On August 3, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published its proposed 2027 Construction General Permit (CGP). The proposed permit, if finalized, will replace the existing 2022 CGP that will expire on February 17, 2027.[1] The CGP applies directly in jurisdictions where the EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. Its provisions also provide a common reference point for states as they renew their own construction stormwater general permits.
EPA characterizes the proposed revisions as narrow and targeted. Nevertheless, several proposed changes address recurring compliance issues for residential and commercial development projects, including public access to Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), sediment basin design and construction, circumstances triggering corrective action obligations, and monitoring and reporting requirements for dewatering discharges. EPA also specifically requests comment on four additional issues.
Background: The Federal CGP Framework
The Clean Water Act regulates discharges of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. EPA’s construction stormwater regulations apply that framework to clearing, grading, excavation, and related construction activities that disturb one or more acres, as well as smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale expected to disturb at least one acre in total.
Rather than obtaining a project-specific individual permit, eligible operators generally obtain coverage under the CGP by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI). An “operator” is generally a person or entity with control over the construction plans and specifications or day-to-day control over activities necessary to ensure permit compliance. A single project may therefore have multiple operators.
Operators covered by the CGP must develop and implement a SWPPP and comply with requirements addressing erosion and sediment controls, pollution prevention, inspections, stabilization, maintenance, corrective action, construction dewatering, and permit termination. EPA proposes to issue the 2027 CGP for a five-year term in the areas where EPA serves as the NPDES permitting authority.[2]
What EPA Proposes to Change
EPA’s Federal Register notice organizes the principal proposed revisions into four substantive categories, followed by a series of formatting, clarification, and cross-reference updates.
1. Water Quality Provisions After San Francisco v. EPA
This category responds to the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in City and County of San Francisco v. EPA, which rejected “end-result” permit terms that make a permittee responsible for receiving water conditions without specifying the actions the permittee must take or avoid. For more information, please see our prior client alert, San Francisco v. EPA: Supreme Court Strikes Down EPA’s “End-Result” Permit Requirements.
The 2022 CGP requires discharges to be “controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards.” EPA proposes to remove that broad requirement and replace it with narrative limits tied to observable indicators in the discharge. These indicator-based conditions would apply to all CGP permittees, with corresponding revisions throughout the permit.
2. Electronic Submission of SWPPP Information
The current permit requires an operator to prepare a SWPPP before submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI), but it does not require the operator to submit the SWPPP with the NOI. Under the proposal, an operator would be required to submit one of the following:
- The complete SWPPP.
- A URL where the SWPPP may be accessed.
- The SWPPP site map and the signed certification required by Part 7.2.10.
EPA states that the submitted materials would be maintained for reference purposes only and would not, by themselves, provide a definitive basis for determining compliance. Certain information protected from disclosure—including specified security-sensitive and proprietary information—could be withheld from public access.
3. Stabilization Before Initial Sediment Basin Use
When an operator elects to install a sediment basin, the proposed permit would require the operator to implement stabilization measures before directing stormwater to the basin for the first time. At a minimum, the operator would need to stabilize the basin embankment, side slopes, associated conveyance structures, and discharge points after initial construction and before first use.
EPA’s notice expressly leaves the selection of vegetative or non-vegetative stabilization measures to the operator, subject to applicable local design specifications.
4. Additional Revisions to Clarify and Streamline Compliance
The proposal also includes several targeted revisions intended to clarify existing obligations, account for site-specific conditions, and improve the permit’s organization. These revisions would:
- Clarify that perimeter controls are required only where they may receive stormwater from disturbed areas.
- Simplify stabilization deadlines applicable in arid, semi-arid, and drought-stricken areas.
- Allow temporary relief from certain stabilization requirements during unforeseeable snow or frozen-ground conditions.
- Eliminate the requirement to include pre-construction photographs with a Notice of Termination (NOT), while retaining the requirement for post-stabilization photographs.
- Move explanatory text currently included in footnotes into the body of the permit.
Four Express Requests for Comment
Although EPA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed permit, it specifically seeks input on four issues with potentially significant implications for construction stormwater compliance and project administration
1. SWPPP Information Submitted with the NOI
EPA requests comments on its proposal to require an operator to submit either the complete Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a link to the SWPPP, or the SWPPP site map and signed certification with the Notice of Intent (NOI).
For project teams, a central consideration is that a SWPPP is a living document. Construction sequencing, drainage patterns, disturbed acreage, contractors, discharge points, and control measures may all change after NOI submission. Potential comment topics include:
- Whether, and when, later SWPPP revisions should be submitted to EPA.
- How EPA and the public would distinguish the initially submitted materials from the current SWPPP.
- How long a URL must remain active and accessible.
- How the requirement would apply to projects operating under a shared SWPPP.
- How operators should identify, segregate, and protect information exempt from public disclosure.
- The comparative utility and administrative burden associated with EPA’s three submission options.
2. Observable Conditions Triggering Corrective Action
EPA also requests comments on the water quality conditions proposed in Part 3.1. The proposed indicators include floating, settled, or suspended solids; film or sheen; discoloration or odor; scum or foam; and construction debris. EPA is proposing these changes in the proposed 2027 CGP to ensure consistency with the San Francisco decision.
Although the approach focuses on conditions that an inspector may observe directly, its application may still depend on causation. A condition observed in a drainageway could originate from the permitted site, upstream construction activity, preexisting erosion, neighboring properties, or natural background conditions. Comments may therefore address:
- How the permit should connect an observed condition to a particular site’s discharge.
