[Repeal The 17th]

Congress should simply pass a bill defining the term.
-
For all intents and purposes,
“The Waters Of The U.S.” are hereby defined, as those waters
that are maintained for commercial navigation by
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as any
claimed territorial waters. All other waters located within
the boundaries of the United States are the province of the States.

[taxcontrol]

I would be a tad more specific and include a statement around things like, rivers that run year round, x feet wide by x feet deep, etc.

Just because the left keeps trying to change the language.

[Jacquerie]

This is part of a building groundswell of state opposition to Obama's tyranny. But, as the recent Scotus decisions made clear, it is dangerous to rely on a politicized court to secure our rights.

Thirty-five states have joined in opposition? So what?

The answer is to return the states to the senate . . . NOW.

Article V before we can't.

[Ben Ficklin]

"Congress should simply pass a bill defining the term"

There are several terms that need to be defined, such as "significant nexus", which SCOTUS used in a decision in 2006, which threw this regulation into turmoil.

Congress can't really do anything. SCOTUS needs to take another case and clarify themselves. But they haven't done that and since then numerous lower court decisions have been conflicted.

EPA waited 8 years before they finally decided to rewrite the reg to try to clarify it to the SCOTUS decision.

Meanwhile, there are many high priced environmental lawyers and consultants who can't advise their clients with certainty.

Rapanos v United States

Supreme Court's Murky Clean Water Act Ruling Created Legal Quagmire