The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has introduced a proposal that would restrict the authority of states and Native American tribes to utilize the Clean Water Act to block significant projects, such as natural gas pipelines. This initiative aligns with a broader agenda to expedite the construction of fossil fuel infrastructure, reminiscent of policies from the Trump administration. The EPA claims that these new constraints on local water quality reviews for federally regulated projects will still allow states to protect their environments while reducing delays in project approvals.

Historically, the scope of state power under the Clean Water Act has varied with different administrations. The Trump administration previously diminished this power, while the Biden administration attempted to restore it. The current proposal seeks to reintroduce limitations on Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which empowers states and certain tribes to assess the impact of federally regulated projects on water quality within their jurisdictions. For example, states have previously denied permits for pipelines due to inadequate protections for local waterways.

The proposed changes echo earlier rules from the Trump administration, which mandated clear guidelines for project applicants and imposed strict review deadlines. In contrast, the Biden administration had reinforced the authority of states and tribes to conduct thorough water quality reviews, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of project impacts. Critics, including Moneen Nasmith from Earthjustice, argue that the EPA's claims of state overreach are unfounded and that the proposed rule addresses a non-existent problem.

Additionally, the EPA is modifying its approach to cost-benefit analysis concerning air pollution regulations. According to reports, the agency will now qualitatively describe health benefits without providing a monetary estimate, while continuing to quantify the economic costs associated with pollution limits. This shift suggests that previous analyses inadequately represented the scientific uncertainties surrounding the economic benefits of reducing pollutants like fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone, which are linked to various health issues.

The EPA's new stance indicates a departure from previous methodologies that monetized health benefits, reflecting a trend towards emphasizing project costs over public health considerations. This change follows a history of adjustments in the value of a statistical life across different administrations, with the Trump administration notably adopting a more aggressive approach that often justified a default value of zero for health benefits.

As the EPA prepares for a final rule following a public comment period, the implications of these changes raise concerns about the balance between economic development and environmental protection, particularly in the context of ongoing debates about fossil fuel infrastructure and air quality regulations.