Tell Congress “NO” on Permitting Bill – comment by Nov. 9th

While BAAJA would make it easier to implement certain clean energy projects, it would do so while offering the same freedoms to the fossil fuel industry AND undoing major environmental guardrails. In the context of an increasing demand for data centers, BAAJA may allow a fossil-fuel buildout to support AI. The bill would also curtail some of the most important avenues for community input in public-land management. If some of the proposed rollbacks below sound familiar, it’s because they are: BAAJA would enshrine certain regulation changes made or proposed by current administration agencies (like the U.S. Forest Service). The fact that BAAJA repeats many of the measures we have opposed over the past few years is already a red flag. Laws enacted by Congress are often harder to undo than executive department/agency policy, so BAAJA risks making these environmental rollbacks even more permanent.

Some of the issues with BAAJA include:

NEPA Rollbacks:

• Limits on environmental review (Sections 1102-1107): BAAJA would reduce the range of projects subject to environmental review under NEPA, both by narrowing the definition of projects that DO require review, and by expanding the types of projects that DON’T require review. This means opportunities for public comment would be limited.
• Restricted judicial review (Sections 1110, 1205, 1305, and 2301): BAAJA would add new and more difficult thresholds for bringing legal challenges under NEPA (and under NHPA, CWA, and the ESA), and would substantially limit the timeframe to file suit from six years to just 150 days. (This is similar to judicial limits proposed in the misleading and dangerous “Fix Our Forests Act,” still pending in Congress.) The bill would also limit what remedies are available from the courts: even if an issued permit is found to violate NEPA, BAAJA would prohibit courts from pausing work on the project while the environmental review gets corrected. Irreversible environmental harm could take place on the ground while the correction is pending.

Clean Water Act Rollbacks:

• Restricts state/Tribal water quality certification requirements (Section 1202): BAAJA would restrict the ability of states and Tribes to review federally permitted activities that result in discharges into waters of the United States. (You may remember attacks on the state/Tribal Clean Water Act certification process from regulatory changes proposed in January 2026.) BAAJA would narrow what kinds of water quality issues are subject to state/Tribal certification.
• Expands permitting for dredged and fill materials (Section 1204-1205): BAAJA would extend the duration of permits for discharging dredged or fill material into waters—including wetlands—from a maximum of five years to a maximum of ten years. It would likewise limit Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversight and restrict judicial review of these permits.

ESA Rollbacks:

• Changes to scientific review and endangered species consultation (Sections 1301-1304): BAAJA would change the definition of “best available science” in a way that could create additional burdens of proof and delay species listing. It would also hand over the responsibility for endangered species consultation (review to evaluate whether or how proposed permits could impact federally listed species) from federal agencies to the states. This could lead to inconsistent enforcement from states with different policies and capacities, plus it ignores the reality of migratory species and dispersed ranges that cross state boundaries. The bill would also restrict when and where legal challenges on endangered species consultation may be filed.

“Project certainty”:

• Potential to “lock in” harmful projects (Section 1401): BAAJA would limit the possibility of revoking or reconsidering an authorized permit, even if new information becomes available, or if the permit was approved unlawfully.
• Liability potential (Section 1402): BAAJA would allow developers to sue the federal government, and recover up to 100% of project construction costs, for permit delays and denials if they can show a “pattern of disparate treatment” against certain project categories as compared to the last five years. Right now, the last five years includes a baseline of expedited fossil-fuels permitting under the current administration, making it potentially costly to deny similar permits.

NHPA* Rollbacks:

• Limits on NHPA review and Tribal consultation (Section 2301-2302): BAAJA would narrow the project area footprint and scope of effects subject to NHPA review. It would also limit consultation with Tribal Nations about impacts to tribal lands, significant historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites—changing Tribal consultation from required to optional at certain stages of the process. Further, BAAJA would allow a single agency official to decide at their sole discretion that a proposed project is more important than preserving historic resources.

*The NHPA (National Historic Preservation Act) requires that federal agencies evaluate the impacts of projects they carry out, permit, or fund on historic properties. It includes provisions to consult with Tribal governments on Tribal properties and places of Indigenous cultural or spiritual significance.