Restoring Federalism in Clean Water Permitting Act | ChamberLight
Bills · HR 3902
IN COMMITTEE· 119TH CONGRESS
House BillHR 3902Environmental Protection
Restoring Federalism in Clean Water Permitting Act
INTRO JUN 11· LAST ACTION JUN 13
READING
3MIN
COSPONSORS
0
READER REACTIONS0 TOTAL
NO VOTES YET · BE THE FIRST
Introduced only
LEGISLATIVE PROGRESS
STEP 2 / 8
Introduced
In Committee
Reported
Passed House
Passed Senate
Conference
To President
Became Law
WHAT THE BILL DOES
AI-written
This bill matters because it could significantly change how environmental permits are handled across the country, particularly for projects impacting wetlands and other water bodies. If more states assume control of these permit programs, it might lead to faster approval times for development, agricultural, or infrastructure projects, as the process could become more localized and potentially less bureaucratic.
However, it also changes the avenues for accountability. By limiting who can sue and how long they have, and by preventing courts from easily halting state programs, the bill could reduce the ability of the public and environmental advocates to challenge decisions they believe are harmful to water quality. This means there's a potential trade-off between streamlining development and maintaining federal oversight and public input on environmental protection.
KEY PROVISIONS
5AI-extracted
PROVISION 01
Directs the EPA to review and revise regulations for approving state permit programs under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
This aims to simplify the process for states to manage their own water pollution permits, potentially leading to more state-run programs.
PROVISION 02
Establishes a 60-day statute of limitations for challenging EPA approvals of state permit programs in court.
This significantly shortens the time available for lawsuits, making it more difficult to challenge approvals after they are issued.
PROVISION 03
Requires parties seeking judicial review to have submitted specific comments during the initial public comment period.
This limits who can file a lawsuit, restricting challenges only to those who formally raised the specific issues earlier.
PROVISION 04
Prevents courts from vacating or stopping a state permit program, even if an EPA approval is flawed, unless there is an imminent and substantial danger to health or environment.
This makes it harder for courts to immediately halt state permit programs, preserving their operation even if the EPA made administrative errors.
PROVISION 05
Requires courts to set a maximum 180-day deadline for the EPA to act on any court orders related to permit program approvals.
This creates a quick turnaround requirement for the EPA to address court-identified issues, ensuring timely resolution.
This bill matters because it could significantly change how environmental permits are handled across the country, particularly for projects impacting wetlands and other water bodies. If more states assume control of these permit programs, it might lead to faster approval times for development, agricultural, or infrastructure projects, as the process could become more localized and potentially less bureaucratic.
However, it also changes the avenues for accountability. By limiting who can sue and how long they have, and by preventing courts from easily halting state programs, the bill could reduce the ability of the public and environmental advocates to challenge decisions they believe are harmful to water quality. This means there's a potential trade-off between streamlining development and maintaining federal oversight and public input on environmental protection.
KEY PROVISIONS
AI-extracted
high
Directs the EPA to review and revise regulations for approving state permit programs under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
This aims to simplify the process for states to manage their own water pollution permits, potentially leading to more state-run programs.
high
Establishes a 60-day statute of limitations for challenging EPA approvals of state permit programs in court.
This significantly shortens the time available for lawsuits, making it more difficult to challenge approvals after they are issued.
med
Requires parties seeking judicial review to have submitted specific comments during the initial public comment period.
This limits who can file a lawsuit, restricting challenges only to those who formally raised the specific issues earlier.
high
Prevents courts from vacating or stopping a state permit program, even if an EPA approval is flawed, unless there is an imminent and substantial danger to health or environment.
This makes it harder for courts to immediately halt state permit programs, preserving their operation even if the EPA made administrative errors.
med
Requires courts to set a maximum 180-day deadline for the EPA to act on any court orders related to permit program approvals.
This creates a quick turnaround requirement for the EPA to address court-identified issues, ensuring timely resolution.
EPA Administrator to complete a review of regulations for State permit program approval
60 days after the date on which the approval was issued
Deadline for filing an action seeking judicial review of an Administrator's approval of a State permit program
180 days from the date on which the court remands such matter
Maximum timeline for the Administrator to take actions ordered by a court after a remand
GLOSSARY
AI-written
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the federal government's primary agency for environmental protection.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
The main federal law that regulates water pollution in the United States, aiming to restore and maintain the quality of the nation's waters.
Section 404 permit program
A section of the Clean Water Act that requires a permit for discharging dredged or fill material into 'waters of the United States,' typically affecting wetlands and streams. States can apply to manage these permit programs instead of the federal government.
Judicial review
The process by which courts examine the actions of the legislative and executive branches of government to ensure they comply with the law and the Constitution.
Statute of limitations
A law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated.
Remand
When an appeals court sends a case back to a lower court or administrative agency for further action or reconsideration.
Vacate, revoke, enjoin
ACTION TIMELINE
3 EVENTS
JUN 13, 25
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
COMMITTEE
JUN 11, 25
Introduced in House
INTROREFERRAL
JUN 11, 25
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
