The Maintaining Cooperative Permitting Act of 2025 ratifies and preserves certain State permit programs approved under Clean Water Act Section 404 for Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida, and prohibits the EPA Administrator from withdrawing those approvals unless Congress enacts a law authorizing the withdrawal. The bill also creates a short transition window permitting both the Army Corps of Engineers and Florida to issue 404 permits concurrently, and it authorizes the EPA to declare other State programs ‘‘comparable’’—a finding that triggers suspension of Corps permit issuance for covered activities.
This proposal shifts durable permitting authority toward the named States and narrows the EPA’s ability to revoke approvals administratively. For project proponents, state agencies, the Corps, and environmental stakeholders, the bill changes who issues 404 permits, how disputes over jurisdiction will play out in the short term, and whether federal corrective mechanisms remain available without legislative action.
At a Glance
What It Does
Ratifies specified State Section 404 permit programs and forbids 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 permits in Florida’s waters, permits the Administrator to find other State programs comparable (triggering Corps suspension), and adds that program approvals are not ‘‘rules or regulations.’"
Who It Affects
State environmental agencies in Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (district offices and the Chief of Engineers); the EPA’s enforcement and program staff; developers, dredge operators, utilities, and others seeking permits in the affected states; and environmental and species-protection interests.
Why It Matters
By making certain delegations effectively permanent absent congressional action, the bill reduces the EPA’s administrative leverage to correct State program deficiencies, alters permitting workflows and timelines in the named States, and could change litigation strategies around wetlands and endangered-species protections.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill operates by converting specific past EPA approvals of State Section 404 programs into approvals that Congress has effectively ratified. For the three named States—Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida—the statute declares those programs ‘‘ratified, approved, and of full force and effect’’ and then prevents the Administrator from withdrawing approval by administrative means, including the process in Section 404(i) of the Clean Water Act, unless a later Act of Congress expressly authorizes such withdrawal.
In Florida’s case the bill also references the Programmatic Biological Opinion tied to that program, which bears on Endangered Species Act incidental-take coverage.
Operationally the bill builds a short transition rule for Florida: for 90 days after enactment the Corps (acting through the Chief of Engineers) and the State may both issue Section 404 permits within Florida’s jurisdiction. That creates a deliberate overlap intended to allow continued Corps permitting while the State program is implemented or adjusted, but it also creates a period where both federal and state permits may be in play for the same activity.Beyond the three named approvals, the bill gives the Administrator an affirmative role in expanding equivalent State authority: if the Administrator determines a submitted State program is ‘‘comparable’’ to one of the named programs, the Administrator must make the formal 404(h)(2)(A) determination and notify the Corps and State.
Once the Corps receives notification and the State begins administering the program, the Chief of Engineers must suspend Corps issuance of permits under Section 404(a) and (e) for activities the State will cover. Finally, the bill amends Section 404(h) to state that an approval under that subsection ‘‘shall not be considered to be a rule or regulation,’’ a change that affects how approvals are categorized under administrative law.Taken together, those mechanics lock in delegated permitting authority for the listed programs, create a built-in pathway for other States to assume similar roles, and change how approvals are treated administratively and (potentially) judicially.
The practical consequences will play out in Corps-State coordination, permit timelines, and how parties challenge program approvals or seek corrective federal action.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prevents the EPA Administrator from withdrawing approval of specified State Section 404 permit programs (Michigan, New Jersey, Florida) except through a later Act of Congress.
It explicitly cites the Federal Register approvals for Michigan (49 Fed. Reg. 38947, 1984), New Jersey (59 Fed. Reg. 9933, 1994), and Florida (85 Fed. Reg. 83553, 2020), and includes any successor Federal Register updates.
For 90 days after enactment the Corps and the State of Florida may both issue Section 404 permits in Florida’s waters, creating an intentional period of overlapping federal and state permitting.
If the EPA determines a submitted State program is comparable to one of the named programs, the Administrator must make the subsection (h)(2)(A) finding, notify the Corps and State, and the Corps must suspend issuing permits for activities the State will cover.
The bill adds language to Section 404(h) declaring that a State program approval ‘‘shall not be considered to be a rule or regulation.’".
