Editor’s note: The Daily Emerald welcomes guest viewpoints or letters to the editor from the University of Oregon and Eugene community.

This guest viewpoint reflects the opinions of its writer, Thomas Karam, and not of The Emerald as an organization.

More than 50 years after Congress passed the Clean Water Act, we were promised “fishable and swimmable” waters for all, yet a 2022 EIP report found that nearly half of U.S. rivers and streams remain too polluted for safe recreation or life. Not because of the law, but because of enforcement. 

Time after time, courts have continued to weaken the EPA and cornerstones for environmental protection like the Clean Water Act, making it harder and harder for enforcement to ever happen. How can you enforce something when you make the standards so low that you’d have to limbo to go under them? 

As recently as March 2025, a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling weakened the act by limiting the enforcement of “end result” permits requiring cities and businesses to meet pollution standards, risking more exposure to pollutants. This came after President Trump’s continued attacks on the EPA, including funding cuts and mass terminations, yet Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, “If the EPA does its work, our holding should have no adverse effect on water quality.” 

How can an agency do its work when it’s being gutted? 

Now, the newly introduced PERMIT Act further threatens the Clean Water Act by narrowing the definition of “navigable waters” and “any other features determined to be excluded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,” granting the corps ultimate authority over what qualifies for protection.

Of the 21 sections of the PERMIT Act, these are some of the most egregious: 

Section 2: Pollution limits could be set based on how expensive it is for industries to clean up their waste, instead of being set based on what’s actually safe for people’s health or the environment. 

Section 5: Only Federal Agencies may enforce any conditions once they are attached to a federal permit, and it requires states to base their decisions only on specific Clean Water Act sections, sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307, removing their ability to utilize state regulations to protect waters. 

Section 8: If a facility’s pollution was known to regulators during the permit process, it’s considered “in compliance” even if that specific pollutant isn’t listed in the permit.

Regulators can’t use broad or general protections; they must clearly name each pollutant and how it will be controlled. They can do this by setting: 

• (A) a specific numeric pollution limit 
• (B) a detailed description of actions or practices required, or 
• (C) a description that defines the exact level of pollution control needed 

Section 11: If a pesticide is approved for use under FIFRA, then no Clean Water Act permit is needed for discharges into water that result from applying that pesticide, so long as it is applied correctly, with limited exceptions. 

Section 18: Removes many smaller or temporary waters from federal protection, meaning the Clean Water Act would no longer apply to them, as well as granting the USACE, along with the EPA Administrator, the ability to decide which types of waters are excluded from the definition of “navigable waters.” 

Currently, the EPA is under scrutiny, with 54% of its budget looking to be slashed by 2026. One of the few government agencies tasked with protecting the environment and the citizens of the United States is being torn apart. 

This is a call for action; people need to know about the PERMIT Act and just what it will do to us. Make no mistake, if this act is passed, we will be the ones to suffer the consequences. 

–

Submit your guest viewpoint here: https://forms.gle/1wezJmS9BpREexhp9