While the bill does not prohibit stream restoration outright, it redefines how such projects are evaluated, credited, and justified—raising practical questions for local governments, developers, utilities, and infrastructure owners that rely on restoration projects to meet regulatory obligations.
SB 688 would require the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to prioritize stormwater management practices that capture runoff at or near the source and minimize disturbance to existing streams, floodplains, and forests. In practical terms, the bill elevates practices such as bioretention, permeable pavement, green roofs, bioswales, and other upland controls over projects that involve mechanical alteration of stream channels.
The legislation also places new restrictions on the use of stream restoration projects to satisfy:
Under the bill, completion of a stream restoration project alone could no longer automatically qualify for pollution reduction or mitigation credit.
A central feature of SB 688 is its treatment of in-stream construction using heavy equipment. The bill would prohibit the approval of projects that mechanically alter stream dimensions, patterns, or profiles for compliance purposes unless strict conditions are met.
Specifically, such projects could only be credited if:
The bill explicitly states that modeled outcomes alone are insufficient. Demonstrated ecological improvement—measured through biological indices or equivalent indicators—would be required.
SB 688 would also raise the bar for project documentation and review.
Stormwater management plans that include stream-related projects would be required to include an alternatives analysis evaluating non-stream-disturbing options. Applicants would need to clearly establish project objectives, assess benefits and adverse impacts, and document why less disruptive practices cannot reasonably achieve the same outcomes.
The bill also expands expectations around public notification and engagement, requiring documentation that community outreach and presentations are complete and consistent with technical materials submitted to the state.
For authorized stream and floodplain restoration projects, SB 688 mandates at least five years of post-construction monitoring. Monitoring must assess stream stability, floodplain function, and vegetation viability, with a clear emphasis on ecological outcomes rather than structural completion.
This reflects a broader shift in regulatory thinking: restoration is no longer defined by construction activity alone, but by sustained, measurable function.
For infrastructure owners and municipalities, the bill signals a tightening link between stormwater compliance and project selection. Strategies that have historically relied on stream restoration as a flexible compliance pathway may face higher documentation costs, longer timelines, and greater uncertainty around credit eligibility.
At the same time, the legislation aligns with growing scrutiny around whether restoration projects deliver durable water quality and ecological benefits—particularly as climate-driven precipitation changes place additional stress on stormwater systems.
SB 688 does not change federal stormwater requirements directly, but it would reshape how Maryland entities meet them at the state level.
SB 688 received its first reading on February 6, 2026, and has been assigned to the Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee. If enacted, the bill would take effect October 1, 2026.
For organizations with projects in planning or early design stages, the bill underscores the importance of tracking how state-level stormwater policy is evolving—and how infrastructure compliance strategies may need to adjust accordingly.
