III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 12 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that clean water is a national priority, 

and that the June 29, 2015, Waters of the United States Rule should 

be withdrawn or vacated. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 12, 2017 

Mrs. FISCHER (for herself and Mrs. ERNST) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that clean water is a 

national priority, and that the June 29, 2015, Waters 

of the United States Rule should be withdrawn or vacated. 

Whereas the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.) (commonly known as the ‘‘Clean Water 

Act’’) is one of the most important laws in the United 

States and has led to decades of successful environmental 

improvements; 

Whereas the success of that Act depends on consistent adherence to the key principle of cooperative federalism, under 

which the Federal Government and State and local governments all have a role in protecting water resources; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 12 IS 

Whereas, in structuring the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) based on the foundation of 

cooperative federalism, Congress left to the States their 

traditional authority over land and water, including farmers’ fields, nonnavigable, wholly intrastate water (including puddles and ponds), and the allocation of water supplies; 

Whereas compliance with the principle of cooperative federalism requires that any regulation defining the term 

‘‘waters of the United States’’ be promulgated— 

(1) after the establishment of a proper regulatory 

baseline for, and an evaluation of the costs and benefits 

of, the proposed regulatory definition of the term; 

(2) in compliance with— 

(A) chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code 

(commonly known as the ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility 

Act’’); and 

(B) the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and 

(3) in consultation with States and local governments, including consultation with respect to— 

(A) alternative proposals for changing the regulatory definition of the term; and 

(B) the impact of the alternative proposals, including costs and benefits, on State and local governments and small entities; 

Whereas, in promulgating the final rule entitled ‘‘Clean 

Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ ’’ 

(80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (June 29, 2015)) (referred to in 

this preamble as the ‘‘Waters of the United States 

Rule’’), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Chief of Engineers— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 12 IS 

(1) failed to follow the procedural steps described in 

the fourth whereas clause; and 

(2) claimed broad and expansive jurisdiction that encroaches on traditional State authority and undermines 

longstanding exemptions from Federal regulation under 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 

et seq.); and 

Whereas, on October 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit— 

(1) issued a nationwide stay for the Waters of the 

United States Rule; and 

(2) found that the petitioners who requested that 

the court vacate the Waters of the United States Rule 

have a substantial possibility of success in a hearing on 

the merits of the case: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the 

2 final rule of the Administrator of the Environmental Pro3 tection Agency and the Chief of Engineers entitled ‘‘Clean 

4 Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ ’’ 

5 (80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (June 29, 2015)) should be vacated. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS