Primary impacts:

• Farmers, agricultural producers, and pesticide applicators: Receive regulatory relief because many stormwater discharges from agricultural land and many FIFRA-authorized pesticide discharges no longer require NPDES permits, reducing permitting costs and paperwork and lowering legal exposure in many circumstances.

• State governments and state 404 program applicants: Gain a clearer, faster pathway to obtain and operate Clean Water Act section 404 permit programs; must respond to new procedural deadlines and may assume more permitting responsibility. Three States are statutorily locked in as approved 404 program operators, limiting future EPA withdrawal authority.

• Federal agencies (EPA and Army Corps): Face mandates to complete rulemakings, revise mitigation and approval procedures, reassign staff to clear backlogs, and implement pilot programs on short schedules. The Corps will retain and manage certain nationwide permits and revise compensatory mitigation rules.

• Permit holders and infrastructure developers (energy, pipelines, linear projects): Likely benefit from longer permits, preserved nationwide permits for linear projects, streamlined 404 and 401 processes, and narrower federal jurisdiction—reducing project delays and litigation risk.

• Environmental and downstream communities: Potential increased risk of water quality harm because of exemptions, narrowed jurisdiction, and limits on judicial review. Reduced federal oversight of ephemeral flows, some drained agricultural lands, and pesticide discharges could lead to more pollutant loadings to surface waters that affect drinking water, fisheries, and aquatic ecosystems. Limits on vacatur and short litigation windows reduce opportunities for judicial correction of unlawfully issued permits.

• Tribes and local governments: Effects will vary regionally; Tribal trust resources and local waters could be affected by reduced federal protections and more state-based decisionmaking.

• Courts and litigants: Environmental groups and other potential challengers will face tightened standing and accelerated deadlines for most 404-related litigation, raising procedural barriers and changing litigation strategy.

Budgetary and administrative effects:

• Most changes recalibrate regulatory authority rather than create large new direct spending; however, agencies are required to act within short timeframes that may require reallocation of staff and resources (an implicit fiscal effect). The International Boundary & Water Commission provision allows new fund receipts but caps reimbursements and remains subject to appropriations.

Overall balance:

• The legislation emphasizes permitting efficiency, state primacy, regulatory clarity for agriculture and pesticides, and infrastructure facilitation. It reduces certain federal controls, tightens judicial remedies, and imposes procedural deadlines—measures likely to speed project approvals but increase risk of unmitigated water-quality impacts absent offsetting state or local controls.