PERMIT Act Redefines 'Navigable Waters,' Prioritizes Cost Over Water Quality, and Speeds Up Infrastructure Permits

The Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act, or the PERMIT Act, is a massive bill aimed at fundamentally reshaping how the federal government regulates water quality under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Its main goal is to accelerate permitting for energy and infrastructure projects, but it does this by narrowing environmental oversight and changing the rules for how clean our water needs to be.

The New Math for Clean Water: Cost Over Criteria

One of the biggest shifts is how water quality standards are set. Right now, standards are often focused on protecting human health and the environment. Under Section 2 and Section 4 of this bill, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states must now specifically consider the cost and commercial availability of treatment technologies when setting water quality standards and issuing criteria. Think of it this way: instead of asking, "What level of pollution is safe?" the question becomes, "What level of pollution can industry afford to treat?" For communities downstream from a factory or sewage plant, this could mean standards are intentionally set lower if the required cleanup technology is deemed too expensive or not widely available.

Where Does the CWA Stop? The New Definition of Water

If you thought the definition of "navigable waters" was confusing before, get ready for a significant change. Section 20 explicitly excludes several categories of water from CWA protections. Specifically, the bill says "navigable waters" no longer include ephemeral features (streams that only flow after rain), groundwater, and certain types of prior converted cropland. For someone living in the arid West, where water is scarce and ephemeral streams are crucial for the ecosystem, losing federal protection for these features is a big deal. For everyone, excluding groundwater means the federal government loses a key tool to protect the source of much of our drinking water from pollution.

Faster Permits and Narrower Reviews

For developers and infrastructure builders, the PERMIT Act delivers major regulatory relief. Section 7 extends the standard term for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits from five years to ten years, cutting the required renewal work in half. More significantly, Section 13 streamlines the process for reissuing nationwide general permits—the kind of blanket permits used for common activities like constructing pipelines or utility lines. It mandates that the Army Corps of Engineers must now consider discharges into less than 3 acres of water to have a "minimal adverse environmental effect." Crucially, it also eliminates the need for consultation under the Endangered Species Act and replaces the detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with a simpler Environmental Assessment (EA) when reissuing these permits. This means less environmental review and faster approvals for projects that affect up to three acres of wetlands or streams.

Less Oversight for Farmers and Pesticide Users

The bill also carves out specific exemptions for the agricultural sector. Section 10 prohibits the EPA from requiring a CWA permit for stormwater runoff from agricultural land that occurs in direct response to precipitation. This is a massive exemption for farms, including subsurface drainage. Meanwhile, Section 11 establishes that CWA permits are generally not required for applying pesticides if they are used according to their federal label. While this reduces regulatory burden for farmers, it essentially removes federal oversight on runoff and pesticide discharge, placing the burden of monitoring water quality compliance elsewhere—or potentially nowhere.

Speeding Up the Legal System (Against Challengers)

If you’re a citizen or group worried about a permit and want to challenge it in court, the clock is now ticking much faster, and the rules are tighter. Section 15 sets a strict 60-day deadline to file a lawsuit after a permit is issued. Even more restrictive, Section 5, dealing with state water quality certifications for energy projects, narrows who can sue to only the applicant or someone who suffers "direct and irreparable economic harm." It also imposes a brutal rule: if a court fails to issue a final decision within 120 days (or 180 days in extraordinary circumstances) on a challenge to a granted certification, the lawsuit is automatically denied with prejudice. This effectively creates a procedural gauntlet designed to shut down legal challenges quickly, making it much harder for communities to fight projects they believe will harm their local environment.