DEEP Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 11, 2026
Bottom line
The DEEP Act aims to drastically accelerate and simplify the permitting process for port and navigation channel dredging projects by creating a new nationwide permit, imposing strict review timelines, and limiting agency discretion, potentially boosting port infrastructure but raising significant environmental and domestic industry concerns.
What it actually does
The bill, titled the "Dredging to Ensure the Empowerment of Ports Act" or "DEEP Act," mandates the Secretary of the Army (through the Chief of Engineers) to propose a new nationwide permit (NWP) for federal and non-federal dredging projects in navigable U.S. waters. It significantly streamlines the environmental review process under NEPA and water quality certifications under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) for both the NWP issuance and individual project approvals. Additionally, it repeals and amends sections of Title 46, U.S. Code, to exclude dredged material from certain transportation requirements, effectively opening the dredging market to foreign competition.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill will expedite critical dredging projects necessary for maintaining and expanding U.S. ports and navigation channels, thereby enhancing economic competitiveness, facilitating trade, and supporting job creation. They contend that current permitting processes are overly burdensome and slow, hindering essential infrastructure development and increasing project costs, and that the repeal of certain maritime restrictions will further reduce costs.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill significantly weakens environmental protections by imposing strict deadlines and limitations on environmental reviews under NEPA and water quality certifications under the FWPCA, potentially leading to inadequate assessment of ecological impacts and harm to aquatic ecosystems. They would also contend that repealing domestic maritime protections for dredging undermines the U.S. dredging fleet, national security, and American jobs.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are clear, making it accessible for a quick read, though understanding the full implications requires familiarity with environmental permitting regulations and maritime law.
Section 3(a)
Mandate for New Nationwide Dredging Permit
This provision requires the Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of Engineers, to propose a new nationwide permit (NWP) within 60 days of the bill's enactment. This NWP will cover both federal and non-federal dredging projects in navigable U.S. waters, including maintenance, expansion, or deepening of ports up to 60 feet. Each Division Engineer must also propose regional conditions for the NWP.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this will standardize and simplify the permitting process for dredging, reducing delays and costs associated with individual permits, which are crucial for maintaining and improving port infrastructure.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that a nationwide permit could overlook site-specific environmental concerns, as a general permit might not adequately address the diverse ecological conditions across different navigable waters.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for regulatory efficiency and infrastructure development against the need for thorough environmental review tailored to local conditions.
Section 3(c)
Streamlined NEPA Review for NWP Issuance
This section imposes strict deadlines and limitations on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process for the issuance of the new nationwide permit. It requires the Secretary to complete NEPA requirements within 2 years, produce no more than one environmental impact statement (EIS), record of decision (ROD), and environmental assessment (EA) for the NWP, and limits consideration of alternatives to those technically or economically feasible and within the agency's jurisdiction.
Section 3(d)
Expedited Water Quality Certifications for NWP Issuance
This provision sets strict deadlines for state or interstate water pollution control agencies (certifying authorities) to review water quality certification applications for the NWP under Section 401 of the FWPCA. It requires a completeness determination within 14 days and a final decision within 1 year of a complete application. Failure to meet the 14-day completeness deadline results in the application being deemed complete.
Section 3(e)(2)
Restriction on EPA Veto Power for Dredged Material Disposal
This section states that while the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may consult with the Secretary of the Army on disposal sites or guidelines for dredged material, the EPA may not prohibit a disposal site determination made by the Secretary or exercise enforcement authority against the Secretary or a permittee in compliance with the NWP.
Section 4(a)
Expedited Approval for Individual Dredging Activities
This section outlines an expedited process for permittees seeking to carry out activities under the new NWP. It requires the Secretary to determine application completeness within 14 days and approve or deny the activity within 30 days of a complete application. Crucially, if the Secretary fails to meet these deadlines or respond, the proposed activity is deemed in compliance with the NWP.
Section 4(b)
NEPA Streamlining for Individual Dredging Activities
If an individual activity under the NWP is likely to have a significant environmental effect, the Secretary must first consider if mitigation can avoid these effects. If so, the Secretary must mitigate without denying the activity or requiring the permittee to conduct a separate NEPA review for that specific activity.
Section 5(a) and 5(b)
Repeal of Coastwise Trade Laws for Dredged Material
This section repeals Section 55109 of Title 46, U.S. Code, which generally required the transportation of dredged material in coastwise trade to be carried out by U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-crewed vessels. It also amends Section 55110 to explicitly exclude dredged material from other "valueless material" transportation requirements.
If the Secretary of the Army fails to meet any of the deadlines for reviewing an individual permittee's application (completeness determination within 14 days, approval/denial within 30 days of complete application), or fails to respond, the proposed activity is automatically deemed in compliance with the NWP.
Section 4(a)(5)
Why it matters:While common in legislative drafting to ensure agency action, its placement might obscure its significant impact on agency accountability and the potential for automatic approvals without full review.
Case for: Supporters argue it provides a strong incentive for agencies to act promptly and prevents bureaucratic foot-dragging from indefinitely delaying critical infrastructure projects. It ensures the efficiency promised by the NWP is realized.
Case against: Critics would argue that this provision creates a dangerous precedent, allowing projects to proceed without adequate review if an agency is understaffed, overwhelmed, or simply misses a deadline, potentially leading to significant environmental harm.
Estimated impact: Could significantly accelerate project timelines but also carries the risk of projects proceeding without full regulatory scrutiny if agencies are unable to meet strict deadlines.
When considering mitigation standards for the NWP and for individual proposed activities, the Secretary must ensure that mitigation requirements are "technically and economically feasible" for permittees.
Section 3(c)(1)(A)(iii) and Section 4(a)(6)(A)
Why it matters:This phrasing, while seemingly reasonable, can significantly limit the scope and ambition of environmental mitigation, potentially reducing the overall environmental protection achieved by the NWP. It's a common legislative tactic to balance environmental goals with industry costs.
Case for: Proponents argue that mitigation requirements must be practical and affordable to avoid making projects economically unviable, ensuring that necessary dredging can actually occur.
Case against: Opponents would argue that tying mitigation solely to "technical and economic feasibility" could lead to insufficient environmental protection, as it prioritizes project costs over ecological integrity, potentially allowing significant unmitigated harm.
Estimated impact: Could reduce the stringency and scope of environmental mitigation required for dredging projects, potentially leading to greater uncompensated environmental impacts.