Overview
Title
To amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to codify certain regulatory provisions relating to nationwide permits for dredged or fill material, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
This bill is like making new rules to help keep our water clean and safe. It wants to make sure there are clear steps and timelines for people who need special permission to do things that might affect our water, like building projects. It also makes sure that everyone can say what they think about these projects and that their voices are heard.
Summary AI
H.R. 7023, titled the "Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act," aims to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the regulations governing nationwide permits for dredged or fill material. This bill outlines procedures to increase transparency and consistency in water-related permits, prescribing specific criteria for issuing permits and detailing compliance requirements. It also aims to provide clear timelines for judicial reviews and guidance implementation to enhance regulatory certainty for regulated entities. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of public input and compliance with recent Supreme Court decisions.
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 by codifying certain regulatory provisions related to nationwide permits for dredged or fill material. It introduces new guidelines for water quality criteria, changes the process for issuing general permits, and provides specific structures for judicial review of permitting decisions. The bill also extends the duration of general permits from five to ten years and clarifies the actions the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator can take regarding permit applications and designations of disposal sites.
Summary of Significant Issues
There are several notable concerns associated with this bill. First, the substantial extension of general permits' duration from five to ten years could potentially reduce the frequency of environmental reviews, potentially weakening sustained oversight and protection. Additionally, the bill waives essential consultation requirements with states and federal agencies regarding endangered species, which could affect environmental assessments.
The process for seeking judicial review is also restricted by requiring prior submission of specific comments during public comment periods, potentially limiting legal recourse for those without prior knowledge or expertise. Another issue is the lack of clarity and timelines for issuing new or revised water quality criteria, which could result in delays and uncertainties.
Finally, there are concerns regarding the lack of detailed guidance on incorporating public comments into the finalized implementation guidance, which could affect transparency and inclusivity in decision-making.
Impact on the Public Broadly
The bill's impact on the general public is multifaceted. On one hand, it aims to streamline and clarify water permitting processes, which might lead to increased confidence in the regulatory framework by reducing bureaucratic hurdles and enhancing transparency. On the other hand, the possible weakening of environmental oversight, due to extended permit durations and limited evaluations of environmental impacts, might raise public concerns about long-term water quality and ecosystem integrity.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Stakeholders such as developers and industries might benefit from the extended durations of permits and simplified procedures, potentially reducing costs and time associated with oversight compliance. These changes might encourage development and infrastructure projects by providing more predictability and stability in the permitting process.
Conversely, environmental groups and conservationists may view the bill negatively due to its potential to weaken environmental protections. Reduced frequency of reviews and limited ecological assessments might lead stakeholders concerned with preserving ecosystems to argue that the bill could undermine long-term environmental stewardship and endanger protected species.
In summary, while the bill seeks to build confidence and transparency in clean water permitting processes, it faces significant criticisms regarding potential environmental impacts and restrictions on public participation in regulatory discussions. Balancing regulatory efficiency with effective environmental oversight remains crucial for addressing the concerns raised by diverse stakeholders.
Issues
The significant extension of general permit terms from five years to ten years in Section 6 could potentially weaken environmental oversight over an extended period, raising concerns about sustained environmental protection.
The waiver of consultation requirements with States and Federal agencies concerning endangered species when reissuing nationwide permits, as seen in Section 6, could significantly reduce essential environmental and ecological assessments, potentially undermining species protection efforts.
The provision in Section 6 that mandates compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act by preparing an environmental assessment rather than a more comprehensive environmental impact statement might limit the thoroughness of environmental reviews, potentially leading to inadequate evaluations of environmental impacts.
Section 7's restriction that only parties who submitted sufficiently detailed comments during the public comment period can seek judicial review might be seen as a barrier to legal recourse, potentially limiting legal involvement to those with prior detailed knowledge or resources.
The complex and potentially restrictive timeline for filing actions seeking judicial review as specified in Section 7 might limit access to justice for parties who are unable to meet the specified 60-day deadlines.
The absence of specific timelines or deadlines for the Administrator to issue new or revised water quality criteria, as noted in Section 2, could lead to delays and uncertainty in implementation, which is crucial for maintaining water quality standards.
The provision under Section 6 that allows maintaining general permits for linear infrastructure projects with minimal environmental oversight might accumulate negative environmental impacts, especially given the 1/2-acre of waters threshold for diverse projects.
Section 4 does not specify any mechanisms for monitoring or auditing compliance with permit conditions, which could result in enforcement challenges and undermine the effectiveness of water quality management.
The absence of guidance on how public comments will influence the final guidance in Section 8 might lead to concerns about transparency and inclusivity in decision-making processes.
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. Confidence in clean water permits Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act aim to clarify what constitutes compliance with permit conditions, specifically addressing pollutants included and not included in a permit's effluent limitations. It allows for water quality-based limitations to be added to permits when necessary, detailing the specific pollutants and required discharge limits or waterbody conditions.
5. Reducing permitting uncertainty Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the timeframe during which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator can designate or restrict areas as disposal sites, starting when an applicant completes a permit application and ending when the permit is issued. Additionally, these changes apply to permit applications submitted after the act is enacted.
6. Nationwide permitting improvement Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend general permits for certain projects from five to ten years and requires specific considerations for environmental effects related to these permits. It mandates nationwide permits for linear infrastructure projects below certain environmental impact thresholds, and specifies that renewing such permits does not require consultation with states or federal agencies on endangered species, simplifying the permitting process.
7. Judicial review timeline clarity Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the timeline for filing lawsuits related to water permits, setting a 60-day deadline for challenges after a permit or verification is issued. It also outlines conditions for who can file suit and the steps a court can take if it finds legal violations, including limitations on vacating permits unless there's a serious risk to health or the environment.
8. Implementation guidance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires that, within 30 days, the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of the Army start a process to create guidance for implementing a rule about the definition of "Waters of the United States." They must also seek public feedback on the guidance and make those comments available, while ensuring the guidance aligns with the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA.