General Permits, Real Impacts: What Maryland Communities Should Know

 A discharge permit may shape what happens in your stream, neighborhood, farm field, construction site, or local watershed long before a specific project ever appears on your radar. That is the practical effect and importance of general permits: environmental agencies use them for categories of discharges they believe can be managed under common terms and conditions, rather than writing a separate permit for every facility, site, or activity.

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) recently opened public comment on several draft general discharge permit renewals, including permits for composting toilet discharges, hydrostatic testing and related dewatering or groundwater remediation activities, and pesticide applications to waters of the State. Those examples may sound obscure, but general permits are also used for significant categories of activity that affect many Maryland communities, including construction stormwater, industrial stormwater, animal feeding operations, municipal storm sewer systems, marinas, mining and quarry operations, and other recurring sources of potential water pollution. 

This is a subject I have worked with from both sides of the table. As deputy counsel to the Maryland Department of the Environment in the late ‘90s and early 2000’s, I was involved in the development of multiple MDE general discharge permits. That experience reinforced a lesson that remains true today: That experience reinforced a lesson that remains true today: because general permits set many of the rules before specific projects seek coverage, meaningful engagement depends on knowing when to participate, what questions to ask, and what issues may still be open when a particular Notice of Intent is filed.

What is a general permit?

Most people think of an environmental permit as a project-specific approval. A facility applies, the agency reviews that facility’s location, operations, discharge, impacts, and proposed controls, and the public may have an opportunity to comment on that specific permit.

A general permit works differently. The agency issues one permit for a category of similar activities. Eligible operators then seek coverage under that permit, often by filing a Notice of Intent, or NOI, agreeing to comply with the permit’s terms.

General permits are common under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, program. EPA has approved Maryland to administer the NPDES permitting program through MDE. In Maryland, general permits are used for categories such as construction stormwater, industrial stormwater, pesticide applications, testing or dewatering discharges, groundwater remediation discharges, and animal feeding operations.

The idea is simple: if many activities are similar enough, the agency can establish a common set of protective conditions rather than writing a new permit from scratch each time.

Like individual NPDES permits, general discharge permits are not permanent. They are issued for fixed terms, generally not more than five years, and must be renewed or administratively continued if they are to remain in effect. That renewal cycle matters because it gives MDE, EPA, regulated parties, and the public a recurring opportunity to revisit permit terms, address lessons learned, and update requirements before the next permit term begins.

Why agencies use general permits

General permits can serve important public purposes. They can reduce delay for routine activities, make permit conditions more consistent, and allow agencies to focus more attention on unusually complex or higher-risk discharges.

But a general permit should not be a shortcut around environmental review. A well-designed general permit should clearly answer two questions:

What activities are eligible for coverage?

When is a site or activity too sensitive, complex, or unusual for general permit coverage?

That second question is critical. The availability of an individual permit, additional conditions, or additional review is often what keeps a general permit from becoming too blunt an instrument.

Why they can be controversial

General permits can become controversial because they move much of the important legal and policy debate upstream. By the time a specific project files an NOI, many of the basic permit terms may already be fixed. The public may have limited time to review the NOI. There may be no full contested case hearing. And affected residents may discover that the project is not seeking a new individual permit at all, but coverage under a permit issued months or years earlier.

That can feel backwards. People may see a construction site, industrial operation, farm facility, pesticide application, or utility-related discharge and ask: Why are we only hearing about this now? Why are we not reviewing this discharge in the context of this stream, this neighborhood, this impaired water, or this history of flooding, erosion, or cumulative environmental burden?

That tension—efficiency versus site-specific accountability—is at the center of general permitting.

The national legal debate: when is an NOI just notice?

Federal courts have wrestled with how much can be handled through a general permit and what process is required when a specific applicant files an NOI. And a useful dividing line has emerged: is the NOI merely confirming eligibility and intent to comply, or is it supplying the actual site-specific terms that make the discharge lawful?

In Environmental Defense Center v. EPA (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit reviewed EPA’s Phase II stormwater rules for small municipal separate storm sewer systems, or MS4s. The court was concerned that the NOI did more than provide basic identifying information. It described what the MS4 would do to reduce pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable,” making it a substantive part of the regulatory program. The court concluded that, in that setting, the NOI was functionally equivalent to a permit application and had to be subject to meaningful agency review, public availability, and public hearing requirements.

The Second Circuit reached a related conclusion in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA (2d Cir. 2005), involving concentrated animal feeding operations. The court concluded that nutrient management plans contained site-specific terms necessary to regulate land application discharges and that those terms had to be included in NPDES permits and subject to public participation.

But in Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association v. EPA (7th Cir. 2005), the Seventh Circuit upheld EPA’s construction stormwater general permit against a public participation challenge. There, the court viewed the NOI and stormwater pollution prevention plan as tools for implementation and information-gathering, rather than as the documents that created the permit’s effluent limits.

Taken together, these cases do not prohibit general permits. They ask a practical question: where are the real rules being set?

If the general permit contains the substantive terms, eligibility criteria, limits, monitoring, reporting, and standards for when individual permits are required, the NOI may properly function as notice. But if the NOI, stormwater pollution prevention plan, nutrient management plan, best management practice plan, or similar document supplies the actual project-specific obligations, stronger agency review and public participation may be required.

How Maryland’s process has evolved

Maryland’s general permit practice has evolved significantly since the early 2000s. Some of that evolution reflects federal case law. Some reflects changes in EPA rules and oversight. Some reflects the practical reality that communities, environmental organizations, regulated industries, and agencies have all pushed for more clarity about what is decided in the general permit and what remains open when a specific operator seeks coverage.

