PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 30, 2015
Defending Rivers from Overreaching Policies Act of 2015
This bill requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish: (1) a Supplemental Scientific Review Panel to make recommendations regarding metrics to quantify the connection between any body of water or wetland and a traditionally navigable water, and (2) an Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams Advisory Commission to develop criteria to define whether a body of water or wetland has a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water using the metrics developed by the review panel.
The commission must report to the Army Corps and the EPA on the criteria after a public comment period and release public versions of the reports.
The Army Corps and the EPA may not develop, finalize, adopt, implement, apply, administer, or enforce the proposed rule entitled, "Definition of 'Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act" and published on April 21, 2014, or begin the drafting of any substantially similar rule, until they receive a final report from the commission.
People & committees
Sen. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1178 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1178 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1178 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1178 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.