PERMIT Act Slashes Clean Water Protections, Exempts Farm Runoff, and Limits Lawsuits

The Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act, or the PERMIT Act, is a massive overhaul of how the federal government regulates water quality under the Clean Water Act. While framed as a measure to streamline infrastructure permits, the bill fundamentally changes who needs a permit, how long permits last, and what waters are even protected.

The Fine Print on Water Quality

One of the biggest shifts is in how water quality standards are set. Currently, the EPA sets criteria based on protecting public health and the environment. Under Section 2, states reviewing standards now must consider whether controls for sewer overflows are cost-effective. Furthermore, when the EPA develops new water quality criteria (Section 2, 4), they are now legally required to consider the cost and commercial availability within the U.S. of the necessary treatment technologies. This sounds reasonable on the surface—who wants expensive, hard-to-find tech? But this provision creates a clear pathway for industry to argue that meeting stricter water quality standards is simply too expensive or technologically inconvenient, potentially leading to weaker standards overall.

Speeding Up the Permit Grind

For anyone involved in construction or energy projects, the PERMIT Act brings significant regulatory relief. The maximum duration for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits—which regulate what can be dumped into U.S. waters—is extended from five years to ten years (Section 7). Similarly, nationwide general permits for things like pipelines and power lines are also extended to ten years (Section 13). This means less paperwork and fewer costly renewal cycles for companies.

Section 5 also targets the notorious delays in state water quality certifications (Section 401). States must now make a decision—grant, deny, or waive—within a clear timeframe set by the federal licensing agency. They can only base their decision on core Clean Water Act compliance, not on broader environmental concerns. If you’re a developer, this is great news; it stops states from indefinitely stalling projects.

Where the Clean Water Act No Longer Applies

This is where the bill hits the brakes on federal oversight. Section 18 dramatically narrows the definition of “navigable waters,” which is the legal boundary for the Clean Water Act. The new definition explicitly excludes several common water features that have historically been regulated, including:

• Groundwater (underground water).
• Features that only flow after rain (ephemeral streams).
• Wastewater treatment systems (like lagoons or ponds).
• Actively used agricultural land, including land that was drained before 1985 to grow crops.

What this means in real terms: If you live downstream from a farm or development that discharges into a stream that only flows after a big storm, that stream is likely no longer under federal protection. Any pollution discharged there—even if it ends up in your community’s river—will be much harder to regulate, as the EPA and Corps of Engineers lose jurisdiction over huge swaths of the country’s waterways. For communities relying on these smaller tributaries, this is a major loss of environmental protection.

Exemptions for Farm Runoff and Pesticides

The bill carves out large exceptions for the agricultural sector, addressing two major sources of non-point source pollution:

1. Agricultural Stormwater (Section 10): The EPA and states are absolutely prohibited from requiring a permit for stormwater discharges coming from agricultural land after a rainstorm. If fertilizer, sediment, or animal waste washes off a field due to rain, it’s exempt from federal permitting. This removes a key tool for managing pollution that contributes to algal blooms and dead zones.
2. Pesticide Application (Section 11): If a pesticide is approved under federal law (FIFRA), its application and resulting runoff generally won't require a separate water pollution permit. You only need a permit if you violate the pesticide's label and that violation causes the pollution.

The Courtroom Gets a Gatekeeper

Finally, the PERMIT Act makes it much harder to challenge permit decisions in court (Section 15). If you want to sue over a permit, you now have a strict 60-day window to file the lawsuit. Crucially, you must prove you submitted a detailed public comment during the initial administrative process that raised the exact issue you are now suing over. If you missed the public comment period, you can't sue.

Even if a court finds the agency made a mistake, its power is limited. The court cannot cancel or revoke a permit unless it finds that continuing the activity poses an “immediate and serious danger to human health or the environment,” and there’s no other legal way to stop that danger. This sets an extremely high bar, making it nearly impossible for citizens or environmental groups to halt a polluting project once the permit is issued, even if the permit was based on flawed science or legal errors.