Infrastructure Week is back. Sort of.
Folks may recall that, during the first Trump administration, infrastructure week became a running gag among the political class due to the fact that every time the White House promised to focus on the issue, those plans were derailed – often by the President himself.
Trump’s first term ended without a major infrastructure bill. Only in 2021 did Congress pass and President Biden sign into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which provided roughly $1.2 trillion in infrastructure dollars over five years, including $550 billion in new spending. It funded everything from roads and bridges to mass transit, freight rail, ports and airports, broadband, electric vehicle infrastructure, and more.
But the IIJA expires at the end of September, meaning Congress and the White House need to renew the law or risk denying states and cities billions in federal infrastructure dollars.
Late last month, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unveiled and passed a bipartisan bill to succeed the transportation portions of the IIJA. The BUILD America 250 Act would provide about $580 billion in federal funding for roads, bridges, transit, rail, and highway safety programs through FY2031.
While the bill has garnered support from both sides of the aisle, it also is drawing controversy, including from the preservation community.
Of particular note is the bill’s Section 1202, which would exempt certain projects from the Department of Transportation’s Section 4(f) review process (which protects historic sites and public lands from transportation project impacts) if those projects have already been exempted from Section 106. The provision draws its list of eligible exemptions from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 2024 “Program Comment on Certain Housing, Building, and Transportation Undertakings.”
That Program Comment itself drew strong concerns from the preservation community – including from ACRA – for its overly broad scope. At the time, ACRA told the ACHP that “the scope of this proposed Program Comment is so broad and comprehensive that it will lead to a raft of unintended consequences that will impair the ability to preserve, protect and mitigate from harm our nation’s cultural heritage. Worse, if adopted the Program Comment will set a precedent that may be abused by subsequent Councils and Council Chairs.”
By proposing to exempt from 4(f) projects that already have been exempted by the Program Comment, Section 1202 of the BUILD America 250 Act risks leaving many properties and resources of historic or cultural significance unprotected. It could short-circuit the public consultation that is a hallmark of Section 106. And because it rests on shaky legal footing, it could end up delaying projects rather than accelerating them.
More importantly, there is no evidence that such a change is needed, as the vast majority of state DOTs have programmatic agreements with the federal government that already address smaller, repeatable projects that do not necessitate individualized reviews.
For these reasons, ACRA and its preservation partners have written to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee urging them to amend Section 1202 to replace language citing the Program Comment with provisions that require states to keep utilizing and amending when needed programmatic agreements.
With Congress looking to approve a transportation bill by the end of September, ACRA and its allies will be working hard to ensure that the bill supports a sensible Section 106 process and does not undermine the important work that SHPOs, THPOs, state DOTs and other have done to balance the needs of infrastructure improvement and preservation. Stay tuned for more on this issue as it develops.
House Subcommittee Approves HPF Funding
The House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee approved an FY27 funding bill for the Department of the Interior May 21 that provides $163.6 million from the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) to S/THPOs and competitive grant programs for historic preservation.
The amount is below the current year’s level if $181 million, but is significantly higher than the White House’s request for just $11 million. The bill also would extend the HPF’s authorization to collect monies from Outer Continental Shelf royalites for one more year.
The bill also would provide $3.23 billion for the National Park Service, a one percent reduction from the current fiscal year. The bill directs the NPS to maintain staffing levels in order to fulfill its mission, including to “protect natural and cultural resources” and administer historic preservation programs, although it does not spell out specific staffing levels.
ACRA and its preservation partners have asked Congress for $250 million from the HPF in FY27, including $25 million for technology upgrades at S/THPOs. As the bill moves through Congress, ACRA will continue advocating for higher amounts.