CLEAR Waters Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2025
Bottom line
The bill significantly narrows the scope of federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act, potentially shifting environmental protection responsibilities to states or leaving certain water features unregulated.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to explicitly exclude certain types of water features from the definition of "navigable waters." Specifically, it excludes waste treatment systems, ephemeral features (those that flow only in direct response to precipitation), and groundwater from federal jurisdiction under the Act. It also grants the Administrator of the EPA and the Secretary of the Army the authority to determine other features for exclusion.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill provides much-needed regulatory clarity and certainty for landowners, farmers, and businesses by establishing clear boundaries for federal jurisdiction. They contend it reduces burdensome federal overreach, respects private property rights, and allows states to manage their own water resources without undue federal interference, focusing federal efforts on truly navigable waters.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill would significantly weaken the Clean Water Act, leaving millions of acres of wetlands and miles of streams vulnerable to pollution. They argue that ephemeral streams and waste treatment systems are often hydrologically connected to larger water bodies, and their exclusion would lead to widespread degradation of water quality, harming public health, wildlife, and downstream communities.
This is a very short and straightforward bill, easily readable and understandable within minutes, allowing ample time for evaluation.
Section 2
Exclusions from "Navigable Waters" Definition
This provision amends Section 502(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to explicitly state that the term "navigable waters" does not include: (1) any component of a waste treatment system (like lagoons or settling ponds) designed to convey or treat wastewater; (2) ephemeral features that only flow in direct response to precipitation; and (3) groundwater. It also adds a clause allowing the Administrator of the EPA and the Secretary of the Army to jointly determine other features to be excluded.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision brings much-needed clarity to a long-contested definition, ending years of regulatory uncertainty that has burdened property owners and businesses. They assert that it aligns with a more limited interpretation of federal authority under the Commerce Clause, leaving regulation of these specific features to states, which are better equipped to handle local water issues.
Critics contend
Critics argue that this provision creates dangerous loopholes in the Clean Water Act, as ephemeral streams and waste treatment systems are often critical components of larger hydrological networks. They contend that pollution in these excluded features will inevitably flow downstream, contaminating traditionally navigable waters and undermining the very purpose of the Act to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between providing regulatory certainty and reducing perceived federal overreach versus ensuring comprehensive protection for water quality across interconnected hydrological systems. It trades a broader federal safety net for increased state autonomy and reduced compliance costs for specific industries.
This clause allows the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to jointly determine any other features to be excluded from the definition of "navigable waters."
Section 2(2)(B)(iv)
Why it matters:While it could be seen as standard legislative delegation to provide flexibility, its placement at the end of a list of specific exclusions might allow for future significant narrowing of CWA jurisdiction through administrative action rather than further legislation, potentially without the same level of public debate.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides necessary administrative flexibility to adapt to new scientific understanding or practical realities without requiring Congress to pass new legislation for every minor adjustment. It allows expert agencies to make technical determinations efficiently.
Case against: Opponents would argue this grants broad, unchecked authority to agencies to further weaken environmental protections without direct Congressional oversight. It could lead to future exclusions based on political rather than scientific considerations, further eroding the Clean Water Act's scope.
Estimated impact: The impact is potentially significant, as this clause grants a discretionary power that could lead to future exclusions of additional water features, further altering the scope of federal water regulation.