A bill to require the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to propose a new nationwide permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for dredging projects, and for other purposes.
Introduced June 11, 2026 · Last action June 11, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to create a new nationwide permit that streamlines approval for dredging projects under federal water pollution law. Currently, dredging projects often require individual permits or case-by-case review; a nationwide permit would allow certain dredging to proceed with simplified or automatic approval across the country.
Who benefits
Dredging contractors and marine construction companies; ports and harbor authorities; inland waterway operators; real estate developers conducting waterfront projects; sand and gravel extraction companies; agricultural and commercial interests dependent on navigable waterways and canal systems.
Who pays / loses
Environmental groups and wetland conservation advocates who rely on case-by-case permit review to block or condition harmful projects; state and local governments that currently have input on individual dredging permits; aquatic ecosystems and fish populations sensitive to sediment disturbance and water quality degradation; downstream communities whose water quality or flood risk may be affected by upstream dredging.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Dredging and marine construction industries, waterway commerce operators, and port authorities have direct financial interest in streamlined permitting. The bill's sponsor, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), received $1,385,935.74 from 'Other' industry categories and $2,368.91 from Transportation in the 2024 cycle, though detailed disbursement data is not provided. No PAC contributions were listed for the 2024 cycle. Companies operating inland waterways, ports, and dredging services would benefit from reduced permitting timelines and certainty.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Dredging contractors nationwide; port operators and maritime terminal employees; commercial and recreational fishing industries dependent on water quality; agricultural producers using irrigated waterways; communities downstream from dredging sites; Native American tribes with treaty rights to pristine waterways and aquatic resources; state environmental agencies and Army Corps district offices managing permit workload.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue that nationwide permits reduce bureaucratic delay, lower costs for infrastructure and commerce, and allow necessary waterway maintenance and development to proceed faster. Critics counter that nationwide permits reduce environmental scrutiny, bypass meaningful public comment periods, and increase the risk of water pollution, habitat destruction, and erosion. Non-partisan evidence from the EPA and GAO shows that nationwide permits, while efficient for permitting agencies, correlate with higher rates of unauthorized or environmentally damaging activities when oversight mechanisms are weakened. The Clean Water Act's case-by-case permitting requirement exists because dredging impacts vary significantly by location, sediment composition, and aquatic ecosystem type.
Real-World Stakes
If enacted, dredging projects would face fewer environmental reviews and shorter approval timelines. Analogous nationwide permits for other water activities (e.g., fills for development, ditching) have been criticized by EPA and environmental groups for inadequate environmental analysis. Expansion to dredging could accelerate waterway projects benefiting commerce and infrastructure but increase risk of unintended sediment transport, mercury and other contaminant mobilization, and habitat loss. States like California and New York have challenged federal nationwide permits as circumventing state water quality standards under Clean Water Act Section 401. Projects in sensitive areas (spawning grounds, coastal wetlands, tribal waters) would face less rigorous case-by-case review.
Sponsor
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$1,385,935.74
Finance$8,994.41
Transportation$2,368.91
Law$1,725
Healthcare$1,662.5
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.