- June 15, 2026
- Kelly C. Ruffel
As we have seen in a number of recent legislative efforts, historic preservation reviews are increasingly being targeted in the name of accelerating infrastructure projects. The recently introduced Build America 250 Act is the latest example, containing provisions that would exempt a large number of transportation projects from important historic preservation review requirements.
A key concern with the bill is its direction for transportation project guidance to rely on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Program Comment for Certain Housing, Building, and Transportation Undertakings. Since its approval in 2024, preservation organizations have raised concerns that this approach conflicts with existing state-specific Programmatic Agreements that guide Section 106 reviews and reflect years of collaboration among federal, state, and tribal partners.
In response, Preservation Action, along with a broad coalition of preservation partners, has sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers to remove these harmful provisions from the legislation. Instead, the coalition is calling for continued and strengthened use of Programmatic Agreements—tools that have proven to be both efficient and effective. These agreements are developed through consultation with State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, federal agencies, and other stakeholders, ensuring that project delivery is streamlined while still responsibly considering impacts to historic and cultural resources.
Importantly, this debate is not about whether preservation slows down infrastructure. The data shows otherwise. The vast majority of federal undertakings are reviewed in a matter of days, and approximately 98 percent of projects result in findings of no adverse effect to historic resources. The existing system is already designed to balance efficiency with protection.
A major reason for this success is the widespread use of Programmatic Agreements. These agreements are already utilized by the Federal Highway Administration and most state Departments of Transportation. They allow for tailored approaches that reflect the specific historic and cultural resources of each state, ensuring that those with the deepest knowledge of local history are part of the decision-making process. They also provide flexibility, allowing updates and adjustments without requiring new federal legislation.
As currently written, the provisions in the Build America 250 Act risk doing the opposite of their intended goal. Rather than improving efficiency, they could create greater uncertainty in project planning, increase the likelihood of litigation and delays, and reduce meaningful consultation with states, Tribes, and local communities. In doing so, they could weaken the very system that has successfully balanced infrastructure development with historic preservation for decades.
The Build America 250 Act has already passed the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Senate has not yet introduced its version of the bill. Preservation Action will continue working with partners and advocates to ensure that historic preservation reviews remain a vital part of the infrastructure planning process as Congress considers this legislation.
We will continue to share updates and encourage engagement as this issue moves forward.