- The required scope and frequency of observations.
- Access, safety, and practical constraints affecting inspections.
- Documentation that may establish background conditions or identify another potential source.
3. Duplicate Dewatering Reports for Multiple Operators
Construction dewatering may involve the discharge of accumulated stormwater or groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, foundations, vaults, and similar work areas. Under the 2022 CGP, multiple operators at the same site may coordinate turbidity sampling. Each operator, however, must submit a quarterly monitoring report even when a single operator conducts the sampling and provides the underlying data.
EPA requests comments on whether reporting flexibility should be available to operators participating in a coordinated sampling arrangement. EPA also asks whether a quarterly report should remain required when no dewatering discharge occurred during the reporting period.
For projects with multiple operators, comments may address how a reporting operator would be designated; the notice EPA should receive regarding that designation; how changes in operational control would be managed; and whether reliance on another operator’s report would affect any operator’s underlying compliance obligations.
4. Monitoring Frequency for Extended Dewatering
The current CGP requires daily turbidity monitoring when dewatering discharges reach certain sensitive waters, together with quarterly reporting of weekly average results. EPA is considering—but has not proposed as an operative permit condition—an alternative monitoring approach for extended dewatering discharges.
Under one potential approach, an operator could monitor weekly when a dewatering discharge continues for more than three days and the average turbidity result for the first three days does not exceed the permit’s 50 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) benchmark. EPA suggests that turbidity may stabilize after the first several days, where dewatering draws groundwater that has not been exposed to surface soil disturbance. It specifically requests supporting data and technical information.
Project experience may help inform how the permit should define extended or continuous dewatering, whether initial results reliably predict later conditions, and which events or site conditions may disrupt that relationship.
Why the Proposal Matters in Texas
Most Texas construction activities subject to TPDES stormwater permitting obtain coverage under TCEQ’s Construction General Permit TXR150000. The current Texas permit became effective on March 5, 2023, and expires on March 5, 2028. TCEQ began its renewal process in 2026 and held an initial stakeholder meeting in June. Additional stakeholder meetings and opportunities for public input are expected as that process continues.
The federal and Texas CGPs take different approaches to several issues addressed in EPA’s proposal. TXR150000 generally requires the SWPPP to be maintained and made available, rather than routinely submitted with the NOI. Texas also requires daily observation and evaluation of dewatering controls when discharges occur, but it does not use EPA’s turbidity-benchmark monitoring and quarterly reporting framework. Texas experience with these requirements may therefore be relevant both to EPA’s current rulemaking and to TCEQ’s renewal of TXR150000.
The Comment Window
EPA has extended the public-comment period to September 17, 2026. Comments should reference Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0760 and may address any aspect of the proposed permit, not only the four issues on which EPA specifically requested input.
EPA’s proposed 2027 CGP webpage includes the draft permit, fact sheet, supporting materials, and instructions for submitting comments. The webpage also includes registration information for EPA’s webinar on the proposal, scheduled for Tuesday, August 18, 2026, from 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
Comments are most likely to be useful when they move beyond general support or opposition and provide EPA with a clear, technically supported basis for revising the proposed permit. Industry groups like the National Association of Home Builders have similarly encouraged stakeholders to focus on recommendations that preserve environmental protections while making the permit practical and workable for construction operations.
For each issue, commenters should identify the relevant proposed permit provision or fact-sheet discussion, explain the concern, provide supporting evidence, and, where possible, recommend specific alternative language. Commenters should also distinguish between concerns that affect all projects and those that arise only in particular settings, such as linear projects, phased developments, constrained urban sites, or projects with multiple operators.
Next Steps
The proposed federal CGP and TCEQ’s forthcoming renewal of TXR150000 provide distinct opportunities for industry input. EPA’s current comment period allows stakeholders to address specific proposals concerning SWPPP submission, sediment basin stabilization, corrective action triggers, and dewatering requirements, among other issues; TCEQ’s CGP renewal will provide a separate forum to consider whether similar provisions belong in the Texas permit. Owners, developers, and contractors should look to their own projects for examples of what works in the field, what adds unnecessary cost or delay, and where monitoring data supports a different approach—and use those examples to support public comments submitted to EPA and TCEQ.
For questions regarding the proposed federal CGP, guidance on developing public comments, or assistance evaluating stormwater management practices and SWPPP procedures, please contact the author or a member of Winstead’s Environmental Practice Group.
Contact:
Jordan Rodriguez I 713.650.2655 I jrodriguez@winstead.com
Jordan Rodriguez brings deep expertise in navigating complex environmental and regulatory issues, offering strategic counsel to a diverse clientele, including public and private company clients, private equity firms, and government agencies. Jordan’s practice encompasses regulatory counseling, remedial issues, environmental litigation, and environmental transactional matters. In litigation, he has successfully defended and pursued high-stakes claims involving violations of state and federal environmental laws, property damage, natural resource disputes, and regulatory enforcement actions. He also has extensive experience advising clients on resolving environmental liabilities arising in transactions.
__________________________
[1] 91 Fed. Reg. 48862. EPA proposes to issue this permit for five (5) years.
[2] EPA is the NPDES permitting authority in the areas identified in Appendix B to the proposed 2027 CGP, including Massachusetts (excluding Indian country), New Hampshire, New Mexico (excluding Indian country), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, certain U.S. territories and federal facilities, most Indian country lands, and specified discharges in Oklahoma. In Texas, EPA retains permitting authority for construction stormwater discharges occurring in Indian country. Appendix B assigns separate permit numbers and includes area-specific eligibility limitations.
