The PERMIT Act: Support for Clean Water Should be Bipartisan

The health and environmental harms to come from the PERMIT Act will span across state and party lines.

By

By: Auburn Schnitzer and Nancy Stoner

On June 25, 2025, the House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee advanced a bill that will weaken the Clean Water Act. This will make it easier to pollute water bodies, as Rep. John Larsen (D-WA), Ranking Member of the Committee, noted in his opening remarks. This bill, which was essentially a package of bad bills bundled together, passed without any Democratic support and without passing any of the amendments offered by the Democrats that would have mitigated its adverse impact on public health and the environment. The Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today Act (“PERMIT Act” or “the Act”), which Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) called “common sense,” is anything but.

Take Action

Expanding Opportunities for Industrial Pollution

The PERMIT Act proposes changes to the Clean Water Act that would negatively impact water quality across the U.S. by significantly expanding opportunities for industry to pollute. Some of the most damaging provisions of this bill would:

Give U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers unfettered authority to exclude waterways from Clean Water Act protection. It is difficult to overstate the magnitude this loophole potentially creates in the Clean Water Act protections this nation has enjoyed for over 50 years. (Sec. 17, “Definition of Navigable Waters”)

Interfere with the federal/state partnership set up under the 1972 Clean Water Act by taking away the right of states to protect their waters from activities like pipelines and dams that discharge pollution into waterways. (Sec. 5, “Improving Water Quality Certifications and American Energy Infrastructure”)

End EPA’s ability to make recommendations on the water quality needed to protect public health and wildlife based on science, rather than consideration of cost. EPA would be misleading the public about the human health and environmental impacts of pollutants. (Sec. 2, Water Quality Standards Attainability”)

Shield dischargers from liability for known but undisclosed pollutants. This section would make it easier for polluters to discharge emerging pollutants, like PFAS and other forever toxic chemicals, without accountability even if they were aware of the pollutants and chose not to disclose them. (Sec. 8, “Confidence in Clean Water Permits”)

Allow pesticides to be discharged into a waterway without a Clean Water Act permit if they are authorized for use under another statute that is not designed to protect waterways or wildlife that live in them. This section would make it easier to discharge lethal chemicals into U.S. waterways. (Sec. 11, “Reducing Regulatory Burdens”)

Proposed Amendments were Rejected

To protect water quality in the Great Lake states and throughout the U.S., Rep. Emilia Sykes (D-OH), Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI), and Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI) proposed the following amendments that were unfortunately rejected by the Committee:

Screenshot of Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) during the recording of the Full Committee Markup. Click to watch full video

Rep. Sykes introduced an amendment to reinstate the no-net loss of wetlands policy supported by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama—Republicans and Democrats alike.

Rep. Sykes also introduced an amendment to delay the effective date of the Act until EPA determines the Act would not increase pollution in the public water supply or increase the rates of wastewater treatment. In her introduction, she said: “My amendment would have us put our money where our mouth is by ensuring that none of these polluting provisions go into effect if they contaminate water supplies and increase costs for ratepayers.”

Similarly, Rep. McDonald Rivet introduced an amendment to delay the effective date of the Act until EPA determines it would not increase discharges of pollutants (including emerging contaminants, toxic pollutants, forever chemicals, and any nutrient associated with excessive algae growth and harmful algal blooms) to Clean Water Act geographic programs such as the Great Lakes System.

Rep. Scholten introduced an amendment to retain permitting requirements for discharges of pesticides that are scientifically proven to have adverse neurological and developmental effects on pregnant individuals, infants, and young children.

Additionally, Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) proposed an amendment, which Rep. Sykes spoke in support of, delaying the Act’s implementation until EPA publishes a report and certification that the PERMIT Act would not increase harmful algal blooms. Harmful algal blooms are a significant problem in Western Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, Green Bay, and many other water bodies across the U.S. that are impaired by nutrient pollution. Exposure to harmful algal blooms can be harmful to humans and pets who swim in affected waters.

Americans of Both Parties Support Clean Water, But Not Congress

The health and environmental harms that will result from the PERMIT Act span across state and party lines. According to recent polling, Americans generally agree that water is a top environmental concern, with over 80% of voters saying they were at least somewhat concerned with outdated water infrastructure, agricultural pollution, and forever chemicals and lead in drinking water. Even across party lines, over 80% of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, respectively, support the idea of safe and affordable water as a human right.

“Today we are considering a hyper-partisan piece of legislation that will exacerbate the already disastrous actions that have worked to erode the Clean Water Act set in place following the Sackett v. EPA decision.” –Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI)

Congress originally passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 with broad bipartisan support and a promise “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Key issues surrounding clean water, such as wetland protection, have received support from both sides of the aisle for decades with both Republican and Democrat presidents supporting protections. Towards the end of the Obama administration and during Trump’s first administration, which waters the Clean Water Act should protect became an increasingly partisan issue, with Republicans generally fighting to slash protections and Democrats generally fighting to preserve them.

Partisan rhetoric and tensions contributed to the PERMIT Act advancing through Committee despite the dangers it poses to human and environmental health, and active push-back from Democrat representatives. As polling shows, clean water is a high priority in voters’ minds and the Clean Water Act amendments proposed in the PERMIT Act would directly worsen the issues voters are already concerned about regarding their water. The PERMIT Act poses genuine threats to human health by creating a system that makes it easier for polluters to discharge forever chemicals, pesticides, and toxic pollutants into the waters Americans use for drinking, fishing, and recreation.

What’s Next?

The PERMIT Act could be on the House floor as soon as next week. In the meantime, contact your representatives and let them know that you expect them to vote for clean water, not those of polluters and to vote against the PERMIT Bill.