All Roll Calls
Yes: 431 • No: 421
HR3898119th CongressWALLET
PERMIT Act
Sponsored By: Representative Collins, Mike [R-GA-10]
Passed House
Summary
This bill would _streamline water permitting and tighten review timelines_. It would push faster federal decisions on Clean Water Act approvals while narrowing which discharges and waters need permits, and expand exemptions for many agricultural and pesticide flows.
Show full summary
- Communities and project applicants would get faster decisions because the bill would require the Army Corps to clear certain permit backlogs within 60 days and set expedited judicial-review rules including a 120-day target for §401 certification challenges.
- Farmers and pesticide applicators would face fewer Clean Water Act permits because the bill would exempt agricultural stormwater and many pesticide discharges authorized under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act from needing a §402 permit.
- States and regulated facilities would see longer permit terms and higher spill-plan triggers because general and nationwide permits would run for 10 years and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure thresholds would increase to about 42,000 gallons.
Personalized for You
How does this bill affect your finances?
Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.
Bill Overview
Analyzed Economic Effects
11 provisions identified: 6 benefits, 0 costs, 5 mixed.
Faster dredge-and-fill permits for projects
The Corps would have to clear any backlog of section 404 permits and wetland decisions that existed on June 5, 2025, within 60 days after enactment. EPA’s window to block a disposal site would run from when a complete application is filed until the permit is issued, for new applications after enactment. States would be encouraged to join the FAST Act review process for covered projects. Together, these steps could speed dredge-and-fill permits.
Fewer water permits for farms and spraying
This bill would bar EPA and states from requiring permits for stormwater from farm land when it is caused by rain, including subsurface drainage. It would also exempt most pesticide applications that are allowed under federal pesticide law, unless the use breaks that law and causes the discharge. The exemption would not cover certain stormwater, factory or treatment plant effluent, or vessel discharges. This could lower permit costs for farms and licensed applicators.
Higher oil storage thresholds for spill plans
This would raise oil storage size limits that trigger spill planning rules. The 20,000-gallon threshold would become 42,000 gallons. Two other triggers would rise to 1,320 gallons and 3,000 gallons. A new category would cover sites with more than 10,000 but less than 42,000 gallons. These changes would set who must follow SPCC rules.
Longer, clearer water discharge permits
Permits would last up to 10 years instead of 5. Following permit conditions would count as compliance for listed pollutants and some identified pollutants without direct limits. When a water-quality limit is added, the permit would have to name the pollutant and explain how to comply. EPA could keep general permits in place if a new one is not ready, and would need two years’ notice before ending a general permit.
Easier permits for water recharge on federal lands
The Army would identify federal lands suited for water recharge within one year. For those places, it would set simpler permit steps and faster section 404 reviews, with streamlined environmental reviews where allowed. The Secretary would report to Congress within 18 months.
Faster, narrower state water certifications
States and EPA would need to publish their water certification rules within 30 days. Certifiers would have 90 days to ask for missing info and at most one year to act. Decisions could only rest on certain Clean Water Act sections, and only the federal licensing agency could enforce conditions. Court challenges would be faster: you would have 30 days to sue, and courts would aim to decide within 120 days, with one 60-day extension. If a court misses the deadline on a granted certification, the request would be denied with prejudice.
Narrower definition of federal waters
This bill would narrow which waters are federally regulated. It would exclude waste-treatment features, ephemeral streams that flow only after rain, certain farmed areas changed before December 23, 1985, and groundwater. EPA and the Army could also jointly exclude other features.
New funding rules for border water projects
The border water commission could accept money from others for wastewater, water conservation, or flood projects. Funds would go into a named Treasury account and be available until spent, subject to appropriations. The commission could not reimburse more than $5,000,000 to non-federal entities in a year and could not take funds from certain foreign-linked entities. It would have to report each year on the funds and work.
Water rules must weigh tech costs
When EPA updates water rules, it would need to weigh the cost and U.S. availability of treatment tech, including whether it scales. States would need to check whether combined sewer overflow fixes are cost-effective. New or revised criteria would have to be issued by formal rulemaking. These steps could moderate how fast new limits apply.
Voluntary state pilot to cut nutrients
EPA would set up a voluntary state pilot to help clean waters impaired by nitrogen or phosphorus. Farmers could choose to join. The pilot would not allow EPA to regulate nonpoint sources or expand federal control.
Firefighting drops counted as covered discharges
This bill would treat aerial drops of firefighting products on the Forest Service Qualified Products List as covered discharges. That could simplify how these drops are handled under permits.
Sponsors & CoSponsors
Sponsor
Collins, Mike [R-GA-10]
GA • R
Cosponsors
Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]
MO • R
Sponsored 6/11/2025
LaMalfa
CA • R
Sponsored 6/23/2025
Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7]
NC • R
Sponsored 6/23/2025
Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]
CO • R
Sponsored 6/24/2025
Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]
UT • R
Sponsored 6/24/2025
Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8]
MN • R
Sponsored 6/24/2025
Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1]
AR • R
Sponsored 6/24/2025
Rep. Taylor, David J. [R-OH-2]
OH • R
Sponsored 6/25/2025
Roll Call Votes
house vote • 12/11/2025
On Passage
Yes: 221 • No: 205
house vote • 12/11/2025
On Motion to Recommit
Yes: 210 • No: 216