{ "id": "R43943", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43943", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 457905, "date": "2016-12-29", "retrieved": "2017-01-03T22:36:31.451599", "title": "The \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d Rule: Legislative Options and 114th Congress Responses", "summary": "On May 27, 2015, the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule revising regulations that define the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges to waters under CWA jurisdiction, such as the addition of pollutants from factories or sewage treatment plants and the dredging and filling of spoil material through mining or excavation, require a CWA permit. The rule was proposed in 2014 in light of Supreme Court rulings that created uncertainty about the geographic limits of waters that are and are not protected by the CWA. \nAccording to EPA and the Corps, their intent in proposing the rule was to clarify CWA jurisdiction, not expand it. Nevertheless, the rule has been extremely controversial, especially with groups representing property owners, land developers, and agriculture, who contend that it represents a massive federal overreach beyond the agencies\u2019 statutory authority. Most state and local officials are supportive of clarifying the extent of CWA-regulated waters, but some are concerned that the rule could impose costs on states and localities as their own actions become subject to new requirements. Most environmental advocacy groups welcomed the proposal, which would more clearly define U.S. waters that are subject to CWA protections, but beyond that general support, some in these groups favor an even stronger rule. The final rule contains a number of changes to respond to criticisms of the proposal, but the revisions may not satisfy all critics of the rule. The rule became effective August 28, 2015, replacing EPA-Corps guidance that has governed permitting decisions since the Supreme Court\u2019s rulings. However, a federal appeals court issued a nationwide stay of the rule that has been in effect since October 2015.\nDespite the court\u2019s stay of the rule, some in Congress favor halting EPA and the Corps\u2019 current approach to defining \u201cwaters of the United States.\u201d To do so legislatively, at least four options were reflected in bills in the 114th Congress.\nThe Congressional Review Act. If Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving a covered rule under procedures provided by the act, and the resolution becomes law, the rule cannot take effect or continue in effect. The agency may not reissue either that rule or any substantially similar one, except under authority of a subsequently enacted law. The Senate and House passed such a joint resolution (S.J.Res. 22), but President Obama vetoed it on January 19. On January 21, a procedural vote in the Senate to override the veto failed.\nAppropriations bill limitations. A provision in an appropriations bill can be a mechanism to block or redirect an agency\u2019s course of action by limiting or preventing agency funds from being used for the rule. Bills with such limitations were reported in 2015 and 2016, but none of these bills were enacted.\nStandalone targeted legislation. Other legislation can take several forms, such as a bill similar to limits in an appropriations bill to prohibit EPA and the Corps from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule. Another approach could be legislation to address substantive aspects of the rule that have been criticized. The House passed one such bill (H.R. 1732) in 2015. Similar legislation was reported in the Senate, but failed to advance (S. 1140).\nBroad amendments to the Clean Water Act. Legislation to affirm or clarify Congress\u2019s intention regarding CWA jurisdiction would have broad implications for the CWA, since questions of jurisdiction are fundamental to all of the act\u2019s regulatory requirements.\nThese options and related legislative activity in the 114th Congress are discussed in this report. Each option faced a steep path to enactment, because of the Obama Administration\u2019s opposition to legislation to halt or weaken a major regulatory initiative such as the \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule. With a change in administration in January 2017, the 115th Congress and the new administration seem likely to revisit the \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d issue and controversies, but how that will occur is unclear for now.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43943", "sha1": "91add3a18f88a7c00e50ee4316258e27b0135d6a", "filename": "files/20161229_R43943_91add3a18f88a7c00e50ee4316258e27b0135d6a.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43943", "sha1": "9d87cb82a496833923b9d917fed0d5168ff7e390", "filename": "files/20161229_R43943_9d87cb82a496833923b9d917fed0d5168ff7e390.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4909, "name": "Water Resource Management" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 453925, "date": "2016-06-30", "retrieved": "2016-09-09T19:16:44.799005", "title": "EPA and the Army Corps\u2019 \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d Rule: Congressional Response and Options", "summary": "On May 27, 2015, the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule revising regulations that define the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges to waters under CWA jurisdiction, such as the addition of pollutants from factories or sewage treatment plants and the dredging and filling of spoil material through mining or excavation, require a CWA permit. The rule was proposed in 2014 in light of Supreme Court rulings that created uncertainty about the geographic limits of waters that are and are not protected by the CWA. \nAccording to EPA and the Corps, their intent in proposing the rule was to clarify CWA jurisdiction, not expand it. Nevertheless, the rule has been extremely controversial, especially with groups representing property owners, land developers, and agriculture, who contend that it represents a massive federal overreach beyond the agencies\u2019 statutory authority. Most state and local officials are supportive of clarifying the extent of CWA-regulated waters, but some are concerned that the rule could impose costs on states and localities as their own actions become subject to new requirements. Most environmental advocacy groups welcomed the proposal, which would more clearly define U.S. waters that are subject to CWA protections, but beyond that general support, some in these groups favor an even stronger rule. The final rule contains a number of changes to respond to criticisms of the proposal, but the revisions may not satisfy all critics of the rule. The rule became effective August 28, 2015, replacing EPA-Corps guidance that has governed permitting decisions since the Supreme Court\u2019s rulings. However, a federal appeals court issued a nationwide stay of the rule in October.