Congress quietly shrinks federal water-pollution authority over groundwater and seasonal streams
S. 2421 — CLEAR Waters Act · Filed by Joni Ernst (R-IA) · 6 cosponsors · Introduced Jul 23, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill narrows the federal definition of 'navigable waters' under the Clean Water Act by explicitly excluding waste treatment systems, ephemeral streams (those that flow only after rain), groundwater, and any other features the EPA Administrator and Army Corps of Engineers jointly decide to exclude. The effect is to remove federal pollution-control jurisdiction from these water bodies, allowing states and private parties to manage them with less federal oversight.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is to carve out entire categories of water bodies from federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. While framed as a 'clarification,' it functionally narrows EPA and Army Corps authority and shifts pollution control to state/local bodies or removes it entirely, benefiting industries that discharge into those waters.
What the text implies
- Subsection (B)(iv) grants the EPA Administrator and Army Corps Chief of Engineers joint authority to exclude 'any other features' without congressional approval, creating a delegated rulemaking power that could expand exclusions far beyond the four named categories.
- Ephemeral streams (subsection ii) often recharge aquifers and feed into downstream navigable waters; excluding them may allow upstream pollution that degrades drinking-water sources and violates downstream Clean Water Act protections.
- Waste treatment systems (subsection i) are often the last point of federal control over industrial and municipal discharge; excluding them may allow treatment-system operators to bypass pollution limits.
- Groundwater exclusion (subsection iii) severs federal jurisdiction over aquifer contamination, even where groundwater feeds surface waters or drinking-water supplies, shifting burden to state enforcement (often weaker).
- The bill does not grandfather existing EPA/Army Corps determinations; it may invalidate prior jurisdictional findings and require re-litigation of settled water-protection cases.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Citizens lose federal water-pollution protections over a broad class of waters—treatment systems, seasonal streams, and groundwater—that can affect drinking water, aquifer recharge, and downstream pollution. The joint EPA/Army Corps exclusion power (subsection iv) is open-ended and delegates authority without standards, creating regulatory uncertainty and potential for further narrowing without congressional action.
Who stands to gain
- agricultural operations (reduced oversight of irrigation runoff and treatment ponds)
- industrial manufacturers (reduced federal pollution limits on discharge systems)
- mining and energy companies (reduced jurisdiction over ephemeral streams and groundwater contaminati
- real-estate developers (reduced wetland/water-body protections in development areas)
- waste-management operators (reduced federal oversight of treatment lagoons and ponds)
Named in the bill
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Section 502(7), Administrator (EPA), Secretary of the Army
Where it stands
6 cosponsors: 6 Republicans.
- Jul 23, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Jul 23, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,750,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 42 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.
Joni Ernst, the sponsor, reported $342,120 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (nreca) — $1,750,000 on 2 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (960 characters) on Jun 8, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress quietly shrinks federal water-pollution authority over groundwater and seasonal streams” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s2421 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.