Overview
Title
An Act To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide regulatory and judicial certainty for regulated entities and communities, increase transparency, and promote water quality, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill is about making rules for keeping water clean and safe, making it easier for people to follow these rules, and ensuring everyone knows what the rules are. It also talks about who can get permission to do things with water, like people from other countries or those building big projects, and makes sure scientists can study harmful chemicals to keep water safe.
Summary AI
H.R. 7023, known as the "Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act," aims to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance regulatory certainty and transparency regarding water quality permits. It introduces new administrative procedures for water quality criteria, extends permit duration, and mandates that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers develop streamlined guidelines for issuing permits. The bill also places limitations on foreign-controlled entities regarding permit issuance and requires EPA and the Corps to report their staffing needs to process permits effectively. Additionally, it affirms Florida's authority to manage specific water permits and safeguards EPA's ability to research harmful chemical substances like PFAS.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act," aims to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, enhancing regulatory and judicial certainty while promoting transparency and water quality. Key provisions include updates to water quality criteria, streamlined procedures for issuing federal general permits, and clarification of the judicial review process regarding permits. The bill also sets limitations on the issuance of permits to certain foreign-affiliated entities and fosters guidance on clean water regulations. Moreover, it underscores the legality of a specific permit program approved for Florida and ensures the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) retains its capacity to research specific environmental substances.
Summary of Significant Issues
One significant issue arises from Section 7, where the amendments may risk environmental degradation. The changes allow the issuance of nationwide permits for linear infrastructure projects without extensive environmental reviews, potentially bypassing crucial protections outlined in the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, the extension of permit durations to ten years could reduce regulatory oversight.
In Section 8, the introduction of a 60-day limit for judicial reviews of permits is concerning, as it could restrict individuals’ and groups’ ability to prepare legal challenges adequately. This issue intensifies as only parties who provided detailed comments during the permit's public comment period can initiate a review, which might limit access to justice.
Section 6 discusses the "withdrawal of specification" regarding disposal sites without clear criteria, possibly leading to arbitrary or inconsistent decisions.
Another considerable issue is Section 9's reliance on external legislation to define 'foreign countries of concern,' potentially causing a lack of transparency and unforeseen diplomatic complications.
Furthermore, Section 10's process for public commentary on new guidance lacks clarity, risking inefficiencies and accountability issues during implementation.
Finally, amendments in Section 2 lack oversight or accountability measures, raising concerns about the scientific soundness of newly set or revised water quality criteria.
Impact on the Public Broadly
For the general public, this bill aims to improve the predictability and efficiency of water quality regulation in the U.S. However, the streamlined processes could inadvertently undermine environmental safeguards, thereby impacting the quality of local ecosystems and possibly public health. The potential for reduced stakeholder participation in the judicial review process might weaken the public’s influence on environmental decisions that directly affect their communities.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Regulated Industries: For industries involved in discharges regulated under the Clean Water Act, the bill offers more straightforward permitting processes and longer duration for permits, which could lead to reduced costs and operational stability. The changes provide regulatory predictability, which industries often seek.
Environmental and Community Activists: Stakeholders concerned with environmental protection might experience challenges because of fewer opportunities to influence the permitting process. The limited scope for judicial review and the potential sidelining of environmental reviews could hinder their efforts to ensure accountability and protect natural resources.
State and Local Authorities: By clarifying the roles and enhancing the consistency of federal permits, the bill may streamline collaboration with state and local authorities. However, disparate impacts may arise, as seen with the legislation explicitly elevating Florida's permit program.
Foreign-affiliated Entities: Companies with ties to foreign countries of concern could face increased scrutiny and potential barriers in acquiring U.S. water-related permits, impacting their capacity to operate within the country.
In summary, while the bill seeks to streamline and create regulatory clarity, it balances complex stakeholder interests and potential sacrifices in environmental oversight, demanding careful consideration and possibly further refinement to avoid unintended negative consequences.
