S.787 - Clean Water Restoration Act

A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States. as introduced.
  • Short: Clean Water Restoration Act as introduced.
  • Short: Clean Water Restoration Act as reported to senate.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-49 of 49 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    drewfus 12/15/2009 3:03pm

    Actually, Mcbee, you DO in fact have to claim an injury in order to file a citizen suit under ยง 505 of the Clean Water Act. The Act cannot abrogate the requirements of Article III standing; plaintiffs must meet the requirements of showing (1) injury in fact, (2) that their injury was caused by the defendant, and (3) that a federal court can provide a remedy. In fact, the Supreme Court has been very careful not to throw federal courts wide open to environmental litigtation. Take a look at Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), to see what I mean.

  • Mcbee 10/30/2009 12:38pm
    Link Reply
    + -1
    The clear Air bill is far more simple…It does not claim the land below the air, it limits lawsuits to state and fed. agencies, and it does not direct people to use sensitive ecosystems as public highways. As written this bill will increase use, and pollution, in sensitive headwater streams and delicate wetlands, NOT protect them. For those clowns claiming opposiiton to this billis rightwing conspiracy, YOU are the brainwashed drones…Read the law and understand the indirect consequences. Anyone who reads past the “fluffy” rhetoric in the first section of the CWA, can see this bill will be the biggest setback of property rights in this countries history, cost trillions and focus overuse of sensitive ecosystems. God help us all!!
  • Newbis 10/31/2009 7:53pm

    How can so many people here believe everything the right-wing media says? The brasschecktv.com video sited states that this law will give the Federal Government “ownership” over all these waters, and then complains that this is unreasonable seizure without just compensation. But if you read the bill… (Read the bill! How come so many people are so sure of their opinions here and have never BOTHERED to read the bill?!)…it doesn’t say anything at all about ownership or about giving the government any new authority over these waters. It just restores the government’s ability to keep people from pouring chemicals into waters that will poison our drinking water. Do you want to drink poison? THINK about it. A little thinking here would do people a lot of good.

  • Injo503 11/05/2009 11:35am

    If you click on the money trail tab on this website its pretty easy to see who is opposing and supporting this bill. Here is what it states.

    Specific Organizations Supporting S.787

    Ducks Unlimited
    American Whitewater
    League of Conservation Voters
    American Rivers
    Clean Water Action
    Sierra Club
    U.S. Public Interest Research Groups
    Natural Resources Defense Council
    Environment America
    National Wildlife Federation
    Southern Environmental Law Center

    Specific Organizations Opposing S.787

    National Mining Association
    National Corn Growers Association

  • Comm_reply
    Mcbee 11/07/2009 2:43am
    Link Reply
    + -1
    This Bill is NOT about the clean water, YOU need to re-read it with the implications to all the other referenced laws in mind. The bill exempts the largest source of pollution (urban street run-off & storm drains), and exempts water-craft from flushing their toilet into the waters. The bill will allow public access onto headwater stream (even in 4×4s). How is that providing clean water?? IT IS A BAD BILL, because the authors and legislators who have signed-on have not thought through the implications this bill will have on the other federal and state laws that will be effected. History will show that this bill is probably one of the most shortsighted pieces of legislation EVER proposed… and those pushing this bill appear to be looking to get the next Darwin award.
  • Mcbee 11/07/2009 2:52am
    Link Reply
    + -1
    The ripple effect this bill will have on other state and federal laws will send most of these groups kicking themselves for ever encouraging this bill. The Bill will encourage use (in fact use as a ‘public highway’) on the most sensitive headwater reaches while it continue to exempt the number one source of pollution (street run-off and storm drains). History will prove that this is one of the most misconceived and shortsighted bill ever proposed. Some of the organizations above should have consider the impact on state and federal laws before it got behind this bill.
  • Injo503 11/09/2009 11:36am

    This bill does not expand the clean water act. It just restores it back to the way it was in the 80’s and 90’s. The only farmers this bill will affect are the factory farmers that wish to dump huge amounts of toxins directly into the water. The bottom line is that if you were able to farm before without issue then this will not affect you.

    The Clean Water act of 1972 was hailed as a great environmental success and many other countries have copied these standards and are still using them to this day. Some countries have even tighter regulation.
    During the Bush administration there were a couple court decisions that changed the way it was interpreted and this essentially gutted the Clean Water Act allowing unlimited dumping into any waterways that are not considered navigable even if these waterways directly feed the great lakes or other important bodies of water.

  • Injo503 11/09/2009 11:36am

    The intent of this bill is to restore protections for rivers, streams and wetlands that may be subject to question due to the recent Supreme Court rulings in SWANCC and Rapanos.

    Get your facts straight.

  • Comm_reply
    Mcbee 11/22/2009 1:26pm
    Link Reply
    + -1
    If the “intent” of the bill is to protect the water..than why are the sponsors of the bill not correcting the language to match the supposed intent? As written the bill is a sleazy attempt to claim private property and expand the reach of the federal government under the guise of protecting water. Rivers and streams remain protected under the original Clean Water Act, the recent court decisions only limited the ACOE from claiming land soggy for a few months each year from being under their jurisdiction. Streams and rivers with a “significant nexus” are still protected under the CWA. The streams argument is a scare tactic used by Bill sponsers to enlist the ignorant into the argument.
  • Comm_reply
    ndrai3gsx 01/23/2010 9:48am

    Quit trying to twist the facts by hiding behind what you declare to be “inappropriate” or “inaccurate” phraseology. If you’re not willing to read these bills with an open mind, and not with this Governmental Conspiracy Theory attached to everything that you read, see, and say. “Scare tactic” yeah right, and I’m the boogie man.

