At the National Environmental Banking Association’s (NEBA's) recent three-day DC Fly-In, a central theme emerged: permitting efficiency under the Clean Water Act is not only vital for environmental restoration, but also for economic growth and regulatory certainty.
Mitigation banking, when applied as envisioned in the 2008 Final Mitigation Rule, is the most effective tool for compensating unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. By requiring banks to meet all twelve performance standards—including site selection, long-term management, and financial assurances—mitigation banking provides reliable, advance restoration that both regulators and developers can trust. Studies show that using mitigation banks can cut permitting times by more than half while ensuring durable ecological outcomes.
Unfortunately, inconsistent enforcement and the expansion of government-run alternatives like In-Lieu Fee (ILF) programs have created uncertainty for private investment. ILFs often compete directly with banks despite being lower in the regulatory hierarchy and sometimes underfunded, leading to unfunded liabilities and increased taxpayer burden. Similarly, reliance on permittee-responsible mitigation or land donations, which are not held to the same rigorous standards, too often results in ecological failure and wasted resources.
NEBA advocates for transparent, consistent application of the 2008 Rule’s hierarchy—placing mitigation banks first whenever available. Doing so would unleash significant private capital for restoration, reduce government oversight costs, and create jobs nationwide. Just as importantly, it would reaffirm a commitment to high ecological standards while streamlining permitting for responsible development.
The message from NEBA’s Fly-In was clear: when the private sector is empowered to invest in restoration under fair, consistent rules, both the environment and the economy benefit.
Learn more about NEBA’s work and access the full white paper on permitting efficiency at www.environmentalbanking.org.
A newly released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report is shining a spotlight on a concern many in the mitigation banking industry have raised for years: inconsistent implementation of the federal compensatory mitigation program across U.S. Army Corps of Engineers districts. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps requires compensatory mitigation when permitted
Read MoreFor too long, environmental policy debates have been framed around a false and unproductive premise: that economic growth and environmental protection are inherently at odds. This mindset is not only outdated—it is actively harmful to both outcomes. Mitigation banking offers a clear path forward. By design, it aligns economic incentives with ecological restoration, proving that well-functioning
Read More