Restore Florida Water Independence Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 10, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to insulate Florida's state-run dredge and fill permitting program from legal challenges under the Endangered Species Act by statutorily validating a specific biological opinion and precluding further federal consultation.
What it actually does
This bill legislatively declares that a specific 2020 Programmatic Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is compliant with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of Florida's assumption of the Clean Water Act Section 404 dredge and fill permitting program. It explicitly states that no further ESA Section 7(a) consultation is required for this agency action, aiming to provide regulatory certainty.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill provides essential regulatory certainty and streamlines environmental permitting for Florida, allowing the state to manage its water resources more efficiently without redundant federal oversight. They contend it respects state sovereignty and reduces bureaucratic hurdles that can delay critical infrastructure and development projects, ultimately benefiting Florida's economy and environment through localized management.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that this bill undermines the protections of the Endangered Species Act by preempting judicial review or further scientific consultation on the impacts of Florida's dredge and fill program on threatened and endangered species. They might contend it sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to inadequate environmental safeguards and increased harm to Florida's unique ecosystems and wildlife.
The bill is very short and easy to read, allowing ample time for a thorough evaluation of its implications.
Section 2(a)
Deemed Compliance with ESA for Florida's Dredge and Fill Permitting Program
This provision states that a specific 2020 Programmatic Biological Opinion (FWS Log #: 04E00000-2021-F-0001; 04E00000-2021-B-0001) is considered fully compliant with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of Florida's request to administer its own Clean Water Act Section 404 dredge and fill permitting program. Furthermore, it explicitly removes any requirement for additional ESA Section 7(a) consultations for this agency action.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision cuts through bureaucratic red tape, empowering Florida to manage its own environmental programs more effectively and efficiently. They assert that the existing Biological Opinion is robust and provides adequate protections, and further consultations only serve to delay necessary projects and economic development without adding significant environmental benefit.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision undermines the integrity of the Endangered Species Act by legislatively bypassing its consultation requirements. They argue it could expose Florida's vulnerable species and ecosystems to greater harm by preventing updated scientific review or legal challenges to the adequacy of the existing Biological Opinion, potentially leading to irreversible environmental damage.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for state autonomy and regulatory efficiency in permitting against the federal government's role in protecting endangered species and ensuring robust environmental review under the ESA. It creates a tension between streamlining development and maintaining comprehensive environmental safeguards.
The bill defines "Agency Action" as the EPA's 2020 approval of Florida's assumption of the CWA Section 404 program, including "other activities," and "Biological Opinion" as a specific 2020 FWS programmatic biological opinion, including its incidental take statement.
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to refer to existing administrative actions and documents by citation rather than reprinting them. However, it requires external research for full comprehension.
Case for: Referencing specific external documents provides precision and avoids reprinting voluminous text, making the bill concise. It ensures that the exact administrative action and biological opinion in question are clearly identified.
Case against: Critics might argue that by not summarizing or including key elements of the referenced documents, the bill makes it difficult for a casual reader to grasp the full implications of the "deemed compliance" without extensive external research, potentially obscuring the scope of environmental protections being affected.
Estimated impact: The impact is that the scope of the bill's effect is entirely dependent on the content of these external documents, particularly the "incidental take statement" which outlines permitted harm to species.