New Bill Shifts Clean Water Permitting to States, Imposes 60-Day Lawsuit Deadline for Challenges

This bill, called the Restoring Federalism in Clean Water Permitting Act, is all about changing who controls the permits for projects that involve dredging or filling wetlands and waterways under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Right now, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers manage most of this. The goal of this legislation is to push more of that responsibility—and decision-making power—down to the states.

The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator to review the current rules for approving state-run permitting programs within 180 days. The mandate is clear: the EPA must figure out how to make the approval process faster, cut down on paperwork, and generally encourage states to take over these programs (SEC. 2). For developers, farmers, or anyone needing a permit for a project near a wetland, this could mean faster approvals, as state agencies often move quicker than federal ones. The trade-off, however, is whether those state programs maintain the same protective standards as the federal government.

The Fast-Track to State Control

Think of this as the federal government trying to get out of the permitting business and handing the keys to the states. When a state applies to take over the Section 404 program, the EPA has to review the application to make sure the state has the necessary legal authority and resources. This bill essentially tells the EPA to stop dragging its feet and simplify the process for states to qualify. If this works, more states will manage their own water quality permits, potentially speeding up construction and infrastructure projects.

The Tight Squeeze on Judicial Review

The most significant changes in this bill are buried in the rules for how citizens or environmental groups can challenge the EPA’s decision to approve a state program (SEC. 3). If you think the EPA wrongly approved a state program that might be too weak, you now have a strict 60-day window to file a lawsuit after the approval date. This is a very tight deadline for complex environmental litigation, which often requires extensive legal preparation and fundraising.

Furthermore, the bill severely limits who can even bring a lawsuit. You can only sue if you were a party who submitted comments during the public comment period for that state program approval, and those comments must have been detailed enough to specifically alert the EPA to the issue you are now suing about. This means if you miss the public comment period—which is easy for busy people to do—or if your comments weren’t specific enough, you are completely shut out from challenging the approval later.

Courts Can't Hit the Brakes

Perhaps the biggest hurdle for those seeking accountability is what happens if a court actually finds that the EPA messed up (SEC. 3). If a court rules against the EPA, it generally can’t just halt the state’s permitting authority. Instead, the court must send the matter back to the EPA Administrator to fix the problem, usually within 180 days. The court can only stop the state from issuing permits if it finds that the permits already being issued pose 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, essentially allowing a faulty state program to continue operating while the EPA takes months to correct its error. For people living downstream or near a sensitive ecosystem, this means that even a successful lawsuit might not stop potentially harmful projects in time.