The Build Now Act requires that any federally issued permit for a Central Valley Project (CVP) "enhancement project" with an environmental review under NEPA or ESA Section 7 be completed within one year of the permit application being submitted. If the reviewing agency cannot meet that one-year timeline, the head of the agency issuing the permit must either grant an extension with the applicant’s approval or deny the permit.
If a permit is denied under this timeline regime the applicant may reapply at any time; the agency that carried out the prior environmental review must, to the extent allowed by law, provide previously gathered information to speed any subsequent review. The bill defines CVP enhancement projects narrowly (groundwater recharge, aquifer storage, and water source substitution) and expressly covers the NEPA and ESA Section 7 processes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a statutory deadline: environmental reviews for qualifying CVP permits must finish within one year of application. If an agency misses the deadline, the permit-issuing agency head must either approve an applicant‑agreed extension or deny the permit.
Who It Affects
Directly affects applicants seeking CVP enhancement project permits (water districts, local agencies, and developers), the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal agencies conducting NEPA and ESA Section 7 reviews, and contractors financing and building water-infrastructure projects in California’s Central Valley.
Why It Matters
A fixed one-year cap changes incentives: agencies must speed complex biological consultations and NEPA analyses or deny permits, which can accelerate project delivery but also create coordination, legal, and resource pressures. The bill narrows its scope to specific water-storage and recharge projects tied to the CVP.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core the Build Now Act imposes a one-year clock on environmental reviews connected to permits for a specific class of Central Valley Project enhancement projects. The clock begins on the date the permit application is submitted and, by using the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” the bill seeks to give that timeline controlling effect over conflicting statutory or regulatory schedules.
The bill explicitly treats ‘‘environmental review’’ to include NEPA obligations and Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act, so both programmatic NEPA work and interagency ESA consultations are on the clock.
If an agency cannot complete the review within a year, the statute does not create an administrative appeal or automatic approval; instead it makes the head of the agency that issues the permit choose between two options: (1) grant an extension but only if the applicant approves that extension, or (2) deny the permit. That places a practical check on reviewing agencies — they cannot extend unilaterally to avoid a missed deadline — but also hands substantial discretion to permit‑issuing agency leadership to deny a project if the review cannot be completed on time.The bill also provides a procedural second chance for applicants: a denied applicant may reapply at any time, and the agency that performed the previous review must, to the extent permitted by law, provide any information already gathered to speed a new review.
That clause reduces duplication of fieldwork and data collection, but it stops short of forcing agencies to release information that federal law forbids disclosing, which creates predictable limits on how much of the prior work can be reused.Finally, the bill defines the covered projects narrowly — groundwater recharge, aquifer storage, and water source substitution projects whose primary purpose is to support, enhance, or maintain the CVP and related infrastructure. That definition focuses the statute on water-supply and storage measures rather than every activity affecting the CVP, but it also leaves open disputes over what counts as a project’s “primary purpose.”
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute requires completion of NEPA and ESA Section 7 reviews for qualifying CVP permit applications within one year of the application date.
The bill uses “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” indicating Congress intends the one‑year clock to override conflicting statutory or regulatory review schedules.
If the review cannot finish in one year, the head of the agency issuing the permit must either grant an extension with the applicant’s consent or deny the permit — no unilateral agency extensions.
A denied applicant may reapply at any time and the prior lead reviewing agency must furnish previously gathered review information to the applicant “to the extent permitted by law.”, The definition of covered CVP enhancement projects is limited to groundwater recharge, aquifer storage, and water source substitution projects serving the Central Valley Project.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: "Build Now Act"
A one-line statutory heading that names the measure. This is cosmetic but signals congressional intent to prioritize rapid infrastructure delivery and frames the rest of the text as a permitting-acceleration measure.
One-year deadline for environmental review
This subsection sets the operative rule: a federally issued permit for a CVP enhancement project that requires an environmental review must have that review completed within one year of the applicant’s submission. Because the bill defines "environmental review" to include NEPA and ESA Section 7, the timeline covers both the preparation of NEPA analyses and the interagency consultation obligations under ESA. The phrase "notwithstanding any other provision of law" is the practical lever here — it aims to make the one-year cap controlling even when other statutes or regulations suggest different timelines.