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the statute’s name as the Maintaining Cooperative Permitting Act of 2025. This is a conventional caption provision with no operational effect on permitting mechanics.
Ratification and prohibition on administrative withdrawal
Declares that the listed State Section 404 permit programs are ‘‘ratified, approved, and of full force and effect’’ and bars the EPA Administrator from withdrawing those approvals by administrative action (explicitly including the process in Clean Water Act section 404(i)) unless Congress enacts a law after the bill’s enactment that authorizes withdrawal. Practically, this converts existing delegated programs into approvals that cannot be undone through normal agency processes, limiting the Administrator’s ability to revoke delegation as a compliance or corrective tool.
90-day Corps–State transition for Florida
Provides a 90-day window after enactment during which the Secretary of the Army (through the Chief of Engineers) and the State of Florida may both issue Section 404 permits in waters within Florida’s jurisdiction. That transitional overlap is intended to allow continuity of permitting while responsibility shifts, but it also requires Corps districts and permit applicants to coordinate parallel federal and state permitting where both may apply.
Comparable program determinations and suspension of Corps permits
Directs the Administrator to evaluate new State submissions for comparability with the enumerated programs; if the Administrator deems a submission comparable, the Administrator must make the formal 404(h)(2)(A) determination and notify the Corps and State. Upon notification that the State is administering the program, the Secretary must suspend issuance of Corps permits under Section 404(a) and (e) for activities the State will cover. This creates a path for additional States to assume permitting authority and requires the Corps to cede issuance in covered areas once the comparability process is complete.
Administrative classification: approvals not rules or regulations
Adds a clause to Section 404(h) stating that a State program approval ‘‘shall not be considered to be a rule or regulation.’’ That change alters how approvals are characterized under administrative law, which may affect reviewability, notice-and-comment expectations, and the procedural tools available to challenge approvals or related agency action.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment 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
- State environmental agencies of Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida — gain legal certainty that their Section 404 delegations cannot be unilaterally rescinded by EPA, preserving program continuity and permitting authority.
- Project proponents, dredge operators, and construction and utility companies operating in the three States — benefit from more predictable permitting pathways and potentially reduced federal intervention, which can shorten timelines if State procedures are streamlined.
- State governments seeking to expand assumption — the Administrator’s comparability path provides a clear mechanism for other States to obtain similar presumptive permanence and to shift permitting responsibility away from the Corps.
Who Bears the Cost
- EPA leadership and regional program staff — lose an administrative remedy (withdrawal under Section 404(i)) to address program deficiencies or persistent noncompliance without seeking an act of Congress.
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — must manage a 90-day overlap in Florida and, for any approved comparable State programs, suspend issuance of permits in areas the State will cover, creating operational and coordination burdens.
- Environmental groups, downstream communities, and species-protection advocates — may face reduced federal oversight and enforcement options, and could bear the consequences if State programs are less stringent or under-resourced.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between locking in State-administered permitting to provide regulatory certainty and local control, versus preserving federal flexibility to enforce uniform environmental standards and correct deficient State programs; the bill privileges certainty and state authority at the potential expense of federal corrective power and adaptive environmental protection.
The bill creates several implementation and legal tensions. First, by requiring an Act of Congress to undo approvals, it removes a key administrative enforcement lever from EPA and places the burden of corrective action on the Legislature—a high and politically fraught bar.
That raises practical questions about how the federal government will respond if a State’s program later fails to meet statutory requirements or if new science suggests different protections are needed.
Second, the amendment declaring approvals not to be ‘‘rules or regulations’’ changes administrative characterization and may limit procedural avenues for challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act. Courts will need to determine what that clause means for reviewability, standing, and the applicability of notice-and-comment requirements.
The 90-day dual-permit window in Florida also poses practical risks: overlapping permits can create inconsistent permit conditions, confusion over enforcement responsibility, and complications for applicants and the Corps in coordinating terms, mitigation, and timeline expectations. Finally, leaving a Programmatic Biological Opinion as part of the ratified package may lock in ESA-related determinations that future administrations or scientists view as incomplete, creating friction between long-term species protections and the desire for permitting certainty.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.