An Act amending the act of November 26, 1978 (P.L.1375, No.325), known as the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act, further providing for definitions and for projects affecting submerged lands of the Comm . . .onwealth.
SB 109 amends Pennsylvania’s Dam Safety and Encroachments Act. Based on the bill caption and legislative history, it updates statutory definitions and revises provisions governing projects that affect submerged lands of the Commonwealth. In practical terms, the bill appears aimed at clarifying how the law applies to activities in or near waterways, riverbeds, lakebeds, and other submerged lands regulated under the dam safety and encroachment framework.
The measure likely adjusts permitting, review, or jurisdictional standards for certain water-related projects, helping align the statute with current administrative or environmental management needs. Because the bill was enacted as Act No. 19 of 2025, it now changes the operative law in this area and will affect state agencies that administer dam safety and encroachment approvals, as well as developers, utilities, municipalities, and other parties proposing work in regulated aquatic or submerged-land areas.
SB 109 amends the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act, meaning it changes Pennsylvania law governing dam safety, encroachments, and projects impacting submerged lands. The bill updates definitions and the treatment of projects affecting submerged lands of the Commonwealth, which can alter how permits are interpreted, what activities are regulated, and how agencies evaluate work in waterways and other submerged areas. It directly affects the Department of Environmental Protection and regulated project sponsors such as infrastructure owners, local governments, and private developers.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It advanced unanimously in Senate committee, passed the Senate 50-0, moved through House committee without opposition, and passed the House 202-0. The unanimous votes suggest strong bipartisan agreement that the changes were technical, clarifying, or otherwise routine rather than politically divisive.
No notable opposition is reflected in the available record. There were no recorded dissenting votes in committee or on final passage, and no committee transcripts were provided showing substantive debate. Any potential points of contention would likely have centered on how the revised definitions or submerged-lands provisions might affect permitting authority, environmental review, or project costs, but the voting history indicates those issues did not generate visible conflict.