  • pmacqster 11/18/2009 9:20pm

    Firstly the wording in this bill needs significant work – however I agree with the intent. I think people need to stop the senseless “government takeover” nonsense and look at what this bill is really trying to accomplish – protection of water resources in this country. If private owners were meeting their responsibilities, there wouldn’t be a need for expanded regulation – which is what this bill does. As a nation we need to move beyond the “what’s mine” mentality and recognize that water is of such importance that we need to do more to protect it. I’m not saying the federal government is always the best protector, but our EPA does have enforcement capability – and we need it.

  • Injo503 11/23/2009 3:54pm

    This does not just concern land that is soggy for a few months. It concerns permanent creeks, small waterways, marsh lands, and swamps that are currently not protected but were before 2002. And yes, it protects seasonal waterways as well. Seasonal waterways does not mean the puddle in your backyard or the 6ft stream coming from your gutter downspouts. Anybody saying so is exaggerating. Seasonal waterways includes creeks that run for a few months a year. This could be from snow melt or during periods of heavy rainfall. Almost all of these connect to larger bodies of water, sometimes through the underground water table. Isolated waterways that do not connect to larger bodies of water are not going to be covered. And the most important thing to remember is that this bill is NOT expanding the clean water act. It is simply bringing the clean water act back to the way it was from 1972-2002. If you did not have any problems in this time then NOTHING will change for you.

  • Comm_reply
    Mcbee 12/16/2009 7:21am
    Link Reply
    + -1
    INJO503 The original CWA ALREADY includes permanent creeks and small waterways, if you were correct (your not) we would not need this supplemental bill. The bill includes the words “intermittent streams” and “drainage ditches”, and therefore does expand the scope of the CWA. Also the CWA already includes any stream with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters. A judge will read the bill as-is and need not “exaggerate” in order to expand the scope of the CWA. Those who have had their lands claimed as “wetlands” by misguided enviro-mentals trying to put a feather in their cap know the dangers of a poorly defined bill in the judiciary. Those delegates signing the bill are simply being shortsighted and irresponsible.
  • Injo503 11/23/2009 3:55pm

    And to those who claim this is a land grab? How on earth could you think this? The clean water act allows the EPA or army corps of engineers to decide what you can dump in the water and how much. It does not allow them to take your land. Where would you get this ludicrous idea?

  • Comm_reply
    Mcbee 12/16/2009 7:26am
    Link Reply
    + -1
    I also hate the word “land grab”…

    Landowners are “allowed” to keep the land they paid for and continue to pay taxes on that land.
    The government can only keep you form using your land, raise those taxes each year and allow the public access. No grab! right?
    It is far more insidious than just a “land grab”

  • ndrai3gsx 01/23/2010 9:54am

    All of you conspiracy theroist’s should back up and take a look at how goofy you make each other sound. Every one of you are trying to hide behind words that you think makes yourself look imprtant.

    There has been a bill like this in place already, and its time is nearly run out. This bill Reintroduces that original bill. If you all hate America so much that you want to see her polluted and messed up by toxins that slowly strangles the life out of the people living here, then move to another country. From there you’d have a better chance of getting your way.

  • kbthiede 01/29/2010 10:16am

    You people are stupid. The govt already has jursidiction over your property. If you murder someone in your backyard, you can still be prosecuted. This bill is about extending the power to prosecute in cases of polluting american waters. That is, if a chemical plant dumps waste into a creek. That plant can still be prosecuted despite the fact that the creek is not navigable. It is important that this passes so we and our children and grandchildren dont have to drink water with inumerable poisons in it.

  • Comm_reply
    Mcbee 05/25/2010 3:15pm
    Define “poison”? Under the current CWA, “pollutants” include sand, dirt and rocks. However, the CWA does not include E-coli, bacteria, oil from storm drains or raw sewerage from “recreational watercraft” (these are exempt). There are no “limits” (parts per million) similar to the Clean Air Act; therefore any amount of zinc, copper, or even round-up is illegal to use in or near drainage ditches. Oddly, municipalities are exempt from poisoning streams with pharmaceuticals discharged from sewerage plants. A new energy technology growing E-coli in holding ponds, is exempt from the CWA. This while any property owner grading his land or altering a drainage ditch could be criminally charged under this ridiculous expansion of the Clean Water Act. Our waters should be clean, but this alteration of the CWA is nothing more than a property grab for federal agencies and the special interests that control them.
  • Mcbee 04/22/2010 12:44pm
    The bill does not just protect water quality, if it did I would be arguing for the bill. The bill seeks to claim lands and waters that are currently private property. The bill could be fixed to NOT GRAB property…but then it would be a pointless bill.

Vote on This Bill

22% Users Support Bill

75 in favor / 260 opposed

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments