Por Renan Filho · 2026-09-24A construction crane has become a rare sight in much of the United States — not because demand is low, but because the regulatory gauntlet has made building nearly impossible. American businesses across housing, energy, and manufacturing face an average of six to ten years of permitting delays before breaking ground, according to a 2024 report by the National Association of Home Builders. The cost of these delays, passed directly to consumers, has helped push the median home price above $420,000 and stalled hundreds of infrastructure projects.
The problem is not a shortage of capital or labor, but a labyrinth of federal, state, and local rules that overlap, contradict, and paralyze. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) alone can require environmental impact statements that run thousands of pages and take years to complete. The Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act add layers of review, each offering a litigation hook for activist groups that oppose any development. In a 2023 survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 78% of small and medium-sized builders reported that regulatory uncertainty had caused them to abandon or delay projects.
Why this matters goes far beyond the construction industry. Housing affordability is a national crisis. The National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates a shortage of 7.3 million affordable rental homes. Energy independence depends on building pipelines, wind farms, and transmission lines — all of which are mired in permitting battles. Manufacturing reshoring, a priority for both parties, requires factories that can be built in months, not years. Every delay translates into higher prices, fewer jobs, and a weaker competitive position for the United States against China and Europe, where permitting timelines are far shorter.
Congress has taken notice. In the 118th Congress, bipartisan bills such as the “BUILD Act” (S. 1390) and the “REAL Housing Act” (H.R. 3507) proposed streamlined environmental reviews, shorter litigation windows, and state-level zoning reform incentives. Senator Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) jointly introduced a permitting reform package that would set two-year deadlines for major infrastructure reviews. The House Financial Services Committee held hearings in early 2025 where witnesses from the National Federation of Independent Business testified that “the cost of regulatory compliance now exceeds the cost of labor for many small builders.”
FORTIS Analysis: The free-market case for permitting reform is overwhelming. Regulations that take a decade to clear are not protecting the environment or communities — they are protecting incumbents, enriching law firms, and pricing out the next generation of homeowners. The principle of “minimum state” does not mean no rules; it means rules that are clear, predictable, and proportionate. The current system fails on all three counts. A builder should not need a lawyer to interpret whether a vacant lot can become a home. A solar farm should not require a five-year environmental study for a plot of desert. By setting hard deadlines, limiting standing for frivolous lawsuits, and forcing agencies to coordinate, Congress can restore the presumption that building is allowed unless a specific, measurable harm is proven.
Counterpoint: Environmental and community groups argue that these reforms would gut protections for clean water, endangered species, and historic sites. They point to cases where fast-tracked projects have caused pollution or destroyed habitats. The Natural Resources Defense Council, in a 2024 white paper, warned that “permitting reform is a euphemism for deregulation that will disproportionately harm low-income and minority communities.” However, the evidence does not support the claim that current regulations actually prevent harm — they simply delay it. A 2022 study by the Mercatus Center found that 85% of NEPA reviews resulted in no significant environmental impact, yet the process consumed an average of 4.5 years. The real effect is to block all development, including clean energy projects that would reduce emissions faster than any regulation. A smarter approach is to replace process-heavy rules with outcome-based standards, such as emissions caps or water quality benchmarks, and let businesses choose the most efficient way to meet them.