States gain voice in endangered species decisions — but at what cost?

What it does

This bill amends the Endangered Species Act to require the federal government to accept and integrate state-collected data when deciding whether to list or delist species as threatened or endangered. It does not mandate that states collect data or that federal decisions follow state recommendations, only that state data be considered and incorporated into the federal listing process.

Why we flagged it

The bill is a narrow procedural change to the Endangered Species Act's listing process, requiring federal consideration of state-collected data without substantively altering the Secretary's authority or the criteria for listing decisions. It is neither deregulation nor a conservation expansion, but a shift in information sources.

What the text implies

• If 'integrate' is interpreted loosely, states with economic interests in resource extraction (logging, mining, agriculture) could submit data designed to argue against listing, and the Secretary would be required to formally incorporate it, potentially slowing or blocking protections.
• The bill does not define what 'State-collected data' means — it could include peer-reviewed science, anecdotal reports, or industry-funded studies, creating ambiguity about data quality standards.
• States that lack capacity or funding for rigorous species monitoring may submit incomplete or biased data, disadvantaging species in those states relative to those in well-resourced states.
• The requirement to 'accept and integrate' may create procedural grounds for litigation if a state claims its data was not adequately considered, potentially delaying listings and creating new administrative burden.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Citizens gain potential benefit if state data improves listing accuracy and prevents over- or under-protection of species; however, the bill creates risk if state data (often influenced by local economic interests) dilutes federal conservation standards or delays protections for species in states hostile to ESA enforcement. The outcome depends entirely on how 'integrate' is interpreted and whether states provide rigorous or self-interested data.

Who stands to gain

• industries dependent on land use in species habitat (agriculture, timber, mining, energy)
• state wildlife agencies (if they gain influence over federal decisions)

Named in the bill

U.S. Department of Interior (Secretary), State wildlife agencies, Endangered Species Act of 1973

Where it stands

8 cosponsors: 8 Republicans.

• Mar 19, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Mar 19, 2026 — Referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $0 in lobbying spend. A filing names 34 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Cynthia Lummis, the sponsor, reported $550,692 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council — $0 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 7, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.