This act exempts legally authorized pesticide applications from needing separate Clean Water Act permits for discharges into navigable waters, with specific exceptions for violations and certain industrial or stormwater discharges.
David Rouzer
Representative
NC-7
The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2025 aims to streamline pesticide regulation by generally exempting legally authorized pesticide applications from needing separate Clean Water Act discharge permits. This change applies when authorized pesticides or their residues enter navigable waters from a specific discharge point. However, the exemption does not apply if the discharge violates FIFRA rules, involves certain stormwater runoff, or originates from industrial processes or vessels.
New Act Removes Clean Water Permits for Pesticide Discharge: What It Means for Local Rivers and Drinking Water
The newly introduced Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2025 is looking to simplify life for anyone who uses federally authorized pesticides—think farmers, pest control companies, and even public works crews. The bottom line is this: if a pesticide is already approved for sale and use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), you no longer need a separate permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to discharge that pesticide or its residue into navigable waters (Sec. 2, Sec. 3). This is a big deal because it essentially removes a major layer of environmental oversight for pesticide application near or directly into rivers, lakes, and streams.
The Permit Loophole: Trading Oversight for Efficiency
Currently, if you’re applying chemicals near water and there’s a point source discharge—like runoff from a ditch or pipe—you generally need a CWA permit, which often requires monitoring and specific steps to protect water quality. This bill takes that requirement off the table. The stated goal is regulatory relief, cutting down on the paperwork and cost for applicators. For a large farm or a municipality managing invasive species, this could mean significantly lower compliance costs and less time spent on administrative tasks. It streamlines the process by saying, "If the EPA already said the chemical is okay under FIFRA, we don't need a second permit just because it ends up in the water" (Sec. 2).
What Stays Regulated (And Why It Matters)
While the CWA permit requirement is largely gone, the bill does keep a few exceptions where a permit is still necessary. You still need a permit if you apply the pesticide in a way that violates a FIFRA rule designed to protect water quality, and that violation actually caused the discharge (Sec. 3). This means the burden of proof shifts entirely to FIFRA enforcement, which focuses on proper product use rather than the specific water quality impact of the discharge itself. Permits are also still required for specific industrial discharges, effluents from treatment works, and discharges related to a vessel’s normal operation, like ballast water (Sec. 3).
The Real-World Risk to Your Water Supply
For the rest of us—the people who fish, swim, or simply rely on tap water sourced from those "navigable waters"—this change is a serious concern. The Clean Water Act permit process provided a critical check, ensuring that even authorized chemicals weren't being discharged in ways or amounts that harmed local ecosystems or drinking water sources. By removing this requirement, the bill shifts the entire burden of water protection onto FIFRA, which wasn't originally designed to manage point-source water pollution. If enforcement of FIFRA is weak, or if the product label allows for uses that are technically legal but still environmentally damaging when discharged en masse, this could lead to increased levels of pesticide residue in waterways. Effectively, we’re trading a proactive environmental review (the CWA permit) for a reactive enforcement mechanism (the FIFRA violation structure).