Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)
To require the Secretary of the Army to issue guidance relating to the review of applications for alteration or temporary or permanent occupation or use of certain hydropower projects, and for other purposes.
A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill requires the Secretary of the Army to create specific guidance for reviewing applications related to hydropower projects. The goal is to establish standardized procedures for "section 408 applications" involving the alteration or occupation of these projects. The Secretary must develop a standardized checklist of required materials and clear criteria for what makes an application complete. Additionally, the guidance must include phased review procedures, timelines, and escalation procedures for missed deadlines. The bill also limits the scope of completeness reviews to ensure they do not include detailed technical or engineering analyses.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill reduces regulatory uncertainty and potential delays for project operators.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill mandates standardized checklists and timelines, increasing transparency in the application review process.
- Scored +3
Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power?
The bill streamlines the application process for hydropower projects, which can facilitate renewable energy development.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill limits the ability of the Secretary to consider new environmental standards during the completeness review process.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Predictability for Hydropower Operators: By requiring a standardized checklist of required materials and clear completeness criteria, the bill provides more certainty for those applying to alter or use hydropower projects (Section 1(b)(1)(A) and (B)).
-
Clearer Timelines and Processes: The mandate for phased review procedures, including specific scopes and timelines, provides a clearer roadmap for the application process (Section 1(b)(1)(C)).
-
Accountability for Delays: The requirement for escalation procedures ensures that if a deadline for an application is not met, the matter can be referred to higher-ranking officials at the Corps of Engineers (Section 1(b)(1)(D)).
-
Limitation of Scope: The bill prevents the completeness review from being delayed by detailed technical analysis or engineering judgments, which limits the scope of what the Secretary can do during that specific phase (Section 1(b)(1)(C)(iv) and Section 1(b)(3)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Restrictions on Environmental Oversight: The bill prohibits the Secretary from requiring compliance with any environmental standard that was not established by a Federal or relevant State agency before the date the application was submitted (Section 1(b)(3)(E)).
-
Limitations on Technical Review: The bill prevents the Secretary from conducting detailed technical reviews of engineering calculations or evaluating the adequacy of a project's design during the completeness review phase (Section 1(b)(3)(A) and (B)).
-
Restrictions on Project Modifications: The Secretary is prohibited from requesting any design modifications or additional analyses of the hydropower project while conducting a completeness review (Section 1(b)(3)(C)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates standardized checklists and timelines, increasing transparency in the application review process. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The establishment of clear timelines and escalation procedures provides more predictable procedural due process for applicants.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill reduces regulatory uncertainty and potential delays for project operators.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — The bill streamlines the application process for hydropower projects, which can facilitate renewable energy development. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Standardizing review procedures provides more predictable management of water-related projects. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill limits the ability of the Secretary to consider new environmental standards during the completeness review process.
- 7/15/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Carol MillerRepublican · West Virginia