The Republican leader of a House subcommittee does not agree with the claim made by some Republican colleagues during a hearing on the Clean Water Act (CWA) that the CWA has been weaponized by environmental groups opposed to development projects.

Following the hearing—‘America Builds: Clean Water Act Permitting and Project Delivery’—held Feb. 11, 2025 by the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Acting Chairman Brad Knott (R-N.C.) told The Driller he “wouldn't use the term weaponized” to describe how the CWA is being used by those groups. “I wouldn't say (the CWA was) weaponized, but I think there's people who are just naturally against some of these projects,” he said.

“Obviously, on any issue, you know, any infrastructure project, any project, there’s always going to be people on sort of both sides of an issue,” said Knott, who added that “in some cases” interpretations of the CWA have been too “broad.”

Knott cited the Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA as an interpretation that was found to be “too broad” and that “tightening that up” is needed to provide “more certainty for folks that want to do infrastructure projects.”

On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Sackett v. EPA the CWA protections only extend to wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters, also known as “waters” of the U.S. The ruling limits EPA authority to regulate wetlands.

GOP Lawmakers’ Claims 

During the hearing at least two Republication members of the committee claimed the CWA has been weaponized.

In a question to a witness on if the CWA has strayed “from its original intent,” Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) said the CWA “was enacted to restore the integrity of our nation’s waters. However, in recent years, it’s been weaponized mostly by environmental zealots with a political agenda that goes beyond the primary purpose of protecting water.”

In addition, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) said “The radical left has been hell bent on stopping traditional energy, power projects, things that provide us with nearly every modern imaginable good that we have, and the abuse of the system that we have through their bidding.” He added “Radical left weaponization, particularly Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, is a perfect example of the anti-energy mindset.”

Under Section 401 of the CWA, “a federal agency may not issue a permit or license to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into waters of the United States unless a Section 401 water quality certification is issued, or certification is waived. States and authorized tribes where the discharge would originate are generally responsible for issuing water quality certifications. In cases where a state or tribe does not have authority, EPA is responsible for issuing certification,” the agency says.

In addition to Knott disagreeing with the claim the CWA has been weaponized, a Democratic member of the House outright disputed the claims the CWA has been weaponized by “environmental zealots” and the “radical left”.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Calif.) said , “I don't think that it’s radical for families to want to make sure that their children are not drinking PFAS, chromium-6, lead, and other harmful materials.”

“It’s certainly not radical for the people of Los Angeles to be very frustrated when we have our droughts—like we have every year—that we can’t drink from the giant aquifer that’s under Los Angeles because of historic pollution,” Friedman said.

Further, “those of us who want government to be efficient, really bristle at wasting billions of dollars every year cleaning up pollution, air pollution, water pollution, pollution from the ground, from industries that could have been prevented from causing this pollution in the first place through strong environmental protections and environmental regulations,” she said.

Proposals

Among the proposals discussed during the hearing included increasing state control of environmental regulations and for states to adopt federal standards for environmental regulations; and permit reform.

Hearing witness New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Commissioner Shawn M. LaTourette said, the CWA is a program of “cooperative federalism that relies upon partnership between the states and the federal government to effectuate the national goal of riding ourselves of pollutants in waterways.”

“The beauty of cooperative federalism lies in how the law takes local considerations into account while meeting the Federalist standards” thereby enabling state entities like NJDEP to implement the CWA, according to LaTourette.

LaTourette recommended the states assume implementation of the CWA programs because state employees are closer to the development projects and the permitting processes thereby giving them “a greater degree of efficiency and speed,” LaTourette said. Further, LaTourette would like to see the federal government increase funding to the states to support their implementation of CWA programs.

Joining LaTourette in his recommendation that states assume implementation of CWA programs is hearing witness Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Executive Director Robert Singletary. “Oklahoma is a huge proponent of cooperative federalism, as well as the right of states to set their own water quality standards and protect water quality,” he said.

Singletary added states authorities are “located within the state,” while not all federal counterparts are located in a state they have jurisdiction over.” Therefore, state officials “can be a lot more responsive.”

However, for states to assume such a role, they would need “more authority to implement the programs and make changes to the programs as necessary within their states,” Singletary said.

Along with the need to increase state control of water quality standards, reforming permitting regulations under Section 401 of the CWA were recommended by Noah Hanners, executive vice president of the Nucor Corp., who was representing the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

Hanners described the existing permitting regulations as “cumbersome and overreaching”, and “are holding back progress and hurting our nation's competitiveness.”

Click here to watch the hearing.