25
Aug
Legislation Will Gut the Clean Water Act, Thwarting Decades of Safety Efforts
(Beyond Pesticides, August 25, 2025) What the Republican-led Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the U.S. House of Representatives calls legislation to “Cut Red Tape and Increase Clean Water Act Permitting Efficiency” is being roundly criticized by environmental groups as an attack on the safety of the nation’s waterways. On June 25, the Committee passed the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act, H.R. 3898, sponsored by Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), which makes sweeping changes to the Clean Water Act (CWA) with serious consequences that will undermine water quality, pesticide oversight, and community right-to-know, according to environmental advocates. The PERMIT Act, now moving through Congress, is a package of over 15 anti-clean water bills and poses an extreme threat to clean water protections, thwarting to the goals of CWA.
Beyond Pesticides is calling on the public to Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to oppose H.R. 3898, the “PERMIT Act.”
Ever since CWA became law in 1972 to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” the definition of the “Nation’s waters,” aka “waters of the U.S.” or “WOTUS,” has been cloaked in controversy. This controversy is coming to a head again as the Trump administration revises regulations in which the Biden administration attempted to interpret the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (2023) in a way that is consistent with the goals of CWA.
The declaration of goals and policy in CWA begins: The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this Act—
(1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;
(2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983;
(3) it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited; . . .
Section 502(7) of CWA defines the term “navigable waters,” which delineates the jurisdiction of CWA regulation to be “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” thus removing the nexus to navigability in earlier law. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “The Clean Water Act itself does not expand further on the meaning of ‘waters of the United States.’ Instead, the Corps [Army Corps of Engineers] and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have expounded on this phrase through agency guidance and regulations, which federal courts have struck down on various occasions as failing to satisfy statutory or constitutional requirements.”
The CRS further explains:
In debating the 1972 amendments that created the Clean Water Act, some Members of Congress explained that they intended the revised definition to expand the law’s jurisdiction beyond traditionally navigable or interstate waters. The conference report states that the “conferees fully intend that the term ‘navigable waters’ be given the broadest possible constitutional interpretation unencumbered by agency determinations which have been made or may be made for administrative purposes.” And during debate in the House on approving the conference report, one Representative explained that the definition “clearly encompasses all water bodies, including streams and their tributaries, for water quality purposes.” Courts have frequently referred to the act’s legislative history when interpreting its jurisdictional reach, but they have not always agreed on the import of this history.
As a result, the jurisdiction of EPA and delegated state and tribal entities to protect water quality has varied according to the politics of the administration in power at the time. There is clearly a need to clarify the scope of CWA protections. In the last Congress, H.R. 5983, introduced by U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen and 131 co-sponsors, would have provided the needed clarity.
Science also has a role to play. Bodies of surface water do not exist as independent entities. Intermittent streams flow into rivers and lakes. Ponds, ditches, and wetlands may feed lakes and streams either directly or through groundwater. Contaminants of intermittent or ephemeral water bodies can affect wildlife dependent on them, as well as the waters to which they are connected. The toxic soup in many U.S. waterways is unsustainable and threatens the foundation of many food chains. Imbalances in aquatic environments can ripple throughout the food web, creating trophic cascades that further exacerbate health and environmental damage. Studies of major rivers and streams find that 90% of fish, 100% of surface water samples, and 41% of major aquifers contain one or more pesticides at detectable levels. Almost 90% of water samples contained at least five or more different pesticides. Furthermore, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports at least 143 pesticides and 21 pesticide transformation/breakdown products (metabolites) in the groundwater of over 43 states.
Promoted as a way to “streamline” permits for industry and development, the PERMIT Act weakens critical clean water protections, by:
- Cutting protections for streams and wetlands. The bill redefines which waters are protected, removing safeguards for many small streams, wetlands, and seasonal (ephemeral) waterways, allowing them to be polluted, filled in, or destroyed with no consequences. It would codify the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (2023) in a way that is inconsistent with the goals of CWA.
- Allowing political appointees to exclude waters. Top officials at EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers could exclude any waters they choose from protection, without public input, science, or oversight.
- Prioritizing cost savings for polluters over science-based water quality standards. Contrary to the spirit of the CWA, EPA would have to consider cost to polluters, rather than relying on science to set water quality standards. Unsafe pollution could be labeled “safe” just because cleanup is expensive.
