H.J. Res. 18 is a one-sentence joint resolution that invokes chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code (the Congressional Review Act) to disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule titled “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements (LCRI)” (89 Fed.
Reg. 86418 (Oct. 30, 2024)) and declares that the rule “shall have no force or effect.”
That legal nullification would remove the LCRI from the federal regulatory landscape and trigger the CRA’s collateral consequence: the agency is barred from issuing a new rule in “substantially the same” form without express statutory authorization. For water systems, states with primacy, environmental compliance teams, and public-health planners, the resolution would create immediate regulatory uncertainty about which requirements apply and whether previously planned implementation steps must stop or be reversed.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5) to disapprove EPA’s LCRI final rule and states the rule will have no force or effect. Under the CRA, a successful disapproval also bars the agency from reissuing a substantially similar rule absent new congressional authorization.
Who It Affects
Directly affects EPA (as the issuing agency), community water systems and utilities that would implement any LCRI obligations, and state drinking-water primacy agencies that enforce federal standards. Indirectly affects environmental consultants, infrastructure planners, and public-health programs tied to lead exposure mitigation.
Why It Matters
The bill would erase a major federal drinking-water regulation wholesale rather than amending it, producing immediate compliance and enforcement questions and a legal barrier to quick regulatory fixes by EPA. That combination changes the planning horizon for regulated entities and for agencies administering federal and state lead-and-copper programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This joint resolution is narrowly framed but consequential: it identifies the EPA’s LCRI final rule by title and Federal Register citation and states that Congress disapproves that rule under the Congressional Review Act. The text is short and does not prescribe a replacement standard or modify any underlying statute; its effect is to render the specific LCRI publication legally void.
Because the resolution is drafted under chapter 8 of title 5, its operation follows the CRA’s established mechanics. If enacted, the resolution would not itself rewrite the Safe Drinking Water Act or other statutes; instead it would remove the LCRI regulation from having legal effect and leave the pre‑existing regulatory baseline (whatever applied before the LCRI) as the operative framework unless and until EPA issues a new rule consistent with the CRA’s limits.The resolution’s practical impact turns on two linked outcomes: first, whether regulated parties must halt implementation steps tied to the LCRI; and second, how the prohibition on reissuing a substantially similar rule constrains EPA’s ability to address lead-and-copper risks in the near term.
The joint resolution does not include transitional language, compliance deadlines, or funds; it simply disapproves the rule and relies on the statutory mechanics of the CRA to produce legal effects.Finally, the resolution singles out one administrative action—the LCRI at 89 Fed. Reg. 86418—and treats it as a discrete object of congressional disapproval.
It does not on its face change state authorities, appropriations, or private-rights-of-action, though those downstream effects may arise from the rule’s removal and from any resulting regulatory vacuum.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution explicitly targets EPA’s final “Lead and Copper: Improvements (LCRI)” published at 89 Fed. Reg. 86418 (Oct. 30, 2024).
It invokes chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code (the Congressional Review Act) as the statutory vehicle for disapproval.
The operative text states the LCRI "shall have no force or effect," i.e.
the rule is nullified rather than amended.
Under CRA consequences, a successful disapproval would bar EPA from issuing a new rule in substantially the same form without express congressional authorization.
The resolution contains no replacement standards, funding, or transition provisions — it simply eliminates the LCRI and leaves implementation questions to existing law and agency action.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Identifies the object of disapproval
The resolution opens with the standard enacting language and a one-line caption that names the specific EPA rule being targeted by title and citation. That identification is the legal hook: CRA disapprovals are tied to a discrete rulemaking record, so the exact citation anchors what is being nullified and what falls outside the resolution’s reach.
Congressional disapproval and nullification
The single operative sentence declares that "Congress disapproves" the LCRI and that the rule "shall have no force or effect." Practically, that language directs that the identified rule be treated as void for all legal purposes; it does not delineate savings clauses, retroactivity rules, or transitional arrangements, so implementation and enforcement questions default to the broader statutory and administrative framework.
Use of chapter 8 (the CRA) as legal mechanism
The resolution frames the action under chapter 8 of title 5, which is the Congressional Review Act. That reference matters because the CRA contains built-in consequences for disapproved rules—including the bar on reissuing a substantially similar rule—so the resolution’s effects are shaped not only by its text but also by the CRA’s procedural and substantive constraints.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Community water systems facing new compliance costs: If the LCRI imposed additional monitoring, treatment, or replacement obligations, nullification avoids those immediate regulatory compliance expenses and administrative burdens for small and medium systems.
- Municipal budgets and ratepayers concerned about near-term capital and operating costs: Removing the LCRI would delay or eliminate costs that some local governments had anticipated spending to meet the rule’s requirements.
- Industry trade groups and utilities that opposed the LCRI: Organizations that argued the rule would impose onerous or infeasible standards gain regulatory relief and more time to shape future standards through advocacy or legislation.
Who Bears the Cost
- EPA and federal regulators: A disapproval limits EPA’s ability to implement the LCRI’s policy choices, may require reallocation of staff time to unwind or respond to the nullification, and constrains near-term rulemaking options under the CRA bar.
- Public-health advocates and communities seeking stronger lead protections: If the LCRI tightened standards or closed regulatory gaps, nullification delays or removes those protections, potentially prolonging exposure risks for vulnerable populations.
- State primacy agencies and compliance officers: States that began aligning enforcement, guidance, or funding workflows with the LCRI must revise plans; inconsistent state responses could increase administrative complexity and legal uncertainty for regulated systems.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits congressional oversight of agency rulemaking and a desire to block a particular regulatory text against the need for flexible administrative tools to address public‑health risks; disapproving a rule entirely blocks an agency’s chosen regulatory fix and places the burden on Congress or future rulemaking to restore similar protections, creating a trade-off between immediate rollback and long-term policy closure.
The resolution uses the blunt instrument of the Congressional Review Act to eliminate a single regulatory text rather than amend policy through targeted statutory language. That approach creates a legal binary—the LCRI exists or it does not—without addressing partial implementation, investments already made by utilities, or whether certain LCRI provisions can be salvaged administratively.
Agencies and regulated entities will face questions about whether compliance actions already taken remain required or whether contractual or procurement steps must be unwound.
A second implementation difficulty is the CRA’s ‘‘substantially the same’’ bar. Courts and agencies have debated how to measure substantial similarity; its application can chill agencies from pursuing corrective or incremental regulatory changes on the same subject.
The resolution therefore replaces a policy debate (what standard is appropriate) with a procedural lock that makes returning to similar regulatory approaches more difficult absent new congressional action. That dynamic can leave a regulatory gap in place while the underlying public‑health issue remains unresolved.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.