(5) Americans also rely on wetlands, including 
non-floodplain wetlands, to capture and store excess 
water, nutrients, and materials from stormwater or 
runoff, preventing or reducing pollution to down-
stream waters, and lessening the potential for down-
stream flooding. 
(6) There is overwhelming scientific evidence, 
which has been reviewed and confirmed by the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory 
Board, that there are no streams or rivers safe to 
pollute or degrade, and that wetlands, both individ-
ually and cumulatively, have a direct and consequen-
tial impact on the quality of downstream waters and 
on the health and safety of downstream commu-
nities. 
(7) Restoring the protection of the network of 
streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands, and other 
waters of the United States, is necessary to restore 
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 
integrity of all waters in the United States. 
(8) Recent events demonstrate how increased 
pollution in and degradation of streams, rivers, 
lakes, and wetlands, and other waters of the United 
States, can cause catastrophic harm to communities’ 
health and economic strength, such as— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:35 May 18, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6745.IH
H6745
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
(A) the 2014 harmful algal bloom in west-
ern Lake Erie, which resulted in a three-day 
shutdown of the drinking water supply of To-
ledo, Ohio, affecting approximately 500,000 
people; 
(B) the 2014 chemical spill into the Elk 
River in Charleston, West Virginia, causing the 
city to shut down its municipal drinking water 
supply for approximately 300,000 people for 
several days; 
(C) outbreaks of blue-green algae and red 
tide in the State of Florida in 2018 and 2019, 
causing widespread harm to businesses, rec-
reational opportunities, local economies, and the 
local environment; 
(D) recent flooding events, including along 
the Mississippi and Missouri River watersheds, 
and in communities, such as Houston, Texas, 
demonstrate how destruction of critical wet-
lands and degradation of watersheds can exac-
erbate the severity and duration of flood events 
and increase the financial impacts to local com-
munities, homeowners, farmers, economies, and 
businesses; and 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:35 May 18, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6745.IH
H6745
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
(E) worsening drought conditions and fre-
quency have highlighted the importance of 
source water protection, reclamation, and recy-
cling to ensure communities, farmers, and small 
businesses have sufficient quantities and quality 
of water resources for current and future needs. 
(9) Congress has recently recognized the impor-
tance of comprehensive approaches to protect critical 
waterbodies, such as the Chesapeake Bay, the Great 
Lakes, Lake Pontchartrain, the Long Island Sound, 
the Puget Sound, and the San Francisco Bay, and 
national estuaries, which depend on protection of the 
entire watersheds of these waterbodies to reduce lev-
els of pollution and prevent further degradation of 
rivers, streams, and wetlands that feed and maintain 
these critical waterbodies. 
(10) Despite the overwhelming, bipartisan sup-
port for clean water and the overwhelming scientific 
evidence on the interconnectivity of rivers, streams, 
lakes, wetlands, and other waters of the United 
States, following calls by corporate polluters to 
weaken the Clean Water Act, the Trump administra-
tion finalized its Dirty Water Rule, also known as 
the ‘‘Navigable Waters Protection Rule’’, to radically 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:35 May 18, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6745.IH
H6745
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
narrow decades-old regulations established by Presi-
dent Ronald Reagan. 
(11) According to Environmental Protection 
Agency documents, the Trump administration’s 
Dirty Water Rule would— 
(A) eliminate Clean Water Act protections 
on between 18 to 71 percent of the Nation’s 
stream and river miles that were protected 
under the Reagan-era regulations; 
(B) eliminate Federal protections on over 
half of the Nation’s wetlands in the continental 
United States that were protected under the 
Reagan-era regulations; and 
(C) result in approximately 16,000 existing 
Clean Water Act permitted facilities (including 
industrial facilities and sewage treatment sys-
tems) that may be allowed to discharge pollut-
ants without Federal oversight under the Clean 
Water Act. 