Consequences when the reviewing agency misses the deadline
If the reviewing agency cannot meet the statutory deadline, responsibility shifts to the head of the agency that issues the permit (which may be a different office than the review lead). That official must either grant an extension, but only with the permit applicant’s approval, or deny the permit. This provision allocates decision authority to permit issuers rather than reviewers and creates an applicant consent requirement for extensions, which changes interagency negotiation dynamics and places practical pressure on applicants to choose between delay and denial.
Re-application and reuse of prior review materials
A permit denied because the agency missed the deadline does not bar the applicant from restarting the process: applicants can reapply at any time. To reduce redundant work, the agency that carried out the earlier review must provide any information it gathered to the applicant, "to the extent permitted by law." In practice that will accelerate subsequent reviews when data are shareable, but it also raises immediate questions about what information is protected (e.g., sensitive species location data or interagency deliberative materials) and how those limits will be applied.
Definitions: CVP enhancement project and environmental review
This subsection narrows the statute’s reach by defining which projects fall within the one-year rule and what the statute means by environmental review. The project types listed — groundwater recharge, aquifer storage, and water-source substitution — focus on storage and supply projects tied to the Central Valley Project. The environmental review definition explicitly includes NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.) and ESA Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 1536), which makes clear the statute’s intended coverage of both planning/impact analysis and endangered species consultation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- CVP permit applicants (local water districts, irrigation districts, and regional water agencies): Gain predictable, one‑year timing that can accelerate project planning and funding cycles and reduce open-ended review delay risks.
- Project contractors and developers building storage or recharge projects: Benefit from quicker permitting timelines that reduce financing uncertainty and allow construction schedules to move forward sooner.
- State water managers and regional planners in California: Receive faster federal decision-making on key projects that support statewide water reliability and drought-response planning.
- Environmental and engineering consultants preparing permit packages: May see increased demand for higher-quality, front‑loaded application materials to meet the statute’s time constraints.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal reviewing agencies (e.g., Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries): Face compressed schedules for NEPA and ESA work, likely requiring staff reallocation, overtime, or contracting to meet the one‑year cap.
- Permit-issuing agencies and their leadership: Must exercise gatekeeper authority to grant extensions with applicant consent or deny permits, exposing them to political and legal scrutiny.
- Applicants (water districts or developers) who want to avoid denial: May need to pay for more complete upfront studies, monitoring, and consultants to ensure reviews finish on time, increasing pre‑application costs.
- Environmental organizations and stakeholders focused on species protection: Risk receiving shorter review windows and truncated public processes, potentially reducing influence over project design and mitigation measures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate aims against one another: speed and certainty for water-infrastructure delivery versus the procedural and scientific thoroughness required to protect species and ensure informed environmental decisions. A one‑year statutory cap helps move projects forward but may force trade-offs in analytical depth, interagency coordination, and the timely incorporation of seasonal or technical data.
The bill’s strongest leverage is its use of a controlling statutory timeline — "notwithstanding any other provision of law" — but that phrase is also where implementation friction is most likely. NEPA and ESA Section 7 impose procedural and substantive obligations that can be time-consuming: field surveys tied to seasonal windows, complex biological opinions, and multiagency coordination that sometimes depend on outside science or litigation stays.
Compressing those processes into a one-year cap without additional funding or formal coordination mechanisms risks either superficial analyses or frequent denials.
The extension/denial mechanic shifts power to permit issuers and applicants in ways that create perverse incentives. An agency facing an inability to complete review could deny a permit to avoid missing the deadline, forcing applicants to restart and possibly rework projects to survive a tighter schedule.
While the reapplication information‑sharing rule reduces duplication, the statutory caveat "to the extent permitted by law" leaves major categories of information — sensitive species locations, privileged interagency deliberations, proprietary project data — potentially out of circulation, blunting the clause’s practical effect.
Ambiguities matter in implementation. The bill separates the "agency responsible for carrying out an environmental review" from the "head of the agency issuing the applicable permit," which could be different entities and create coordination problems.
The statute does not create clear enforcement remedies, judicial review standards, or funding for additional agency capacity. It also relies on a contested definition of "primary purpose," which will create disputes about whether particular projects qualify.
Finally, compressing review timelines raises real risks of increased litigation as stakeholders test the adequacy of hurried reviews in court.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.