To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make targeted reforms with respect to waters of the United States and other matters, and for other purposes.
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
Passed HouseReceived; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment …
Passed House (inferred from eh version)
Additional sponsors: Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Hurd of Colorado, …
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the …
Mr. Collins (for himself and Mr. Graves) introduced the following …
On Passage
PERMIT Act
On Motion to Recommit
PERMIT Act
Summary
What This Bill Does
The PERMIT Act (Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act) significantly narrows the definition of "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act, exempting numerous water features from federal environmental jurisdiction. The bill aims to streamline permitting for infrastructure, agriculture, and development projects by reducing regulatory oversight of wetlands, ephemeral streams, and other water resources.
Who Benefits and How
- Farmers and agricultural producers benefit from exemptions for stormwater discharges, prior converted cropland, and pesticide applications - eliminating the need for Clean Water Act permits for common agricultural practices
- Mining and oil/gas companies gain easier access to wetland mitigation credits through reformed compensatory mitigation rules, and face reduced oil spill prevention requirements for smaller storage facilities
- Real estate developers and construction companies benefit from faster permit processing through mandatory backlog reduction, protection from legal challenges via strict 60-day statutes of limitation, and reduced jurisdiction over ephemeral streams and treatment ponds
- States (particularly Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida) gain protected authority to run their own Section 404 permit programs without EPA interference
Who Bears the Burden and How
- Environmental groups and citizens face significantly higher barriers to legally challenge permits, with strict 60-day deadlines and requirements to have commented during public comment periods
- EPA and Army Corps of Engineers lose regulatory authority over excluded water features and must expedite permit backlogs within 60 days
- Downstream communities and water users may face increased risks from agricultural runoff, pesticides, and reduced wetland protections, though these impacts are uncertain
- Wetland and aquatic ecosystems lose federal protection as waste treatment ponds, ephemeral features, prior converted cropland, and groundwater are explicitly excluded from Clean Water Act jurisdiction
Key Provisions
- Excludes waste treatment systems, ephemeral streams, prior converted cropland, and groundwater from the definition of "navigable waters"
- Exempts FIFRA-compliant pesticide applications from Clean Water Act permits
- Exempts agricultural stormwater discharges from permitting requirements
- Raises oil storage thresholds for Spill Prevention rules from 20,000 to 42,000 gallons
- Protects state dredge-and-fill permit programs (FL, MI, NJ) from EPA withdrawal
- Establishes 60-day statute of limitations for permit challenges with remand-only remedies
- Requires Army Corps to eliminate permit backlogs within 60 days
- Reforms compensatory mitigation rules to favor mining/energy projects with reclamation plans
- Exempts aerial fire retardant discharges from water permits
Evidence Chain:
This summary is derived from the structured analysis below. See "Detailed Analysis" for per-title beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
Primary Purpose
Narrows the definition of navigable waters under the Clean Water Act by explicitly excluding certain water features from federal jurisdiction, thereby reducing regulatory oversight.
Policy Domains
Legislative Strategy
"Codify exclusions from navigable waters definition to limit Clean Water Act jurisdiction, reducing federal permitting requirements for activities affecting certain water features"
Likely Beneficiaries
- Agriculture and farming operations
- Real estate developers
- Construction companies
- Mining operations
- Oil and gas companies
- Industrial facilities with waste treatment systems
Likely Burden Bearers
- Environmental regulators (EPA, Army Corps of Engineers)
- Environmental conservation groups
- Downstream communities dependent on water quality
- Wetland and watershed ecosystems
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
- "the_secretary"
- → Secretary of the Army
- "the_administrator"
- → Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- "chief_of_engineers"
- → Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Key Definitions
Terms defined in this bill
Navigable waters does NOT include: (i) waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet CWA requirements; (ii) ephemeral features that flow only in direct response to precipitation; (iii) prior converted cropland; (iv) groundwater; (v) any other features determined to be excluded by the Administrator or the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology