CURRENT Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Gray, Adam [D-CA-13]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to accelerate infrastructure project approvals by substantially limiting state authority under the Clean Water Act's Section 401, focusing reviews strictly on direct water quality impacts and imposing stringent procedural requirements on certifying agencies.
What it actually does
This bill amends Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) to significantly restrict the scope and duration of state and federal agency reviews for water quality certifications required for federal licenses and permits. It imposes strict, non-extendable one-year deadlines, narrows the review criteria to direct discharges and specific FWPCA sections, and establishes a high evidentiary bar for denying certifications or imposing conditions, particularly for energy and transmission projects.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill provides crucial regulatory certainty and efficiency for critical infrastructure projects, such as energy and transmission lines, by preventing states from using Section 401 to impose conditions or delays unrelated to direct water quality impacts. They contend it clarifies congressional intent, reduces costly project delays, and streamlines a process that has become a barrier to essential development.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill severely undermines states' long-standing authority to protect their own water quality and local environments, stripping them of essential tools to ensure projects comply with comprehensive environmental standards. They might contend it prioritizes industrial development over environmental protection, potentially leading to adverse impacts on local ecosystems, public health, and communities by limiting thorough review and mitigation.
The bill is relatively short, but its technical amendments to existing environmental law require careful reading and an understanding of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to grasp the full implications for regulatory authority and project development.
Section 2(1)(A)(i), (ii), (D)(i), (ii), (iii)
Limiting the Scope of State Water Quality Certification Review
This provision narrows the scope of state and federal agency review for water quality certifications under Section 401 of the FWPCA. It specifies that reviews must focus only on discharges that 'directly result' from an activity and solely on compliance with specific sections of the FWPCA related to effluent limitations and water quality standards, rather than broader 'activity' impacts or general 'water quality requirements.'
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this clarifies congressional intent, preventing states from using Section 401 to address issues beyond direct water quality impacts, thereby streamlining project approvals and reducing regulatory uncertainty.
Critics contend
Critics would contend this undermines states' ability to conduct comprehensive environmental reviews and protect their waters, potentially allowing projects with significant indirect impacts to proceed without adequate state oversight.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances state environmental protection authority against the desire for expedited infrastructure development and regulatory certainty.
Section 2(1)(A)(v), (vi)
Imposing Absolute One-Year Deadline for Certification
This provision establishes a strict, non-extendable one-year deadline for states, interstate agencies, or the Administrator to act on a request for water quality certification. The clock starts upon initial receipt of the request, regardless of whether it's deemed complete, and cannot be paused for additional information requests, public comment, or environmental reviews, unless the applicant requests an extension.
Section 2(3) (d)(2)
Stricter Standards for Denials and Conditions
This provision raises the legal bar for states to deny a certification request or impose conditions. States must now demonstrate by 'clear and convincing evidence' either that no reasonable condition exists to ensure compliance with FWPCA sections 301, 302, 303, 306, or 307, or that any imposed condition is the 'least burdensome' considering technical feasibility, cost, project purpose, schedule impacts, and commercial viability, while also being consistent with the federal license.
Section 2(3) (d)(4)
Limiting Conditions for Hydroelectric Projects
This provision specifically prohibits states from including conditions in water quality certifications for hydroelectric projects that relate to the quantity, timing, or rate of water flow. This means states cannot use Section 401 to regulate aspects of dam operations that affect downstream flow regimes.
Section 2(4) (g)
Expedited Judicial Review for Energy and Transmission Projects
This provision creates a fast-track judicial review process for challenges to water quality certification decisions related to interstate electric energy or fuel transmission facilities (like pipelines) or projects licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Such challenges must be filed directly in a federal court of appeals, which has original and exclusive jurisdiction and is mandated to issue a final decision within 120 days (with a possible 60-day extension). The court must hold a denial unlawful if the certifying agency fails to demonstrate by 'clear and convincing evidence' that no reasonable condition exists to ensure compliance.
Adds a new clause stating that a certification obtained under Section 401 cannot be reopened, modified, supplemented, withdrawn, or otherwise revised, except at the request of the applicant or by a specific court order.
Section 2(1)(E)(ii)
Why it matters:This is a substantively consequential change presented in a technically precise way, which is common in legislative drafting. It ensures regulatory certainty for projects but limits future state flexibility.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides essential regulatory certainty for project developers, ensuring that once a project receives its water quality certification, it is not subject to arbitrary or shifting regulatory requirements from the certifying agency. This reduces investment risk and project delays.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this provision severely limits a state's ability to respond to new scientific information, unforeseen environmental impacts, or changes in circumstances that may arise after a certification is issued, potentially locking in inadequate protections.
Estimated impact: High, as it affects the long-term environmental oversight and adaptability of all projects requiring Section 401 certification.
Clarifies that for the purpose of the one-year deadline, 'receipt of a request for certification shall be determined by the date on which the State, interstate agency, or Administrator, as the case may be, receives the request, regardless of whether the State, interstate agency, or Administrator deems the request complete.'
Section 2(1)(A)(vi)
Why it matters:This is a technical but highly consequential detail that significantly impacts the practical application of the one-year deadline. It prevents states from delaying the start of the clock by deeming applications incomplete.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents states from using 'completeness reviews' as a tactic to indefinitely delay the start of the one-year certification clock, ensuring that the statutory deadline is truly absolute and provides certainty to applicants.
Case against: Opponents would contend that this forces states to begin their review of potentially incomplete applications, wasting resources and potentially leading to denials if critical information is missing, or to approvals based on insufficient data.
Estimated impact: High, as it fundamentally alters the starting point and practical enforceability of the one-year review timeline for all Section 401 certifications.