending its geographic and actor coverage.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Commercial aquaculture operators and fish farmers—gain clearer, broader federal authorization to control double‑crested cormorants across more States, reducing legal uncertainty about lethal or non‑lethal removals at aquaculture facilities.
- Licensed private lake and pond managers—newly able to rely on a federal depredation order (when they hold a State license) to take actions against cormorants on private waters used for aquaculture or fish production.
- State regulatory agencies that license pond/lake managers—receive a federal backstop that aligns with their licensing regimes and can enable coordinated control efforts without seeking separate federal authorizations.
- Vendors and contractors that provide wildlife control services and deterrence technologies—see an enlarged customer base and clearer legal footing for their activities in the newly covered States.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—must reissue and administer the order under a one‑year deadline without additional funding in the bill, and may face increased permitting, oversight, and enforcement workload.
- Double‑crested cormorant populations and conservation groups—face expanded removal activities across more States and private waters, raising conservation and biodiversity concerns that may prompt monitoring and litigation.
- State wildlife conservation programs and scientific agencies—may bear increased data‑collection, monitoring, and mitigation tasks if populations or ecosystems previously monitored under different frameworks see changed management pressure.
- Stakeholders pushing alternative, nonlethal conflict solutions—may face reduced leverage because the bill reinstates an older regulatory regime rather than requiring newer, non‑lethal best practices or funding for mitigation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill privileges immediate, expanded protection of aquaculture operations by restoring a prior federal depredation authorization, but it does so at the cost of agency discretion, updated science‑based safeguards, and clear implementation funding or procedural direction—forcing a trade‑off between property‑damage relief and adaptive wildlife conservation and regulatory process.
The statute prescribes a narrow administrative remedy—reissue the earlier depredation order and extend its reach—without addressing several implementation and legal issues. First, it fixes the text of the reissued regulation except for the listed expansions; that removes agency flexibility to update standards, reporting conditions, or mitigation measures to reflect new science or changed population status.
Second, the bill does not address whether the Service must complete contemporary procedural steps—such as formal notice‑and‑comment rulemaking, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, or consultation obligations—or how those processes interact with the one‑year deadline. That ambiguity creates litigation risk: affected parties may press challenges over whether Congress can effectively dictate regulatory content and timetable while leaving process questions unresolved.
Operationally, the definition of lake and pond managers hinges on State licensing regimes that vary widely in scope and stringency; the statute does not harmonize licensing standards or specify how State licenses will be recognized or verified. The bill also provides no funding or metrics for monitoring population impacts or for ensuring compliance at private waters.
Those omissions can produce patchwork outcomes on the ground—some States and managers may rapidly implement control measures, while others delay pending clarifications, and the Service may struggle to provide consistent oversight across an expanded geographic footprint.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.