Last Thursday, October 15, marked sixty years since President Lyndon Johnson signed the National Historic Preservation Act. At the signing, he said the law was meant “to give part of our country back to its people.” It is a fitting moment to celebrate what that law has made possible in New Bedford, and a sobering one, because its most important provision is now under serious threat. (Saving Places: The Past, Present and Future of the National Historic Preservation Act)
Why the NHPA matters here
The 1966 Act created the National Register, a preservation office in every state, and Section 106, the process that gives communities a voice before federally funded or permitted projects harm historic places. In New Bedford, that process has shaped the stewardship of the U.S. Custom House, the roof work at the Bourne Building of the New Bedford Whaling Museum, and many other projects. It works because it brings federal, state, and local partners to the table early.
Threat #1: A rewrite of the Section 106 regulations
On July 24, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) voted 16–5, with two abstentions, to advance a proposed rewrite of the regulations implementing Section 106 (36 C.F.R. Part 800). Legal analysts describe the draft as characterizing Section 106 as purely procedural and replacing the directive to avoid, minimize, or mitigate harm with a general instruction to “address” it, while allowing agencies to conclude that other considerations outweigh effects on historic properties. The multi-step consultation process would give way to a single agency-prepared “Section 106 Report.” The draft would also make public comment optional. A final rule is unlikely before 2027. (National Trust for Historic Preservation: Section 106 Under Threat)
Process concerns compound the substance. Council members reportedly had about a week to review a nearly complete draft, even though the ACHP had earlier committed to a public timeline and a 60-day member comment period. Opposition has been broad, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and Tribal and archaeological organizations. As Philip Kennicott of The Washington Post observed on PBS NewsHour, the rule would cut states and tribes out of the process and could cut the public out entirely when an agency prefers not to hear from it. (PBS: July 28, 2026)
Threat #2: Congress takes aim at Section 106
Advocates now say a second threat is even more serious. A permitting reform bill moving through the Senate (S. 5653) would make much of Section 106 consultation optional, let agencies end consultation on their own, and shrink the set of places and harms that qualify for review. Reporting indicates the provisions sit inside a larger package, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026. Coalition leader Greg Werkheiser warns it would effectively rewrite the Act and gut protections for hundreds of thousands of sites. Some observers fear the language could move quickly in a lame-duck session, with little debate on its merits. (Saving Places: Tell Your Senators: Protect Community Voices and Historic Places +2)
We want to be fair about the other side of this debate. Faster, more predictable permitting for infrastructure and energy is a legitimate goal, and the National Trust says it supports more efficient and predictable federal permitting. But the data suggest Section 106 is not the bottleneck critics describe: the National Trust reports that the average review takes 16 days, and 98% conclude with no adverse effect on historic resources. The tool for the rare, difficult cases is consultation, not its elimination. (National Trust for Historic Preservation Rejects Key Provisions of Bipartisan Permitting Reform Bill.)
WHALE’s Response
WHALE has written Governor Healey, Senator Warren, Senator Markey, and Representative Keating urging them to oppose the proposed rewrite, press the ACHP to restore its earlier collaborative timeline, secure a meaningful public comment period, and affirm that Congress expects the Act’s consultation requirements to be honored. Read our letter here. Because the Senate bill has moved to the forefront, we are also asking our delegation to scrutinize its Section 106 provisions.
What the broader preservation community is doing
- The National Trust has launched a Historic Preservation Defense Fund, aiming to raise an initial $10 million, and is asking supporters to contact their senators.
- State preservation offices are speaking out. The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers has been on record opposing the proposed changes and has produced an informative one-pager for advocacy efforts nationwide.
- Coalitions and advocates, including Cultural Heritage Partners has organized the Section 106 Coalition “106 Strong” representing over 1,000 organizations to defend Section 106 and the NHPA and make it stronger for the next generation. Preservation Massachusetts is collecting Section 106 success stories to share from across the state.
- Toolkits and resources are available online from the 106 Strong Coalition and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
- Watch “Before It’s Gone” a short film created by the 106 Strong Coalition about what’s at stake and opportunities ahead.
How you can help (it takes five minutes)
- Contact Senators Warren and Markey through the National Trust’s action page and ask them to seek meaningful changes to the Section 106 provisions of S. 5653.
- Write to Governor Healey and Representative Keating sharing how these changes will impact historic properties in our area and the reduction of the public’s voice in federal projects.
- Share a Section 106 story about a place that matters to you to Preservation Massachusetts or to us at WHALE.
- Stay informed. When the rule is published in the Federal Register, we will alert you to the comment period. Be sure to sign up for our e-mails to be kept up to date.
- Join or renew your WHALE membership. Advocacy, education, and hands-on preservation all depend on member support.
Preservation has never been about stopping progress. It is about making sure the places that define our community are thoughtfully considered and that the people who live here have a voice in what happens next. Thank you for using yours.