PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 1, 1996
Local Growth Management Incentives Act of 1996 - Requires each Federal agency to cooperate with qualified State agencies and local land use jurisdictions (those with growth management and land use programs certified under this Act) to reduce duplication of State and local requirements by National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) environmental assessment procedures. Requires such cooperation to include joint planning processes, environmental research, public hearings, and environmental assessments. Permits use of one document if State or local law imposes requirements that are in addition to, but not in conflict with, the NEPA requirements. Requires a NEPA statement to address, and describe the extent to which the State or local entity will reconcile, any inconsistency of a proposed action with any approved plan or other requirement of the entity. Allows States and local land use jurisdictions, upon certification (and with exceptions), additional time to comply with any new Federal requirement in order to integrate a qualified program's requirements with the Federal requirement. Describes certification procedures (and restrictions) and requires for support of a certification that State or local laws establish a qualified program containing, among other things, mechanisms for: (1) designating areas of critical environmental concern (those in which development may damage important historic, cultural, or aesthetic values or natural systems or processes or result in a threat to human life and safety from natural hazards); (2) addressing compatibility of land uses; and (3) assessing whether development activity impacts would result in environmental or health law violations. Describes methods for establishment of such a program. Requires federally conducted development projects or activities that affect land use or are otherwise regulated under a qualified program to be carried out consistently with the program. Amends Federal law concerning obligation of Federal-aid highway and surface transportation funds to require the Secretary of Transportation to give priority, in discretionary awards of funding, to States and local land use jurisdictions that have in effect a State or local program that meets this Act's certification requirements. Requires the Council on Environmental Quality to report to the Congress regarding: (1) the impacts of Federal activities on growth and land use; and (2) the effectiveness of growth management and land use programs in addressing the cumulative impacts of Federal activities.
People & committees
Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12126)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.2185 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 S.2185 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 S.2185 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 S.2185 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.