CLEAR Waters Act
- Bill Number
- S. 2421
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Environmental Protection
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-07-23: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- Last Updated
- 2025-09-16T13:25:20Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The CLEAR Waters Act aims to clarify and narrow the definition of "navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act (formally the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). This would limit federal regulatory authority over certain water features, reducing what qualifies for pollution controls and permitting requirements.
Key Provisions
- Amendment to Definition: Updates Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act to explicitly exclude specific features from the term "navigable waters," which are waters subject to federal pollution regulation.
- Specific Exclusions:
- Components of waste treatment systems, such as lagoons or ponds designed to handle wastewater (e.g., by conveying, retaining, concentrating, settling, reducing, or removing pollutants).
- Ephemeral features, meaning temporary water flows that occur only in direct response to precipitation (like short-lived streams after rain).
- Groundwater (water beneath the Earth's surface, not connected to surface waters).
- Any other features deemed excluded by the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of the Army (through the Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Previously, the Clean Water Act's definition of "navigable waters" was interpreted broadly by courts and agencies to include many intermittent or isolated water features, leading to extensive federal oversight.
- This bill introduces explicit statutory exclusions, overriding some prior regulatory interpretations (e.g., from EPA rules or Supreme Court decisions like Rapanos v. United States). It shifts some authority to agency leaders for additional exclusions, potentially simplifying permitting but reducing automatic protections for excluded waters.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would have reduced jurisdiction over excluded features, potentially lowering enforcement costs and streamlining reviews for permits under programs like the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). However, it could increase disputes over boundary determinations.
- On Citizens and Businesses: Landowners, farmers, and industries (e.g., agriculture, mining, or manufacturing with wastewater systems) may face fewer federal restrictions on land use, development, or operations near excluded waters, easing compliance burdens. Everyday citizens might see less federal intervention in local water management.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic waters; it does not affect treaties or cross-border water issues like those with Canada or Mexico.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Landowners and Private Sector: Farmers, developers, and businesses benefiting from reduced regulations on waste systems and ephemeral features.
- Environmental and Conservation Groups: Potentially opposed, as exclusions could weaken protections against pollution in sensitive areas.
- Government Agencies: EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, which would enforce a narrower scope of the law.
- State and Local Governments: May gain more authority over excluded waters, allowing tailored local regulations.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces federalism by limiting federal commerce clause authority over waters (per Supreme Court precedents like Sackett v. EPA), potentially reducing litigation over "waters of the United States." The delegation to agency heads for further exclusions could invite challenges if seen as overly vague.
- Constitutional: Aligns with interpretations limiting federal overreach into state waters, but might face scrutiny if exclusions lead to interstate pollution spillover.
- Political: Reflects ongoing debates on environmental deregulation; introduced by Republican senators, it could influence broader Clean Water Act reforms amid partisan divides on balancing economic growth and water quality.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (6)
Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID], Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS], Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID], Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC], Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS], Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
Recent Actions
- 2025-07-23: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 2025-07-23: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Clarifying Legal Exclusions Around Regulated Waters Act — issued 2025-07-23 — PDF (2 pages)