Interesting.
Further questions....
Would we accept a permit when it's not required for the work?
How would we charge that?
Inspections?
We can guide contractors to resources available, but if a permit isn't required, I don't even think we'd review the project.
In the federal government, issuing permits for activities that we don't actually have the legal authority to regulate is ostensibly verboten. However, there are sometimes gray areas and jurisdictional questions can be a matter of interpretation by permitting staff. We'll sometimes encounter project proponents who want us to take jurisdiction and process permit applications for them even though there's weak (or no) evidence that regulated activities are occurring.
I'd say there are two circumstances that may lead federal permitting staff (USACE Regulatory in particular) to give the go-ahead to these types of permit requests:
1) Some associated processes (e.g., Endangered Species Act compliance) are often more streamlined when there's a federal permit action compared to when the applicant has to work with other agencies on their own (e.g., for ephemeral streams
post-Sackett). Accepting an application with a less-than-certain jurisdictional basis can be a way of "working with"/ helping an applicant in these situations even though we should probably just inform the applicant that no permit is required and move on.
2) As permitting agencies, the amount of workload we're carrying - and therefore the amount of budget that's justified - is often measured in terms of the number of permits we process. Likewise, annual appraisals for staff are generally based on number/efficiency of permits issued. Because of this, some agency staff (definitely not everyone) might feel inclined to "work with" applicants who request permits, even though their permit applications may have a questionable jurisdictional basis.
@Emily C, good follow up questions. I suppose if a contractor really wanted to obtain a permit from your office (e.g., to feel some sense of protection from nosey neighbors), they'd probably just have to say they were going to move some electrical wiring by a few inches or something, right? It doesn't seem like finding a basis in building code for needing a permit would be all that difficult, if that's what the contractor really wanted to do. Just like in my world, I agree you probably shouldn't/wouldn't review a project for a permit where one isn't strictly required under the law, but a motivated contractor could probably figure out a reason for needing to get permitted, don't you think?
Usually the problem is people not getting permits in situations where they need them and not the other way around, so what we're discussing here really is a peculiar exception to the rule. Still, interesting to think about how permitting staff should respond if ever dealing with contractors who make it standard practice to always seek permits (e.g., maybe with profit motive in mind, if permitting is a line item for them), regardless of the legal basis for needing that documentation.