Bill Locks In State Control Over Water Permits in MI, NJ, FL; Limits EPA Oversight

This proposed legislation, the "Maintaining Cooperative Permitting Act of 2025," aims to solidify state authority over certain environmental permits, specifically those dealing with discharging dredged or fill material into waterways under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The core action is preventing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from withdrawing its approval of existing state-run permit programs in Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida, unless Congress explicitly steps in to authorize such a withdrawal. Essentially, it makes the current state programs in these three states more permanent fixtures, reducing the EPA's ability to intervene if standards change or issues arise down the line.

Shifting Sands: State Power vs. Federal Backstop

The main thrust here is a power shift. Section 404 permits are crucial for projects involving construction, mining, or other activities that move earth in or near rivers, lakes, and wetlands – think building docks, reinforcing shorelines, or developing coastal areas. Currently, the EPA has the authority to approve state programs to manage these permits but also to withdraw that approval if the state program isn't adequately protecting water quality. This bill removes that withdrawal power for Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida, effectively locking in their current programs. For businesses needing these permits in those states, it might mean more predictability dealing only with state regulators. However, it also removes a layer of federal oversight intended to ensure consistent environmental protection across state lines.

Florida's Fast Lane and Rule Redefinitions

There are a couple of other notable mechanics in this bill. First, for a 90-day period right after the law passes, both the Army Corps of Engineers (the usual federal permit issuer) and the State of Florida would be allowed to issue these Section 404 permits within Florida's navigable waters (Sec 2). This temporary dual authority could potentially speed up permit decisions but also raises questions about consistency and which standards apply during that window. Second, the bill states that the EPA's approval of a state permit program is not considered a formal "rule or regulation" (Sec 2). This might seem like technical jargon, but it could mean these approvals happen with less public notice and comment than typical federal regulations, potentially reducing transparency.

The Ripple Effect: Who Gains, Who Worries?

So, what does this mean in practical terms? State environmental agencies in Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida gain more entrenched authority over managing development impacts on their waters. Industries operating in these states might see a more stable, state-centric permitting process. However, it raises concerns for those worried about maintaining strong, consistent water quality protections. If a state decided to relax its standards later, the EPA's hands would be largely tied without an act of Congress. The bill also mandates the EPA approve new state programs comparable to those in MI, NJ, or FL, potentially expanding this model. For folks who fish, boat, or rely on clean water sources in these areas, the long-term impact hinges on how well state programs maintain protections without the active threat of federal withdrawal.