- Discouraging advancements in reducing wastewater pollution, resulting in outdated standards. The bill limits EPA’s ability to require regular updates to water pollution control standards based on advancements in technology. The requirement to use best available technologies would be replaced by reliance solely on only those treatment technologies already widely used in the US.
- Removing State and Tribal Power. The bill narrows states’ and tribes’ authority to consider the broader impacts of an entire project on local water quality, forcing them to make decisions based solely on specific permit discharges. It strips away the power of states and tribes to review big federal projects like pipelines or dams, rejecting them or adding conditions that protect local water, leaving decisions to federal agencies with less voice to people living in impacted communities.
- Increasing the Use of Outdated Pollution Standards. Extending the permit duration from 5 to 10 years, eliminating the opportunity to apply improved science and technology, and allowing polluters to continue using outdated pollution limits and treatment standards, while reducing opportunities to provide public input.
- Protecting polluters instead of the environment by: Authorizing sweeping “general” pollution permits with fewer safeguards, and exempting pesticide spraying, fire suppression chemicals, and agricultural runoff from permitting and accountability. Eliminating responsibility for failure to report harmful pollutants in discharges, opening the door for dangerous chemicals like mercury or PFAS (“forever chemicals”) to end up in water with no consequences.
- Exempting pesticide discharges from CWA permits if the product is registered under FIFRA. This removes the only mechanism for site-specific protections, monitoring, and public notice of pesticide pollution. By removing CWA permit requirements for pesticides, it legalizes pollution without accountability, eliminates public notice and comment, and strips communities of recourse when their water is at risk.
Letter to U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators:
H.R. 3898, the “PERMIT Act” makes sweeping changes to the Clean Water Act (CWA), with serious consequences for water quality, health and environmental protection, and community right-to-know.
The PERMIT Act (H.R. 3898) is a package of over 15 anti-clean water bills and poses an extreme threat to clean water protections, in contradiction to the CWA’s goals and objectives. Promoted as a way to “streamline” permits for industry and development, the bill weakens critical clean water protections by:
- Cutting protections for streams and wetlands. The bill redefines which waters are protected, removing safeguards for many small streams, wetlands, and seasonal (ephemeral) waterways, allowing them to be polluted, filled in, or destroyed with no consequences. It would codify the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (2023) in a way that is inconsistent with the goals of CWA.
- Allowing political appointees to exclude waters. Top officials at EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers could exclude any waters they choose from protection, without public input, science, or oversight.
- Prioritizing cost savings for polluters over science-based water quality standards. Contrary to the spirit of the CWA, EPA would have to consider cost to polluters, rather than relying on science to set water quality standards. Unsafe pollution could be labeled “safe” just because cleanup is expensive.
- Discouraging advancements in reducing wastewater pollution, resulting in outdated standards. The bill limits EPA’s ability to require regular updates to water pollution control standards based on advancements in technology. The requirement to use best available technologies would be replaced by reliance solely on only those treatment technologies already widely used in the US.
- Removing State and Tribal Power. The bill narrows states’ and tribes’ authority to consider the broader impacts of an entire project on local water quality, forcing them to make decisions based solely on specific permit discharges. It strips away the power of states and tribes to review big federal projects like pipelines or dams, rejecting them or adding conditions that protect local water, leaving decisions to federal agencies with less voice to people living in impacted communities.
- Increasing the Use of Outdated Pollution Standards. Extending the permit duration from 5 to 10 years, eliminating the opportunity to apply improved science and technology, and allowing polluters to continue using outdated pollution limits and treatment standards, while reducing opportunities to provide public input.
- Protecting polluters instead of the environment by: Authorizing sweeping “general” pollution permits with fewer safeguards, and exempting pesticide spraying, fire suppression chemicals, and agricultural runoff from permitting and accountability. Eliminating responsibility for failure to report harmful pollutants in discharges, opening the door for dangerous chemicals like mercury or PFAS (“forever chemicals”) to end up in water with no consequences.
- Exempting pesticide discharges from CWA permits if the product is registered under FIFRA. This removes the only mechanism for site-specific protections, monitoring, and public notice of pesticide pollution. By removing CWA permit requirements for pesticides, it legalizes pollution without accountability, eliminates public notice and comment, and strips communities of recourse when their water is at risk.
Please oppose H.R. 3898, the “PERMIT Act.”
Thank you.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