Issues
The amendment in Section 7 raises concerns about potential environmental degradation and lack of consultation under the Endangered Species Act when issuing nationwide permits for linear infrastructure projects. This could bypass important environmental protections and extend permit durations, reducing oversight. (Section 7)
Section 8 introduces a 60-day limit for seeking judicial review of permits, which may restrict parties' ability to prepare cases adequately. This could be seen as limiting access to justice, especially since only parties that submitted sufficiently detailed comments are allowed to seek review. (Section 8)
Section 6 addresses 'withdrawal of specification' without clear criteria, which might lead to arbitrary decisions on the prohibition or allowance of disposal sites, potentially causing legal and environmental uncertainties. (Section 6)
The limitation on issuing permits to entities from foreign countries of concern in Section 9 relies on definitions from external legislation, which may not be easily accessible to all readers, reducing transparency and potentially causing diplomatic issues. (Section 9)
Section 10 lacks clarity on the implementation process for public comments on new guidance, which could lead to inefficiencies and lack of accountability during the guidance implementation phase. (Section 10)
The amendments in Section 2 regarding the process for issuing new or revised water quality criteria lack clear oversight or accountability measures, which may result in scientifically unsound or ineffective criteria. (Section 2)
The amendments in Section 5, specifically regarding the scope of 'compliance with permits,' use complex and technical terminology without clear definitions, potentially obscuring understanding for stakeholders unfamiliar with environmental regulations. (Section 5)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act establishes its short title, which is the "Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act."
2. Water quality criteria development and transparency Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section describes changes to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It requires that any new or updated water quality criteria be established through a formal rulemaking process, making it subject to administrative procedures and judicial review.
3. Federal general permits Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to let the Administrator issue general permits for similar types of discharges from similar sources. It also allows the Administrator to require a notice of intent for coverage and mandates public notice if no new permit will be issued when the current one expires. If a permit expires without proper notice, the Administrator is required to continue applying its terms to current and new applicable discharges.
4. National pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) terms Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to specify that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for States or municipalities can last up to 10 years, while permits for other entities can last up to 5 years.
5. Confidence in clean water permits Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify that compliance with the conditions of a permit covers specific pollutants, whether noted in the permit, identified during the application process, or part of the permitted operations. Additionally, it allows water quality-based limits on pollutants in a permit to be set clearly by specifying the pollutant and its allowable discharge amount or condition.
6. Reducing permitting uncertainty Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill modifies the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by clarifying when the Administrator can prevent a specific area from being used to dispose of waste during a permitting process; this restriction now runs from when a permit application is completed until when the permit is issued. These changes will apply to applications submitted after the bill becomes law.
7. Nationwide permitting improvement Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, allowing general permits on state, regional, or nationwide bases for up to ten years and specifying conditions for issuing permits for linear infrastructure projects. It also removes the need for consultations with states or federal agencies on reissuing nationwide permits and requires environmental assessments instead of detailed environmental reviews.
8. Judicial review timeline clarity Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines changes to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that specify timelines and conditions for judicial reviews of permits related to water pollution. It establishes a 60-day limit for filing reviews concerning permit issuance and requires that any party filing for judicial review must have submitted a detailed comment during the public comment period; it also limits the court’s power to vacate or enjoin permits except in cases of imminent danger to health or the environment.
9. Limitation on permit issuance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to prohibit permits for discharges from point sources controlled by entities under the jurisdiction of foreign countries of concern or their subsidiaries, while ensuring compliance with international agreements.
407. Limitation on permit issuance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
No permit can be issued for discharges from point sources owned or operated by a company under the control of countries the U.S. is concerned about, according to the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. This rule is applied in a way that respects U.S. international obligations.
10. Implementation guidance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the Army to start creating guidelines within 30 days to implement a rule about "Waters of the United States." They must also gather public comments on the guidance and ensure it aligns with a recent Supreme Court decision, making both the comments and responses available to the public.
11. Rule of construction Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section clarifies that nothing in the Act or its amendments changes the existing ban on oil and gas development in the Great Lakes as outlined in a previous law.
12. Report on Corps staffing needs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator and the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to Congress within 60 days detailing the staffing needs of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers for processing permits under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The report should also discuss how hiring more full-time employees could affect the speed of processing these permits.
13. Savings clause relating to PFAS Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section ensures that the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to research chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) remains unaffected by this Act and its amendments.
14. Approval of Florida permit program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to approve Florida's request to manage a permit program for discharging materials into water, as described in a notice from December 22, 2020, holds the same authority as a law.