The CAFO/MAFO permit is a good example. MDE now states that it must post NOIs and required plans for 30 days before a CAFO is registered under the general discharge permit, and that the public may comment during that period. MDE also held listening sessions before issuing the most recent draft AFO permit, describing those sessions as an opportunity for public input before the draft permit was written. When MDE announced approval of the renewed statewide AFO general discharge permit in 2026, it stated that the permit reflected public meetings, stakeholder engagement, written comments, and coordination with EPA.

Construction stormwater is another example. MDE provides a public notice process for pending construction stormwater NOIs through its e-Permits system, giving interested parties a short window to review pending coverage before approval. That does not transform every NOI into an individual permit proceeding, but it gives the public a defined opportunity to raise site-specific concerns.

Maryland courts have also addressed MDE’s general permitting authority. In Maryland Department of the Environment v. Assateague Coastal Trust (Md. 2023), the Supreme Court of Maryland upheld MDE’s animal feeding operation general discharge permit, including MDE’s reliance on required plans and its authority to impose additional restrictions where needed. The case underscores the importance of the administrative record and the deference courts may give MDE when the Department explains its technical judgment and preserves site-specific oversight authority.

How to engage when a general permit is up for renewal

The renewal stage is the best time to comment on the permit itself. That is when the public can address eligibility criteria, discharge limits, monitoring, reporting, inspections, impaired waters protections, environmental justice considerations, public notice procedures, and the circumstances under which MDE should require an individual permit.

Effective comments usually do more than say “the permit should be stronger.” They identify a specific permit term, explain the concern, and propose a concrete revision.

Commenters might ask MDE to:

·       Require more frequent monitoring for discharges to impaired waters.

·       Exclude certain sensitive waters, locations, or activities from general permit coverage.

·       Require public posting of NOIs, monitoring reports, compliance documents, or site-specific plans.

·       Clarify when an individual permit is required.

·       Add stronger requirements for sites in overburdened communities or areas with known flooding, erosion, contaminated soils, or water quality impairments.

·       Require agency review before coverage becomes effective where site-specific documents supply important compliance terms.

A useful way to read any draft general permit is to ask: Does the permit itself contain the real rules, or will the real rules be supplied later?

If important obligations are left to a later NOI, stormwater pollution prevention plan, nutrient management plan, or best management practice plan, commenters may want to ask whether those documents will be reviewed by the agency, made public, subject to comment, and incorporated into enforceable permit terms.

How to engage when a specific NOI is filed

The NOI stage presents a narrower inquiry, but it can still matter. At that point, the public may not be able to rewrite the general permit. But the public can still ask whether the applicant is actually eligible for coverage.

Key questions include:

·       Does the activity fit the permit category?

·       Is the NOI complete?

·       Are required plans or supporting documents missing?

·       Will the discharge affect an impaired water, sensitive resource, or already burdened community?

·       Are there site-specific conditions that make the general permit inadequate?

·       Should MDE require an individual permit, additional conditions, or additional review before authorizing coverage?

For example, a strong NOI comment might explain that the receiving water is impaired for the pollutant of concern, that the site’s slopes or soils create unusual erosion risk, that required plans are incomplete, or that the project does not fit within the general permit’s eligibility criteria.

How to get notified—and why organizations matter

For general permit renewals, MDE provides email updates for general discharge permits and maintains public meeting information for discharge and NPDES permits. MDE also directs users to permit search tools for documents related to pending projects, including applications, tentative permits, and fact sheets.

But there is an important practical reality: most people affected by a proposed industrial, construction, agricultural, utility, or other activity-related discharge will not know months or years in advance that they should be tracking the renewal of a general permit. A homeowner, neighborhood association, small business, farm, church, camp, or civic group may first learn about the issue only when a nearby project files an NOI, equipment appears on site, or a local stream, wetland, road, or drainage system is already at risk.

That is one reason national, statewide, and local watershed organizations matter. These nonprofit organizations often monitor general permits, submit comments during renewal proceedings, track agency practice, and understand how permit language plays out on the ground. They can also be a resource when a particular NOI or project affects a specific community.

For most communities, the realistic goal is not to monitor every permit docket personally. It is to know which watershed associations, riverkeepers, land trusts, environmental organizations, civic associations, and technical experts are paying attention—and to support them before a crisis arises.

The practical takeaway

General permits are not inconsequential. They can authorize real discharges with real consequences.

The public has two main opportunities to engage. The first is when the general permit is drafted or renewed. That is when the permit’s architecture is set: who is eligible, what conditions apply, what information must be public, and when individual permits should be required.

The second is when a specific NOI is filed. That is when the public can ask whether the project actually fits within the general permit and whether site-specific conditions require something more.

The lesson is not that every resident must become a full-time permit watcher. Rather, it is that general permits deserve attention before they become project-specific disputes. Supporting organizations that monitor these permits, subscribing to agency notices where practical, and acting quickly when an NOI appears can help preserve the public’s ability to ask the right questions while MDE still has room to act.

With general permits, the most important decisions may be made earlier than the public realizes. The best engagement starts before the permit is final—and continues when individual projects seek coverage under it.

--Jennifer Wazenski

Watershed Legal Counsel advises private clients and government instrumentalities in environmental and natural resources matters, serves as outside general counsel for mission-driven enterprises in the environmental sector, and provides strategic legal services that help organizations manage change. Founder Jennifer Wazenski is a Maryland attorney who has practiced environmental and natural resources law since 1991. She served as Principal Counsel to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources from 2010 through 2021, and, prior to that, Deputy Counsel to the Maryland Department of the Environment.

Disclaimer:  Attorney advertising. The information provided at this site is for general purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

© 2026 Watershed Legal Counsel. All rights reserved.