Restore Florida Water Independence Act of 2026

119th Congress Introduced by Gus Bilirakis and 7 co-sponsors

The bill ties an agency action’s ESA compliance to following a specific biological opinion, potentially eliminating separate ESA reviews when the opinion’s terms are met.

Introduced in House

Summary of HR 9017 (119th Congress)

Purpose and intent

HR 9017 seeks to provide that compliance with a specified biological opinion constitutes compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements for a particular agency action. In other words, if an agency action adheres to the terms of a defined biological opinion, that action would be considered in compliance with the ESA for the purposes of that action.

Key provisions and changes

Establishes a link between a biological opinion and ESA compliance:

When an agency follows the recommendations and determinations laid out in a certain biological opinion, that adherence would be treated as meeting the ESA’s substantive requirements for the related agency action.

Aims to streamline or clarify process by potentially reducing the need for separate ESA compliance review where a compliant biological opinion already covers ESA obligations for the action in question.

The bill’s text would specify the scope, the particular agency action(s) involved, and the precise biological opinion referenced (the bill as introduced would need to be consulted for the exact naming and scope).

Who or what would be affected

Federal agencies undertaking the specified agency action linked to the biological opinion (likely actions tied to environmental or resource management, given the ESA context).

Stakeholders include:

Federal agencies responsible for endangered species protections and habitat management
Entities subject to agency actions (e.g., permittees, project developers, or other regulated parties) who rely on ESA and wildlife conservation compliance
Conservation groups and other stakeholders interested in ESA implementation and biological opinions

Procedural and timeline aspects

Introduced in the House and referred on May 22, 2026, to:

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on Natural Resources for consideration of provisions within their jurisdiction

The date indicates initial stage in the legislative process; as with many bills, subsequent steps would include committee hearings, potential amendments, and floor consideration in the House, followed by movement through the Senate (if it advances).

Additional context

Co-sponsors include Mike Haridopolos, Vern Buchanan, Jared Moskowitz, Byron Donalds, and Brian Mast, signaling bipartisan interest in addressing how biological opinions interact with ESA compliance for agency actions.

The bill’s effectiveness and practical impact would depend on the specific biological opinion referenced, the exact agency action covered, and how courts interpret the interplay between a compliant biological opinion and ESA requirements.

If you’d like, I can pull the full text to extract precise language, identify the exact biological opinion and agency actions covered, and note any sunset provisions, funding implications, or reporting requirements.