Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
This bill ratifies and preserves as "full force and effect" certain State Clean Water Act Section 404 dredged-or-fill permitting programs (Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida). It prohibits the EPA Administrator from withdrawing approval of those state programs unless Congress enacts a law after this Act authorizing withdrawal.
Progressives emphasize lost EPA oversight; conservatives emphasize state authority.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statutory change with strong integration into existing statutory mechanisms.
This bill ratifies and preserves as "full force and effect" certain State Clean Water Act Section 404 dredged-or-fill permitting programs (Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida).
It prohibits the EPA Administrator from withdrawing approval of those state programs unless Congress enacts a law after this Act authorizing withdrawal.
It allows a 90-day dual-permitting transition in Florida, sets a process for EPA to recognize comparable state programs, and clarifies that a Section 404 program approval is not a rule or regulation.
Content is narrow and administratively feasible, improving odds in the originating chamber, but federalism shift and EPA-restriction provoke opposition and Senate procedural barriers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statutory change with strong integration into existing statutory mechanisms. It clearly identifies the approvals being ratified, limits agency withdrawal authority, and provides limited transitional and comparable-program procedures.
Progressives emphasize lost EPA oversight; conservatives emphasize state authority.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize lost EPA oversight; conservatives emphasize state authority.
Likely skeptical.
The bill constrains EPA authority to correct inadequate state programs and permanently locks in approvals without clear performance safeguards.
It raises concerns about reduced federal oversight of wetlands and aquatic resources.
Mixed view.
The bill improves permitting certainty and respects cooperative federalism, but substantially limits EPA flexibility.
Support depends on added oversight, measurable performance standards, and cost or litigation risk assessments.
Generally favorable.
The bill limits federal overreach, preserves state primacy in Section 404 permitting, and prevents unilateral EPA revocation of state programs.
It advances regulatory certainty and state authority.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and administratively feasible, improving odds in the originating chamber, but federalism shift and EPA-restriction provoke opposition and Senate procedural barriers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize lost EPA oversight; conservatives emphasize state authority.
Content is narrow and administratively feasible, improving odds in the originating chamber, but federalism shift and EPA-restriction provok…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statutory change with strong integration into existing statutory mechanisms. It clearly identifies the approvals being ratified, limits agenc…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.