Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2025
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2025 would largely shield certain pesticide-related discharges from Clean Water Act (CWA) permit requirements when the pesticide involved is authorized under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Specifically, the bill adds a new provision to FIFRA (section 3(f)(6)) stating that, except as provided in the CWA, the EPA Administrator or a state may not require a CWA permit for discharges from a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide that is legally sold, distributed, or used under FIFRA, or the pesticide’s residue, resulting from applying that pesticide. The bill also creates a new CWA section (402(t)) clarifying that, in most cases, a permit is not required for such discharges, with several explicit exceptions. Those exceptions include discharges that would not have occurred but for a FIFRA violation or where the amount would have been less absent the violation; stormwater discharges; and certain discharges that are themselves subject to regulation under the CWA (manufacturing/industrial effluent, treatment works effluent, and discharges incidental to vessel operation). The overall aim is to reduce regulatory burdens on pesticide use near navigable waters while preserving specific protections in cases of violations or certain regulated discharges.
Key Points
- 1No permit for most FIFRA-authorized pesticide discharges: Under the bill, a discharge from applying a pesticide authorized for sale/distribution/use under FIFRA into navigable waters, or the residue of that pesticide, generally would not require a permit under the Clean Water Act, except as specified in the new 402(t) exceptions.
- 2New CWA exception framework (402(t)): The bill adds a new subsection to the Clean Water Act outlining when a permit is not required, plus explicit exceptions. The non-permit rule applies unless one of the listed exceptions applies.
- 3Exceptions to the no-permit rule:
- 4- (A) Violations of FIFRA protections: If the discharge would not have occurred but for a FIFRA violation, or if the amount in the discharge is greater due to the violation.
- 5- (B) Stormwater discharges: Stormwater discharges remain subject to regulation under the CWA.
- 6- (C) Discharges that are themselves regulated under the CWA: Manufacturing/industrial effluent, treatment works effluent, and discharges incidental to normal vessel operation (e.g., ballasting or anti-biofouling discharges) would continue to be regulated.
- 7Federal and state role harmonization: The bill states that, regarding use of authorized pesticides, the Administrator or a State may not require a permit under the CWA for such discharges except as provided by 402(t). This narrows the situations where states or EPA would require CWA permits for pesticide-discharge events.
- 8Scope and terms: The changes apply to discharges from point sources into navigable waters and cover the pesticide itself or residue resulting from application. “Navigable waters” and “point source” have specific legal meanings under the CWA; the bill relies on those definitions.
- 9Legislative status and process: Introduced in the House on June 6, 2025 (H.R. 3824), with sponsors including Rep. Rouzer and several co-sponsors. Referred to the Transportation and Infrastructure, and Agriculture committees for consideration.