The CLEAR Waters Act (SB 2421) would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, to narrow the definition of “navigable waters” by expressly excluding several categories of features from federal jurisdiction. The bill excludes components of waste treatment systems, including lagoons and treatment ponds used to convey, retain, settle, cool, or remove pollutants from wastewater. It also excludes ephemeral features that flow only in direct response to precipitation, groundwater, and any additional features later identified by the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of the Army.
In practical terms, the bill would change which waters and water-related features are subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act, potentially reducing permitting and enforcement obligations for some landowners, utilities, agricultural operations, and developers. By codifying these exclusions, the bill would likely limit federal oversight over certain isolated, intermittent, or engineered water features and shift more authority to states or local regulators where applicable.
Impact
SB 2421 would amend Section 502(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(7)) to redefine “navigable waters” and carve out explicit exclusions from federal jurisdiction. The bill would affect Clean Water Act permitting, compliance, and enforcement by removing certain wastewater treatment components, ephemeral streams, groundwater, and other administratively excluded features from the statutory definition. This could reduce federal regulatory reach over some water features and alter how agencies, regulated entities, and courts interpret the scope of waters covered under the Act.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and its sponsorship, the measure appears to be framed as a clarification and limitation of federal water jurisdiction, suggesting support from lawmakers concerned about regulatory certainty and federal overreach. The bill has been introduced and referred to committee, with no recorded votes or committee transcript available in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of broader legislative debate or opposition in the record supplied. Overall sentiment cannot be measured from votes, but the title and structure indicate a deregulatory, pro-clarification posture.
Contention
The likely points of contention are the bill’s exclusions from the term “navigable waters,” especially the removal of ephemeral features and groundwater from federal coverage. Supporters would likely argue that the bill provides clarity and limits uncertain federal authority, while opponents may contend that it weakens water-quality protections and could leave important hydrologic connections unregulated. Another possible area of dispute is the broad catch-all authority allowing the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of the Army to exclude additional features, which could be viewed either as useful flexibility or as an open-ended delegation of power.