\nDespite the court\u2019s stay of the rule, some in Congress favor halting EPA and the Corps\u2019 current approach to defining \u201cwaters of the United States.\u201d To do so legislatively, at least four options are available and are reflected in bills in the 114th Congress.\nThe Congressional Review Act. If Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving a covered rule under procedures provided by the act, and the resolution becomes law, the rule cannot take effect or continue in effect. The agency may not reissue either that rule or any substantially similar one, except under authority of a subsequently enacted law. The Senate and House passed such a joint resolution (S.J.Res. 22), but President Obama vetoed it on January 19. On January 21, a procedural vote in the Senate to override the veto failed.\nAppropriations bill limitations. A provision in an appropriations bill can be a mechanism to block or redirect an agency\u2019s course of action by limiting or preventing agency funds from being used for the rule. Bills with such limitations were reported in 2015, but the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113) contained no such provisions. Similar provisions are included in several FY2017 appropriations bills.\nStandalone targeted legislation. Other legislation can take several forms, such as a bill similar to limits in an appropriations bill to prohibit EPA and the Corps from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule. Another approach could be legislation to address substantive aspects of the rule that have been criticized. The House has passed one such bill (H.R. 1732). Similar legislation was reported in the Senate, but failed to advance (S. 1140).\nBroad amendments to the Clean Water Act. Legislation to affirm or clarify Congress\u2019s intention regarding CWA jurisdiction would have broad implications for the CWA, since questions of jurisdiction are fundamental to all of the act\u2019s regulatory requirements.\nThese options and related legislative activity are discussed in this report. Each option faces a steep path to enactment, because President Obama likely would oppose legislation to halt or weaken a major regulatory initiative of the Administration such as the \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43943", "sha1": "810b06c80caf50b729d3489e1f3c796599510dc9", "filename": "files/20160630_R43943_810b06c80caf50b729d3489e1f3c796599510dc9.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43943", "sha1": "8b93852b17228900b14827a50800fe14acd1e1a4", "filename": "files/20160630_R43943_8b93852b17228900b14827a50800fe14acd1e1a4.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 449221, "date": "2016-01-26", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T17:25:20.957942", "title": "EPA and the Army Corps\u2019 \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d Rule: Congressional Response and Options", "summary": "On May 27, 2015, the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule revising regulations that define the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Discharges to waters under CWA jurisdiction, such as the addition of pollutants from factories or sewage treatment plants and the dredging and filling of spoil material through mining or excavation, require a CWA permit. The rule was proposed in 2014 in light of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 that created uncertainty about the geographic limits of waters that are and are not protected by the CWA. The rule, which becomes effective August 28, 2015, replaces EPA-Corps guidance that has governed permitting decisions since the Court\u2019s rulings.\nAccording to EPA and the Corps, their intent in proposing the rule was to clarify CWA jurisdiction, not expand it. Nevertheless, the rule has been extremely controversial, especially with groups representing property owners, land developers, and agriculture, who contend that it represents a massive federal overreach beyond the agencies\u2019 statutory authority. Most state and local officials are supportive of clarifying the extent of CWA-regulated waters, but some are concerned that the rule could impose costs on states and localities as their own actions become subject to new requirements. Most environmental advocacy groups welcomed the proposal, which would more clearly define U.S. waters that are subject to CWA protections, but beyond that general support, some in these groups favor an even stronger rule. The final rule contains a number of changes to respond to criticisms of the proposal, but the revisions may not satisfy all critics of the rule.\nBecause of controversies over the rule, some in Congress favor halting EPA and the Corps\u2019 current approach to defining \u201cwaters of the United States.\u201d To do so legislatively, at least four options are available and are reflected in bills in the 114th Congress.\nThe Congressional Review Act. If Congress passes a joint resolution disapproving a covered rule under procedures provided by the act, and the resolution becomes law, the rule cannot take effect or continue in effect. The agency may not reissue either that rule or any substantially similar one, except under authority of a subsequently enacted law. The Senate and House have passed such a joint resolution (S.J.Res. 22), but President Obama vetoed it on January 19. On January 21, a procedural vote in the Senate to override the veto failed.\nAppropriations bill limitations. A provision in an appropriations bill can be a mechanism to block or redirect an agency\u2019s course of action by limiting or preventing agency funds from being used for the rule. Bills with such limitations were reported in the Senate and House in 2015, but the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113) contained no such provisions.\nStandalone targeted legislation. Other legislation can take several forms, such as a bill similar to limits in an appropriations bill to prohibit EPA and the Corps from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule. Another approach could be legislation to address substantive aspects of the rule that have been criticized. The House has passed one such bill (H.R. 1732). Similar legislation was reported in the Senate, but failed to advance (S. 1140).\nBroad amendments to the Clean Water Act. Legislation to affirm or clarify Congress\u2019s intention regarding CWA jurisdiction would have broad implications for the CWA, since questions of jurisdiction are fundamental to all of the act\u2019s regulatory requirements.