PERMIT Act May Reduce Regulations for Projects on CA Waters

WASHINGTON, DC — In June, Georgia Representative Mike Collins introduced the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act, H.R. 3898, aiming to streamline infrastructure projects by limiting the scope of the Clean Water Act. Among the bill’s co-sponsors is California’s District 1 Representative Doug LaMalfa. The bill would redefine “navigable waters” to exclude waste treatment systems, water systems that only flow in response to precipitation, converted cropland, groundwater, or anything determined to be excluded by the Army Corps of Engineers. On waters not defined as navigable, federal jurisdiction does not apply; therefore, environmental oversight would become the sole responsibility of the state.

The PERMIT Act would also limit the scope of environmental reviews stemming from Clean Water Act Section 401, which allows states and authorized tribes to implement certification processes for federal projects that may result in any discharge into navigable waters. Currently, laws, including the California Environmental Quality Act, take a rigorous look at potential impacts, including effects such as habitat loss and climate resilience. Under the PERMIT Act, Section 401 permitting would only apply to discharges that may directly result from project activity and not broader environmental impacts.

According to the South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL), the bill would tie California to a narrower definition of pollution, force state laws to be overlooked, and generally take away the state’s ability to enforce its environmental rules. Because California’s water laws are some of the strictest in the country, SYRCL says the PERMIT Act “strips away long-standing safeguards for rivers, streams, and communities,” and concludes that the bill constitutes “permission to pollute.”

The US House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure says the PERMIT Act has support from a wide range of industry leaders. A group of farming and ranching associations, including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, signed a letter of support, stating, “Clean water is essential to the viability of all agricultural operations and farmers go to great lengths to protect the natural resources they’ve been entrusted with. However, the current permitting framework under the CWA often presents unnecessary delays, regulatory uncertainty, and administrative burdens that hinder agricultural production, conservation, and environmentally beneficial projects. Thoughtful reform is urgently needed to ensure that the permitting process remains both environmentally responsible and efficient.” Other supporters include several builders’ associations, the National Hydropower Association, the National Mining Association, and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Several national and regional environmental groups oppose the PERMIT Act. Over 50 environmental organizations signed a letter of opposition, stating, “This package of bills is a reckless attack on our clean water safeguards, and would jeopardize the waters that our families, communities, businesses, and wildlife depend on. Clean water should not be a tool for political stunts or favors to industry donors – people from the most rural communities to the most densely populated cities all rely on our bedrock clean water protections every day.”

The PERMIT Act was reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in July. Next, it will head to the House of Representatives for further consideration and a potential floor vote. No actions are scheduled at this time. More information about the bill is available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3898.