PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Clean Water Restoration Act

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 685.

Official summary

Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Dec 10, 2010

Clean Water Restoration Act - Reaffirms federal jurisdiction over all waters of the United States and overturns the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. United States.

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to replace the term "navigable waters" that are subject to such Act with the term "waters of the United States," defined to mean all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds, all tributaries of any of such waters, and all impoundments of the foregoing. Excludes from such term: (1) prior converted cropland; and (2) waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of such Act (other than cooling ponds). Applies the waste treatment systems exclusion only to manmade bodies of water which neither were originally created in waters of the United States (such as disposal areas in wetlands) nor resulted from the impoundment of waters of the United States.

Declares that nothing in such Act affects the authority of the Secretary of the Army or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the provisions of the Clean Water Act related to discharges: (1) composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture; (2) of stormwater runoff from certain oil, gas, and mining operations composed entirely of flows from precipitation runoff conveyances, which are not contaminated by or in contact with specified materials; (3) of dredged or fill materials resulting from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities, from upland soil and water conservation practices, or from activities with respect to which a state has an approved water quality regulatory program; or (4) of dredged or fill materials for the maintenance of currently serviceable structures, the construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds, irrigation ditches, or farm, forest, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment in accordance with best management practices, or the construction of temporary sedimentation basins on construction sites for which discharges do not include placement of fill material into the waters of the United States.

Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.

Read full official summaryShow less

Requires the Administrator and the Secretary to promulgate regulations to implement this Act within 18 months.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Feingold, Russell D. [D-WI] · D–WI

Committees

  • Environment and Public Works Committee
24 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 685.

  2. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Boxer with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-361. Minority views filed.

  3. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Boxer with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 111-361. Minority views filed.

  4. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

  5. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

  6. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4317-4318)

  7. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

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.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.787 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.787 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.787 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.787 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.

View full prompt & sources