Katie Masano Hill
For 60 years, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act has given communities a voice when federal projects could affect historically significant places. Now that process is at the center of a debate in Congress that could change how the federal government considers historic places before moving forward with major projects. JACL has joined more than 800 organizations and Tribal Nations participating in the 106 Strong coalition, which is working to protect Section 106 as Congress considers sweeping changes and cuts.
Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider how their proposed actions could affect historic properties. These can include buildings, archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, traditional cultural properties and other places that are listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The process is sometimes described as a “look before you leap” approach. Before the federal government moves forward with an undertaking, agencies generally identify historic resources that could be affected, assess potential impacts and consult with interested parties; that consultation can include State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, local governments, organizations and members of the public.
Section 106 does not give communities a veto over federal projects. Instead, it creates a process to identify historic places and consider ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate potential harm before a project proceeds or breaks ground.
For Japanese American communities, this process has played an important role in discussions surrounding historic incarceration sites.
At Minidoka National Historic Site in Idaho, for example, concerns and outrage about the proposed Lava Ridge Wind Project raised questions about potential impacts to the historic landscape and the experience of a site where thousands of Japanese Americans were incarcerated during World War II.
At Tule Lake Segregation Center in California, a proposed Federal Aviation Administration security fence has raised similar concerns about altering the landscape of the only WWII incarceration site designated for segregation, where nearly 30,000 Japanese Americans were incarcerated over the course of its operation.
For survivors and their descendants, these potential changes raise urgent questions about how to preserve a site that serves as a testament to the denial of constitutional rights and the lasting consequences of that injustice.
In both cases, Section 106 provides a framework for identifying historic resources, engaging affected communities and considering potential impacts before decisions are finalized. This process is particularly important at sites that preserve the history of government actions that violated the rights of Japanese Americans, ensuring that their historical significance and the voices of survivors and descendants are not overlooked before decisions become irreversible.
The current outrage follows changes proposed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the independent federal agency responsible for overseeing the Section 106 process. In July, the ACHP advanced proposed rulemaking to revise its Section 106 regulations.
The congressional front took a significant step forward on Sept. 30, when Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, S. 5653.
The legislation is a broad federal permitting and infrastructure bill. Its sponsors describe it as an effort to make permitting faster and more predictable while maintaining environmental and historic preservation protections and formal Tribal consultation.
Preservation organizations and members of the 106 Strong coalition have raised concerns that provisions in the legislation would substantially change how Section 106 operates. Among other changes, the coalition says the bill would narrow the definition of an “undertaking,” limit which effects must be considered, alter consultation requirements and establish deadlines that could restrict meaningful participation from stakeholders. The coalition also argues that some changes could reduce opportunities for members of the public to participate before federal decisions are made.
Supporters of the legislation argue that changes are necessary to address delays in federal permitting and infrastructure development. However, research calls into question the veracity of these claims and whether Section 106 is a significant source of those delays.
The nationwide average for a Section 106 review is just 16 days, and many projects are reviewed in a single day. Only a small fraction of projects encounters significant complications related to historic preservation during the review process. In fact, 98 percent of Section 106 reviews ultimately find that proposed projects will have no adverse effect on historic resources.
Rather than serving as an obstacle to infrastructure development, Section 106 provides a framework for moving projects forward while respecting historic places, cultural heritage and the communities connected to them. Weakening these protections risks sacrificing meaningful consultation without addressing the underlying causes of permitting delays.
The stakes will come into sharper focus on Nov. 9, when the Senate is scheduled to vote on the legislation. Sixty votes are needed to advance the bill, making the Senate vote an important point in the debate over the future of Section 106.
As part of the 106 coalition, we are urging JACL members to contact their senators and ask them to vote NO on this piece of legislation, especially given the lack of time to amend the bill.
Ultimately, the coalition argues that Section 106 itself is not broken. They point to decades of use and contend that most reviews are completed without significant controversy. They also argue that problems with federal permitting often stem from issues such as limited agency staffing, unpredictable funding and project administration rather than the historic preservation review process itself.
The debate is ultimately about more than paperwork or permitting timelines. Section 106 reflects a basic principle: Before the government changes a place that may hold historical or cultural meaning, people who know that history should have an opportunity to identify what matters and explain what could be lost.
For Japanese American communities, that opportunity can be critical to protecting incarceration sites that preserve the physical evidence of government injustice. Once historic landscapes are altered or cultural resources are lost, they may be impossible to restore. Weakening these protections risks leaving survivors, descendants and communities with fewer opportunities to speak up before that loss becomes permanent.
As Congress considers changes to a process that has been part of federal historic preservation policy for six decades, the question is not simply how quickly the government can act, but what should happen before it does.
JACL encourages members to join the organization on Oct. 29 to learn more about the current fight to protect Section 106 directly from Huy Pham, executive director of Asian Pacific Islander Americans in Historical Preservation (APIAHiP).
To view JACL’s Oct. 15 action alert on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act and Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act, visit https://jacl.org/statements/protect-sec-106.
Katie Masano Hill is the Norman Y. Mineta Policy Fellow. She is based in the organization’s Washington, D.C., office.
