The Trump administration proposed a new rule Tuesday intended to accelerate the permitting process for major energy and infrastructure projects, potentially impacting oil and gas pipelines and facilities related to artificial intelligence. The rule focuses on modifying Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a law established in the 1970s that governs water pollution in the U.S.

For decades, Section 401 has allowed states and tribes to approve, condition, or reject federal permits for projects deemed harmful to local waterways. The proposed changes aim to limit this authority, with the goal of expediting projects and promoting energy dominance, according to Jess Kramer, EPA assistant administrator for water. Kramer stated in a press briefing that the rule ensures states and tribes use Section 401 solely for its intended purpose: protecting water quality, rather than as a tool to halt projects.

The Clean Water Act, a cornerstone of environmental regulation, has historically provided states and tribes with significant leverage in influencing infrastructure development. This authority stems from the understanding that local entities are best positioned to assess the potential environmental impacts on their specific waterways. The proposed rule introduces procedural changes that could streamline the review process, potentially reducing delays and uncertainties for project developers.

Critics argue that limiting state and tribal authority under Section 401 could lead to increased environmental risks, particularly concerning water quality. They contend that the changes prioritize economic development over environmental protection, potentially undermining the long-term health of ecosystems and communities. Supporters, however, maintain that the changes will eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and promote economic growth while still safeguarding water quality.

The proposed rule is currently under review and subject to public comment. The EPA will consider feedback before finalizing the rule, which could face legal challenges from environmental groups and states opposed to the changes. The outcome will likely have significant implications for the future of infrastructure development and environmental regulation in the United States.