PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 6, 2018
Regulatory Certainty Act of 2018
This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to specify that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must determine, in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, that a discharge of dredged or fill materials into a disposal area will have certain unacceptable adverse effects before the EPA prohibits the specification, or restricts the use, of an area as a disposal site.
The period during which the EPA may make such a prohibition is limited to the period that: (1) begins on the date that the Corps of Engineers provides notice to the EPA that the Corps of Engineers has completed all procedures for processing an application for a permit for dredged or fill material and is ready to determine whether the permit should be issued, and (2) ends on the date that the Corps of Engineers issues the permit. The Corps of Engineers must ensure that the period consists of at least 30 consecutive days.
The Corps of Engineers may issue a permit for dredged or fill material only after the Corps of Engineers provides notice to the EPA.
People & committees
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV] · R–WV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
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.3009 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.3009 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.3009 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.3009 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.