(12) In addition to the adverse human and en-
vironmental health impacts of the Trump adminis-
tration’s Dirty Water Rule, this effort will also have 
lasting adverse economic impacts on American fami-
lies, on farmers and other small businesses, and on 
the national, regional, and local economies. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:35 May 18, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6745.IH
H6745
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
(13) Additionally, America’s wildlife-watching, 
hunting, fishing, and $887 billion outdoor recreation 
economy all depend upon access to clean water. 
(14) In some rural communities, river recre-
ation, hunting, fishing, and related activities gen-
erate the largest share of the local economy; the 
streams and wetlands that will lose Federal protec-
tions under this rule include waters that provide es-
sential aquatic habitat for the fish, waterfowl, and 
wildlife that sustain this way of life. 
(15) The Trump administration’s own docu-
ment entitled ‘‘Economic Analysis for the Navigable 
Waters Protection Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the 
United States’ ’’, dated January 22, 2020, recog-
nizes the potential adverse impacts of its Dirty 
Water Rule on local economies, individual house-
holds, and public health, including— 
(A) an increase in the discharge of pollut-
ants from point sources to newly unprotected 
rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands, including 
‘‘reduced protection for aquatic ecosystems and 
public health and welfare’’; 
(B) a degradation of water quality in riv-
ers, streams, and lakes ‘‘as a result of pollution 
loadings from newly non-jurisdictional waters’’ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:35 May 18, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6745.IH
H6745
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
that will adversely affect the environment, will 
increase the costs of drinking water treatment 
and reservoir maintenance, and will negatively 
affect recreational opportunities for downstream 
waters, such as fishing and swimming; 
(C) a ‘‘loss of wetlands and streams with-
out corresponding mitigation’’; 
(D) an increased risk for communities 
from flooding, both in terms of the magnitude 
of potential floods as well as the duration of 
flooding events; and 
(E) an increased risk in the frequency and 
duration of oil and chemical spills and the ad-
verse consequences of such spills on human and 
environmental health and local communities. 
(16) Despite recognizing the potential adverse 
impacts of the Trump administration’s Dirty Water 
Rule on local economies, individual households, and 
the public health, the Trump administration has re-
peatedly refused to quantify these impacts to Con-
gress and the American people. 
(17) With many communities living with unsafe 
waters and increased risks from extreme weather, 
flooding, and drought, now is not the time to cut 
back on the protection of clean water, as would 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:35 May 18, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6745.IH
H6745
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
occur with implementation of the Trump administra-
tion’s Dirty Water Rule. 
(18) The American people demand more, not 
less, protection for clean water. 
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE. 
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the Secretary of the Army may not implement 
or enforce the final rule entitled ‘‘The Navigable Waters 
Protection Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United 
States’ ’’, published in the Federal Register on April 21, 
2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 22250), and such rule shall have no 
force or effect. 
SEC. 5. REGULATIONS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the 
Army shall promulgate a regulation defining ‘‘waters of 
the United States’’ for all purposes under the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act, in accordance with this sec-
tion. 
(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out subsection (a), 
the Administrator and the Secretary shall ensure that— 
(1) the rulemaking process includes an oppor-
tunity for public comment on the proposed regula-
tion lasting no fewer than 180 days and at least one 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:35 May 18, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6745.IH
H6745
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
public hearing allowing for in-person presentations 
by the public; 
(2) the promulgated definition of ‘‘waters of the 
United States’’ includes categories of water bodies 
that affect the physical, chemical, or biological integ-
rity of traditionally navigable and interstate waters, 
based on the best available scientific evidence; and 
(3) implementation of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act using such definition will prevent 
any— 
(A) degradation of surface water quality; 
(B) increased contaminant levels in drink-
ing water sources; 
(C) increased flooding-related risks to 
human life or property; and 
(D) disproportionate adverse impacts on 
minority or low-income populations. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
21:35 May 18, 2020
Jkt 099200
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H6745.IH
H6745
kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS