Bill Would Curb EPA Power on State Water Permits, Requires Congress to Step In

This proposed legislation, the 'Maintaining Cooperative Permitting Act of 2025,' redraws the lines of authority for managing dredge-and-fill permits – think dirt and rock moved during construction near waterways. The core change? It significantly restricts the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to revoke approval for state-run permitting programs under the Clean Water Act's Section 404. From now on, pulling the plug on a state program would require a specific Act of Congress.

Putting State Programs on Lock?

The bill doesn't just look forward; it cements the status quo for some. It explicitly 'ratifies and approves' existing state permit programs in Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida (SEC. 2). This means these programs are effectively grandfathered in unless Congress decides otherwise. For any other state wanting to run its own program for discharging dredged or fill material, the EPA Administrator must approve it if it's deemed 'comparable' to those three states. The big shift here is taking away the EPA's independent authority under Section 404 to withdraw approval if a state program isn't adequately protecting water quality – a power check now reserved for Congress itself.

Permit Puzzle: Who Calls the Shots?

So, what does 'dredged or fill material' mean in practice? It's the soil, rocks, and sand moved around during projects like building roads, housing developments, or shoreline stabilization near regulated waters like wetlands, rivers, and coasts. This bill changes who oversees permits for that activity. For a brief 90-day period after enactment, both the Army Corps of Engineers and Florida could issue permits within Florida (SEC. 2), potentially creating confusion on the ground. More broadly, requiring EPA approval for programs merely 'comparable' to the ratified ones raises questions: could this inadvertently lower the bar for environmental protection nationwide? Once a state program is approved and running, the Secretary of the Army must suspend the Corps' permitting activities in that state (SEC. 2).

Streamlining vs. Oversight: The Trade-Off

The argument for this approach often centers on efficiency – letting states manage their own environmental affairs could streamline the permitting process for developers and local projects. However, significantly limiting the EPA's oversight power raises concerns about accountability. If a state program proves inadequate over time, requiring a full Act of Congress to intervene is a very high hurdle compared to agency action. Furthermore, the bill specifies that approving a state program isn't considered a 'rule or regulation' (SEC. 2). This technical detail might limit opportunities for public input or legal challenges regarding the adequacy of state programs, potentially reducing transparency.