New Clean Water Bill Broadens Compliance, Allowing Unlisted Pollutants to Slide Under the Radar

The “Confidence in Clean Water Permits Act” is a bill aimed at giving industrial permit holders more certainty about when they are officially considered compliant with their federal clean water permits (Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). But buried in the language is a major shift in how pollution is regulated, potentially making it harder to hold polluters accountable for substances that are known to be present but lack specific numerical limits.

The Compliance Loophole: What Counts as 'Clean' Now?

Currently, if a facility has a permit, they are compliant for a pollutant if they meet the specific numerical limit set for it. This bill significantly expands that definition of compliance. Under the new rules, you’re considered compliant for a pollutant even if it doesn't have a specific limit in the permit, as long as that pollutant was mentioned or identified somewhere during the permit application process. This includes pollutants covered by “indicator measurements,” those mentioned in the permit’s fact sheet, or those within the “general scope of operations” identified when the facility applied for the permit (SEC. 2).

Think of it like this: If a manufacturing plant tells the EPA, “Hey, we use Chemical X, and it might end up in our wastewater,” but the final permit doesn't set a specific limit for Chemical X—only for Chemical Y—the facility is now deemed compliant for both X and Y. For people living downstream, this means a pollutant that was known to be present and potentially harmful, but wasn't assigned a specific cleanup number, could be discharged legally and without consequence, simply because it was mentioned in passing during the paperwork phase.

Putting the EPA on a Leash for New Limits

The bill also addresses how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can impose extra limits on a permit. Sometimes, the EPA Administrator might decide that a standard permit isn't enough to protect the local water quality and wants to add a stricter “water quality-based limitation.” This bill mandates that if the EPA does this, they must clearly state the specific pollutant being limited and provide an exact, measurable way to meet that limit (SEC. 2). This has to be either a specific numerical limit (like “no more than 5 parts per million”) or a written description of the exact actions the facility must take.

For industry, this is a win for predictability. They won't get hit with vague requirements that are hard to measure. For regulators, however, it means they can’t use flexible, narrative requirements to manage complex or emerging pollutants—they have to have their ducks in a row with hard numbers or detailed procedures before they can impose a new restriction. This provision forces clarity, which is good, but it also raises the bar for the EPA to act quickly when local water quality is threatened.