Need for speed: Why permitting reform can’t come soon enough
A sentiment I consistently hear from constituents is that they no longer believe in government’s ability to do big things — not just to stake out bold ideas but to implement and deliver on them. On the major issues we face, from housing to energy production, there is growing consensus that we lack the ability to move quickly and at the scale needed to address the problems before us. They are not wrong.
In my district in California’s Central Valley, we see the need for massive investments in new water infrastructure to meet the needs of our growers and disadvantaged communities, yet we seem incapable of moving beyond the endless planning and discussion phases.
This was not always the case. The Central Valley as it exists today was built on a series of ambitious federal and state infrastructure projects that transformed the way water is transported throughout the state. Take, for instance, the C.W. Bill Jones Pumping Plant — a cornerstone of the Central Valley Project — which lifts water into the Delta-Mendota Canal and delivers roughly 3 million acre-feet of water each year to 32 water districts through a 117-mile aqueduct. Planning and construction for both the canal and the pumping plant began in 1947, and the system was operational just four years later.
A project like that today would struggle even to enter its initial planning phase within four years. A clear example is the Los Banos Creek Detention Project in western Merced County, a proposal to modernize an existing reservoir in my district that was originally built in the 1960s for flood control. The effort would expand its use to include active water storage, groundwater recharge, and conveyance — strengthening water reliability for farms, wildlife refuges, and disadvantaged communities while reducing flood risk. Supported by local water districts and federal partners alike, it is exactly the kind of practical, multi-benefit investment we should be able to deliver quickly.
But instead of being fast-tracked, the project, first proposed in 2012, has since wound its way through separate approval processes at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources Control Board. This was in addition to rounds of state and federal conceptual, environmental, operational, and design reviews, as well as countless public hearings and other procedural hurdles.
All of this is required, even though the project simply improves operations at an existing facility. I am encouraged that construction has now started — but a non-controversial project that will take only six months to build shouldn’t require more than ten years of paperwork and red tape just to get shovels into the ground.
When I talk to colleagues in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, I hear the same stories about infrastructure projects in their districts that are desperately needed but cannot seem to move forward. This is a problem of our own making, and it is within our capacity to fix it.
There are market forces at play, such as high interest rates and rising construction costs, but there are also countless ways government has made it harder to get projects approved and easier for them to get delayed or stuck in an endless cycle of review. These delays not only create uncertainty and lengthen the time it takes for projects to get built, but also add significant costs that make them either unnecessarily expensive or so prohibitively costly that they never get built.
I’m ready to work across the aisle to pass reforms that maintain essential safety and environmental protections while bringing predictability and speed to the process. The stakes are not theoretical for my constituents. California’s climate is delivering longer dry spells, bigger storms and earlier snowmelt.
Increased regulations are reducing water allocations and creating uncertainty for growers and communities alike. That volatility demands smarter conveyance, more groundwater recharge, and modernized storage. Instead, projects spend decade after decade in paperwork purgatory while families, farms, wildlife, and communities pay the price for inaction.
The core problem is process, not protection. Federal and state agencies often conduct parallel reviews covering the same issues, generating thousands of pages while adding little new information. Timelines stretch, costs soar, and opponents learn to “litigate the clock,” betting that delay will kill the project. Meanwhile, the environment doesn’t get healthier, and communities don’t get water security.
We can do better. A bipartisan effort to modernize our permitting system could restore both efficiency and trust. We could set clear, enforceable timelines for environmental review and permits — measured in months, not decades. We could establish a single coordinated review process led by one federal agency rather than forcing projects through redundant, parallel tracks. We could maintain strong oversight while placing reasonable limits on the timeframes and scope of legal challenges, so delay is no longer a tool for obstruction. And we could invest in the people and technology agencies need to meet these goals — digital permitting systems, expanded staff capacity, and modern tools that improve transparency and accountability.
Americans are losing faith in their government’s ability to take on big challenges and deliver real results, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Reforming how we build is one of the few areas where both parties already agree on the problem and the solution. By working together to fix our processes, we can save taxpayer dollars, strengthen our economy, and once again show that America can build great things for its people.
Adam Gray represents the 13th District of California in Congress.