Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The bill, "Maintaining Cooperative Permitting Act of 2025," ratifies and locks in certain State Section 404 dredged-or-fill permit programs (Michigan, New Jersey, Florida) as approved programs and prohibits the EPA Administrator from withdrawing those approvals except by a subsequent Act of Congress. It creates a 90-day transition allowing both the Army Corps and Florida to issue Section 404 permits, authorizes the Administrator to declare other comparable state programs and trigger Corps suspension, and clarifies that approving a State program under Section 404(h) is not a rule or regulation.
Progressives emphasize loss of EPA oversight and environmental risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statute that explicitly ratifies and protects certain State section 404 permit program approvals and constrains EPA's ability to withdraw them absent Congressional action.
The bill, "Maintaining Cooperative Permitting Act of 2025," ratifies and locks in certain State Section 404 dredged-or-fill permit programs (Michigan, New Jersey, Florida) as approved programs and prohibits the EPA Administrator from withdrawing those approvals except by a subsequent Act of Congress.
It creates a 90-day transition allowing both the Army Corps and Florida to issue Section 404 permits, authorizes the Administrator to declare other comparable state programs and trigger Corps suspension, and clarifies that approving a State program under Section 404(h) is not a rule or regulation.
Technically narrow but constitutionally and policy-sensitive; likely opposition in the Senate and from environmental oversight advocates reduces passage prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statute that explicitly ratifies and protects certain State section 404 permit program approvals and constrains EPA's ability to withdraw them absent Congressional action. It integrates cleanly with existing statutory provisions and identifies responsible actors and a short transition rule for Florida.
Progressives emphasize loss of EPA oversight and environmental risk.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize loss of EPA oversight and environmental risk.
Likely skeptical or opposed because the bill restricts EPA oversight and limits the agency's ability to withdraw state programs.
They would view the change as a weakening of federal backstops for wetlands, water quality, and endangered species protections.
Sees tradeoffs: the bill offers legal certainty and predictable permitting for states but constrains federal corrective authority.
A centrist would weigh benefits of stability against risks of reduced federal oversight, seeking safeguards and metrics.
Likely favorable because the bill cements state primacy, constrains EPA authority, and increases permitting certainty for development and state management of waters.
Viewed as a check on federal regulatory overreach.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow but constitutionally and policy-sensitive; likely opposition in the Senate and from environmental oversight advocates reduces passage prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize loss of EPA oversight and environmental risk.
Technically narrow but constitutionally and policy-sensitive; likely opposition in the Senate and from environmental oversight advocates re…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive statute that explicitly ratifies and protects certain State section 404 permit program approvals and constrains EPA's ability to withdraw the…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.