PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Bean, Aaron [R-FL-4] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2030 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2030 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2030 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2030 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-11 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The Maintaining Cooperative Permitting Act of 2025 would confirm Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida’s state programs for issuing permits to discharge material removed by dredging or used as fill. It would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from withdrawing their approval unless a later federal law expressly allowed it. The proposal also provides a 90-day permitting transition for Florida and a process for approving comparable programs in other states.
This Act may be cited as the Maintaining Cooperative Permitting Act of 2025.
The permit programs described in paragraph (2) are ratified, approved, and of full force and effect, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the Administrator) may not withdraw the approval of those permit programs, including through the process described in section 404(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(i)), unless the withdrawal is expressly authorized by an Act of Congress enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.
The permit programs referred to in paragraph (1) are the following State permit programs for the discharge of dredged or fill material approved under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344): (A) The program of the State of Michigan
(B) The program of the State of New Jersey
(C) The program of the State of Florida
During the 90-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers (referred to in this section as the Secretary), and the State of Florida may both issue permits
If the Administrator determines that a State program submitted under subsection (g)(1) of section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is comparable to a State program described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (2), the Administrator shall make the determination described in subsection (h)(2)(A) of that section with respect to that program.
The bill would ratify the three named state programs and give them full force and effect. The Environmental Protection Agency could withdraw approval only if a federal law enacted after this bill became law expressly authorized withdrawal. That restriction expressly includes withdrawal through the existing section 404(i) process.
The permit programs described in paragraph (2) are ratified, approved, and of full force and effect, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the Administrator) may not withdraw the approval of those permit programs, including through the process described in section 404(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(i)), unless the withdrawal is expressly authorized by an Act of Congress enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.
The protected Michigan and New Jersey programs are identified by their 1984 and 1994 approval notices and specified federal regulations. The proposal also includes program updates described in successor Federal Register notices.
(A) The program of the State of Michigan, approved in the notice of the Environmental Protection Agency entitled Michigan Department of Natural Resources Section 404 Permit Program Approval (49 Fed. Reg. 38947 (October 2, 1984)) and as described in section 233.70 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (including any updates to the program described in a successor Federal Register notice). (B) The program of the State of New Jersey, approved in the final rule and notice of the Environmental Protection Agency entitled New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy Section 404 Permit Program Approval (59 Fed. Reg. 9933 (March 2, 1994)) and as described in section 233.71 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (including any updates to the program described in a successor Federal Register notice).
The protected Florida program is identified by a December 22, 2020 approval notice and includes updates described in a successor Federal Register notice. The proposal expressly includes the associated “Programmatic Biological Opinion with Incidental Take Statement.”
(C) The program of the State of Florida, as described in the notice of the Environmental Protection Agency entitled EPA’s Approval of Florida’s Clean Water Act Section 404 Assumption Request (85 Fed. Reg. 83553 (December 22, 2020)) (including any updates to the program described in a successor Federal Register notice), including the Programmatic Biological Opinion with Incidental Take Statement associated with the program.
For 90 days beginning on enactment, both Florida and the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, could issue permits authorized under the identified Florida program. This temporary overlap would cover navigable waters within Florida’s jurisdiction as described in the referenced existing law.
During the 90-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers (referred to in this section as the Secretary), and the State of Florida may both issue permits authorized under the program described in paragraph (2)(C) into navigable waters (as described in subsection 404(g)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(g)(1))) within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida.
If the Environmental Protection Agency determines that another state’s submitted program is comparable to one of the three named programs, it would have to make the determination specified in existing section 404(h)(2)(A). This provision does not independently require a comparability determination for every submission. The supplied text does not reproduce the referenced determination’s requirements.
If the Administrator determines that a State program submitted under subsection (g)(1) of section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is comparable to a State program described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (2), the Administrator shall make the determination described in subsection (h)(2)(A) of that section with respect to that program.
After making the required determination for a comparable state program, the Environmental Protection Agency would have to notify the Secretary of the Army and the affected state.
On making the determination required under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall notify the Secretary and the applicable State of that determination.
Once the Secretary of the Army receives both the agency’s notification and the state’s notice that it has begun administering its approved program, the Secretary would have to suspend issuing permits under section 404(a) and (e) for activities the state program can permit.
On notification from the Administrator under subparagraph (B) and from a State that the State has begun to administer a program approved pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall suspend the issuance of permits under subsections (a) and (e) of section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) for activities with respect to which a permit may be issued by the State under that program.
The bill would amend section 404(h) to say that approval of a state permit program under section 404 is not a rule or regulation. The added language does not itself describe which procedural requirements that classification would affect.
(b) Clarification of process Section 404(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following: (6) Not a rule or regulation The approval of a State permit program under this section shall not be considered to be a rule or regulation.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated December 5, 2025, records introduction in the House and referrals to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment on March 11, 2025. It supplies no later action establishing passage or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2025-12-05T22:05:26Z. 2025-03-11: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 2025-03-11: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2025-03-11: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-11. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials, or resolve formal earmark status.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
A narrow protection within the bill’s main permitting policy warrants scrutiny as a targeted benefit. This classification is not a judgment about its merits.
Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida’s named permit programs would receive express ratification and protection against withdrawal of approval unless a later federal law expressly authorizes it. This protection is tied to the three enumerated programs, making it a geographically targeted exception within the permitting policy.
The permit programs described in paragraph (2) are ratified, approved, and of full force and effect, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the Administrator) may not withdraw the approval of those permit programs, including through the process described in section 404(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(i)), unless the withdrawal is expressly authorized by an Act of Congress enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.
The permit programs referred to in paragraph (1) are the following State permit programs for the discharge of dredged or fill material approved under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344): (A) The program of the State of Michigan
(B) The program of the State of New Jersey
(C) The program of the State of Florida
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Dec 5, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI