Who is affected and how:

• Federal agencies (especially EPA): Must follow formal notice-and-comment rulemaking processes when issuing or revising water quality criteria. This increases administrative workload, documentation, and time needed to finalize criteria.
• State governments: Often adopt or use EPA-recommended criteria when updating state water quality standards. States may see delays in receiving new EPA criteria and must account for formal rulemaking timelines when integrating criteria into state standards and permit programs.
• Point source dischargers (municipal and industrial wastewater facilities): May face slower changes to permit limits tied to criteria because criteria revisions will come through longer rulemaking processes; however, they gain clearer opportunities to comment during rule development.
• Communities and public stakeholders: Will have formal notice and comment opportunities before criteria are finalized, increasing transparency and participation but potentially delaying when protections or changes take effect.
• Environmental advocates and regulated industries: Both groups will likely increase administrative and legal engagement (formal comments, participation in rulemakings, potential litigation) because rulemakings create a formal administrative record and clearer pathways for challenge.

Net effect:

• The bill shifts the governance of water quality criteria from potentially quicker, informal methods to the slower but more transparent and legally robust rulemaking process. That reduces administrative flexibility but increases procedural safeguards and opportunities for public input. It may also change litigation timing and strategy by producing fuller administrative records, and it may impose additional workload on agencies without providing specific funding to cover those costs.