Historic Preservationists are sounding the alarm on a legislative change that could drastically reduce historic preservation nationwide, and the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation is helping lead the fight.
“We need to be loud about Section 106,” Ben Sutton, the Georgia Trust’s director of legislative advocacy and historic preservation, said at an Oct. 29 event.
Section 106 is the phrase on every preservationist’s lips. But what is the measure, and why are advocates so scared about a change?
The National Historic Preservation Act was established in 1966, and it created a system for historic preservation in the United States, with a National Register of Historic Places, federal funds and the addition of Section 106.
According to Sutton, Section 106 surrounds restrictions on federal projects. The measure “requires that federal agencies consider the effects of federally supported undertakings on historic properties.”
Basically, the government can’t take on any projects without checking for impact on historic properties. It changed the preservation game. In 1966, Georgia had seven historical sites and 164 archaeological sites.
Between 1966 and 2025, the state recorded 115,000 historic structures and 64,000 archaeological sites.
“For over six decades, Section 106 has worked to protect historic neighborhoods, battlefields, archaeological sites and countless other places that tell Georgia’s story,” Georgia Trust President and CEO W. Wright Mitchell said.
Section 106 even expanded in the 1980s to add more local power. The process helped “scuttle” the controversial Presidential Parkway project in Atlanta, which would have cut through Ponce de Leon Avenue, Druid Hills and Emory University. The highway was halted by heavy local opposition and those Section 106 protections.
“Importantly, this federal regulation has provided an opportunity for local communities to have a voice in identifying and protecting their historic places — battlefields, historic districts and sacred places — before federal projects commenced,” Sutton said.
But the protection process slows any federal projects. The projects also have to run through several groups before moving ahead. It is costly and lengthy, two things that spurred a federal change.
In July, the independent Advisory Council on Historic Preservation approved a revised version of the guidelines. It had one major change: turning a required process to something the government “may” do.
It takes the power away from preservation advocates and local groups. Sutton said the proposed Senate bill would “dramatically curtail” input and limit Georgians’ ability to speak up for historic sites.
Sutton worries the measures have been around for so long that most people “take it for granted.” They don’t know a world before the federal protections. But he has a prediction for the world after.
“Should these alterations go through, you’re looking at about a 75 percent reduction of projects that would have any level of historic preservation review at all,” Sutton said.
It’s where alarm bells start ringing for the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation. So far, the organization has put out opinion pieces, held panels and pushed elected officials directly. Now it’s hosting a “Speak up for Section 106” virtual event.
“We cannot express our concern deeply enough,” Sutton said.
He said the required consultation is “instrumental” in avoiding bad outcomes, and it rarely halts a federal project entirely — unless it’s a highway that can cut through a neighborhood.
The trust sent its meeting of community members and experts off with a simple message on Oct. 29. “The request is simple: Oppose the bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act unless its preservation provisions are removed or drastically improved.”
