Bill removes water-quality permits for pesticide runoff into rivers and streams
H.R. 3824 — Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2025 · Filed by David Rouzer (R-NC) · 9 cosponsors · Introduced Jun 6, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill exempts pesticides that are federally approved for sale and use from needing a water-pollution permit when they are applied and then discharged into navigable waters—unless the pesticide was applied in violation of federal pesticide law, or the discharge is stormwater, manufacturing effluent, or vessel-related. The bill shifts regulatory authority away from water-quality oversight (Clean Water Act permits) toward pesticide-approval oversight (FIFRA), allowing approved pesticides to reach waterways without a separate water-pollution checkpoint.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is to remove a water-quality permit requirement for pesticide discharges. Although framed as 'clarifying Congressional intent,' the bill substantively narrows the Clean Water Act's application to pesticides, shifting oversight from water-pollution standards to pesticide-approval standards. This is functional deregulation of pesticide runoff into waterways.
What the text implies
- The bill relies on FIFRA's pesticide-approval process to protect water quality, but FIFRA's approval standard does not require proof that a pesticide will not harm aquatic ecosystems or drinking-water sources at the concentrations that result from field application and runoff.
- Stormwater discharges remain regulated under Clean Water Act § 402(p), but the bill exempts routine pesticide application runoff from the permit requirement unless it is classified as stormwater—creating a potential gap for non-stormwater pesticide runoff.
- The exception for violations of FIFRA 'relevant to protecting water quality' is narrow: it applies only if the violation caused the discharge or increased its concentration. A pesticide applied in violation of a FIFRA label instruction that does not directly relate to water quality (e.g., application rate, timing) would still be exempt from water-pollution permitting.
- States retain authority to issue permits under the Clean Water Act, but the bill's language ('the Administrator or a State may not require') may be read to preempt state water-quality standards for pesticide discharges, limiting state-level environmental protection.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Ordinary people who depend on clean water lose a regulatory safeguard. The bill removes the requirement that pesticide discharges into navigable waters meet water-quality standards under the Clean Water Act, replacing it with reliance on pesticide-approval standards (FIFRA) that do not directly regulate water pollution. Pesticide applicators and manufacturers benefit from reduced compliance burden; downstream water users and aquatic ecosystems bear the cost.
Who stands to gain
- pesticide manufacturers
- agricultural chemical distributors
- pesticide applicators and agricultural operations
- lawn and turf care companies
Named in the bill
EPA (Administrator), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), navigable waters, point source discharges, state environmental agencies
Where it stands
9 cosponsors: 9 Republicans.
- Jun 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jun 6, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Agriculture and House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on…”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
1 lobbying clients named this bill on 3 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $630,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 20 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.
David Rouzer, the sponsor, reported $1,292,375 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Agricultural Retailers Association — $630,000 on 3 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 25, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (2,075 characters) on Aug 29, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 25, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Bill removes water-quality permits for pesticide runoff into rivers and streams” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr3824 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.