Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
This bill (CLEAR Waters Act) amends the definition of “navigable waters” in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act). It explicitly excludes from the term: components of waste treatment systems (including lagoons and treatment ponds used to convey, retain, or remove pollutants), ephemeral features that flow only in direct response to precipitation, groundwater, and any other features the EPA Administrator and the Chief of Engineers determine should be excluded.
Progressives emphasize environmental and public-health risks from narrowed federal jurisdiction; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief and property rights.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive change to the Clean Water Act definition of 'navigable waters' with clearly enumerated exclusions for treatment system components, ephemeral features, and groundwater, plus a broadly worded agency delegation for additional exclusions.
This bill (CLEAR Waters Act) amends the definition of “navigable waters” in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Clean Water Act).
It explicitly excludes from the term: components of waste treatment systems (including lagoons and treatment ponds used to convey, retain, or remove pollutants), ephemeral features that flow only in direct response to precipitation, groundwater, and any other features the EPA Administrator and the Chief of Engineers determine should be excluded.
The effect is to narrow the federal statutory definition of waters subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction by listing specific categories of excluded waters and delegating authority to the agencies to identify further exclusions.
Content-wise the bill is narrow and technically simple, but alters a major definitional hook of the Clean Water Act with significant downstream consequences—a type of deregulatory statutory change that tends to pass more easily in chambers receptive to rolling back regulation but stalls where broader consensus is required. Lack of built-in compromise mechanisms and likely mobilization by opposing stakeholders reduce its standalone prospects for becoming law absent packaging into larger legislation or significant bipartisan negotiation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive change to the Clean Water Act definition of 'navigable waters' with clearly enumerated exclusions for treatment system components, ephemeral features, and groundwater, plus a broadly worded agency delegation for additional exclusions. The statutory amendment language is concrete for the enumerated items but leaves important boundary and procedural matters to agency action without specifying processes or safeguards.
Progressives emphasize environmental and public-health risks from narrowed federal jurisdiction; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief and property rights.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize environmental and public-health risks from narrowed federal jurisdiction; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief and property rights.
This persona would likely view the bill as a significant rollback of federal clean water protections that could leave many waters vulnerable to pollution.
They would be concerned that removing federal coverage for treatment components, ephemeral streams, and groundwater creates regulatory gaps and weakens the ability to prevent downstream contamination of rivers, wetlands, and drinking water sources.
They would see the grant to agencies to exclude “any other features” as an invitation to further narrow protections.
A centrist would see the bill as an attempt to provide clearer limits to federal jurisdiction over waters, which could reduce regulatory uncertainty for landowners and businesses.
At the same time, they would be wary of creating holes in water quality protection and would look for evidence that excluded categories will not lead to measurable degradation of downstream waters or increased public health risks.
They would want clearer definitions and guardrails, plus mechanisms for state-federal cooperation and accountability.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill favorably as a restoration of clearer limits on federal authority under the Clean Water Act.
They would emphasize property rights, reduced regulatory burden for landowners and businesses, and a return of decision-making latitude to states and landowners for features such as waste-treatment ponds, ephemeral streams, and groundwater.
The delegation to EPA and the Corps to identify further exclusions may be seen as useful flexibility, though some conservatives might prefer even more statutory specificity.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content-wise the bill is narrow and technically simple, but alters a major definitional hook of the Clean Water Act with significant downstream consequences—a type of deregulatory statutory change that tends to pass more easily in chambers receptive to rolling back regulation but stalls where broader consensus is required. Lack of built-in compromise mechanisms and likely mobilization by opposing stakeholders reduce its standalone prospects for becoming law absent packaging into larger legislation or significant bipartisan negotiation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize environmental and public-health risks from narrowed federal jurisdiction; conservatives emphasize regulatory relief…
Content-wise the bill is narrow and technically simple, but alters a major definitional hook of the Clean Water Act with significant downst…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive change to the Clean Water Act definition of 'navigable waters' with clearly enumerated exclusions for treatment system components, ep…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.