\nThese options and related legislative activity are discussed in this report. Each option faces a steep path to enactment, because President Obama likely would oppose legislation to halt or weaken a major regulatory initiative of the Administration such as the \u201cwaters of the United States\u201d rule.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43943", "sha1": "1f7394adfc5f65679f7778c13c75515bed164e63", "filename": "files/20160126_R43943_1f7394adfc5f65679f7778c13c75515bed164e63.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43943", "sha1": "b21122462b22d725496263b578be259e51c1730c", "filename": "files/20160126_R43943_b21122462b22d725496263b578be259e51c1730c.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc824447/", "id": "R43943_2016Jan20", "date": "2016-01-20", "retrieved": "2016-04-04T14:48:17", "title": "EPA and the Army Corps' \"Waters of the United States\" Rule: Congressional Response and Options", "summary": "This report discusses several options Congress had in order to respond to controversy caused by the May 27th, 2015 rule that was finalized by the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This finalized rule revised regulations that defined the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Congress' legislative options are reflected in bills in the 114th Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20160120_R43943_fdbc129a08ef2e41cd5c237d2a2935a3d065f11b.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20160120_R43943_fdbc129a08ef2e41cd5c237d2a2935a3d065f11b.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water Law and legislation", "name": "Water Law and legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water pollution", "name": "Water pollution" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water quality", "name": "Water quality" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water resources", "name": "Water resources" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental protection", "name": "Environmental protection" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc795909/", "id": "R43943_2015Nov05", "date": "2015-11-05", "retrieved": "2016-01-13T14:26:20", "title": "EPA and the Army Corps' \"Waters of the United States\" Rule: Congressional Response and Options", "summary": "This report discusses four legislative options that Congress could consider to halt or redirect the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineer's proposed \"waters of the United States\" rule.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20151105_R43943_bd9cc1c40ef46a321e0cb3efa86fa5be5daf974e.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20151105_R43943_bd9cc1c40ef46a321e0cb3efa86fa5be5daf974e.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water law and legislation", "name": "Water law and legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water pollution", "name": "Water pollution" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water quality", "name": "Water quality" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water resources", "name": "Water resources" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental protection", "name": "Environmental protection" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc795894/", "id": "R43943_2015Jul09", "date": "2015-07-09", "retrieved": "2016-01-13T14:26:20", "title": "EPA and the Army Corps' \"Waters of the United States\" Rule: Congressional Response and Options", "summary": "This report discusses four legislative options that Congress could consider to halt or redirect the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineer's proposed \"waters of the United States\" rule.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150709_R43943_43d3289b17811a39ba14846bbd4234dd4eed15c1.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150709_R43943_43d3289b17811a39ba14846bbd4234dd4eed15c1.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water law and legislation", "name": "Water law and legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water pollution", "name": "Water pollution" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water quality", "name": "Water quality" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water resources", "name": "Water resources" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental protection", "name": "Environmental protection" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc812120/", "id": "R43943_2015Jun29", "date": "2015-06-29", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "EPA and the Army Corps\u2019 \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d Rule: Congressional Response and Options", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150629_R43943_3881b8e7327848ad907c92d7d71f03dd25cca69b.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150629_R43943_3881b8e7327848ad907c92d7d71f03dd25cca69b.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818923/", "id": "R43943_2015Jun03", "date": "2015-06-03", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "EPA and the Army Corps\u2019 \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d Rule: Congressional Response and Options", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150603_R43943_1c3082bbe0325f6f3c24f99df8d5d8c6ffbe3805.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150603_R43943_1c3082bbe0325f6f3c24f99df8d5d8c6ffbe3805.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc689506/", "id": "R43943_2015May26", "date": "2015-05-26", "retrieved": "2015-08-03T15:06:47", "title": "EPA and the Army Corps' Proposed \"Waters of the United States\" Rule: Congressional Response and Options", "summary": "This report discusses four legislative options that Congress could consider to halt or redirect the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineer's proposed \"waters of the United States\" rule: the Congressional Review Act, appropriations bill limitations, targeted legislation, and broad amendments to the Clean Water Act. Each option faces a steep path to enactment.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150526_R43943_35e3410ffa9a290c474db583f9f4581c43d1e95a.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150526_R43943_35e3410ffa9a290c474db583f9f4581c43d1e95a.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water law and legislation", "name": "Water law and legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water pollution", "name": "Water pollution" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water quality", "name": "Water quality" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water resources", "name": "Water resources" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental protection", "name": "Environmental protection" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Appropriations", "Environmental Policy" ] }