House panel hears opposing views on H.R. 3898 permit reforms; sponsors call it modernization, critics call it water‑protections rollback

On July 14 the House Rules Committee heard testimony and questioning about H.R. 3898, a package of Clean Water Act permitting reforms reported by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Representative Rick Collins, sponsor and Transportation Committee member, urged the Rules Committee to grant a rule for floor consideration; Representative Scholten testified in opposition.

Representative Collins described H.R. 3898 as “a comprehensive common sense package of reforms to strengthen and modernize the Clean Water Act’s permitting process.” He told the committee the bill would “stop the weaponization of the Section 401 process,” codify exemptions to the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) and direct the Army Corps of Engineers to address backlogs of Section 404 permit applications. Collins said the package would “increase regulatory certainty while simultaneously providing a pathway for the regulated community to achieve and maintain compliance.”

Representative Scholten opposed the bill and said it would “gut federal investments and take a final blow at Clean Water Act protections.” She said the Clean Water Act had produced long‑term environmental improvements—“The Great Lakes at 1 point were declared dead. But thanks to reinvestment and revitalization, they are back alive and thriving”—and warned that changes in H.R. 3898 would shift cleanup costs to taxpayers and weaken protections for wetlands, streams and drinking water.

Committee members questioned specific provisions. Opponents highlighted an agricultural stormwater exemption in the bill and a statement in the record that the bill would not require permits for certain agricultural stormwater discharges. Scholten said the bill would “turn a blind eye to bad actors who are polluting our waters.” Witnesses also flagged a pesticide exemption and raised concerns about “forever chemicals” and fire‑suppressant contamination that can affect farmland and drinking water.

Collins and supporters said other provisions would clarify the scope of state review under Section 401, codify the Section 402 permit shield, provide deadlines for Corps processing of Section 404 permits and reduce duplicative permitting for agricultural discharges. Collins said those procedural clarifications would reduce costs and delays for infrastructure, energy and agricultural projects.

Members from both parties pressed the sponsors on trade‑offs between speed and environmental protection. Representative McGovern and Representative Scanlon asked whether the bill would allow the EPA or agencies to deem discharges “too expensive” to clean up; Collins said the bill would require water‑quality criteria development to proceed through rulemaking and broader stakeholder participation. Democrats warned the bill could increase costs for households and public utilities if polluters avoid cleanup responsibilities. Representative Scanlon and others asked for additional record material and technical clarifications.

No Rules Committee vote on H.R. 3898 was reported during the hearing. Supporters asked the Rules Committee to allow floor consideration; opponents asked for further review and for staffing and process investments to speed permitting without reducing substantive protections.

Why it matters: H.R. 3898 would make statutory changes to Clean Water Act permitting procedures that sponsors say will modernize the system and opponents say will undercut federal protections for wetlands, streams and drinking water. If enacted, the bill could change how the Army Corps and EPA review permits and the degree of federal oversight over water resources.