The Ambassador of Spain to the United States, Santiago Cabanas, and the Ambassador of the European Union to the United States, Stavros Lambrinidis, opened the event with statements on the importance of water as a gender equity issue, as well as an urgent development challenge. 

The first panel included presentation by Dr. Sri Vedachalam along with Dr. Gregory Pierce, Associate Director of Research at the Luskin Center for Innovation, and Sherri Goodman, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security). Dr. Pierce, whose work focuses on California, discussed the Californian definition of a human right to water, a right not recognized in any other state. Under California law, water must be safe, clean, accessible, and affordable to every resident in order for the right to water to be fulfilled. The US doesn't have the same water quality issues as many other countries, but affordability is a large concern with rural, native, and migrant residents. Yet, the exact standards for affordability are subject to implementation decisions from agencies, legislators, and judicial challenges from activists. A ccording to the panel, the practical effects of defining water as a human right are largely dependent on the standards set by government agencies and legislation.

Dr. Vedachalam further commented on how affordability standards are notoriously difficult to set. Though the traditional US individual or household standard is that water costs should not exceed 2 to 2.5% of one's annual wages, this standard ignores variable costs of living. Additionally, many affordability standards don't assess individual costs at all; instead they use aggregates of neighborhood averages which can obscure individual family circumstances. He added that though the US has relatively better water quality than much of the world, these standards are always changing because of how our conception of water safety changes. There are many potentially harmful substances in water that are not regulated because they are not measured, as these become incorporated into safety standards, US water safety may look worse than it is now. 

The third panelist, Dr. Goodman, added that water is not a legal right in the US, but that there is increasing talk of water as a homeland security issue. Though this is different from treating water as a right, treating water as an issue of security may result in similar changes in water policy.

The second panel featured Betty Soto, a Gender Specialist working in Bolivia, and Carlos Garriga, a Project Manager for the We Are Water Foundation. They contributed further insight to the event by providing on-the-ground accounts of attempts to improve water access in the developing world. In particular, they explained how women bear the majority of the responsibility for collecting water. According to the panel, this often occupies much of women's time and energy in the developing world and precludes opportunities for education or paid work. As a result, issues of water access are also issues of gender equity in many parts of the globe.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced its intent to redefine the rule.  The proposed changes would leave 18% of streams and 51% of wetlands nationwide without any federal protection. The hearing examined the impacts of this rule and how it affects citizens from the agricultural sector.

Chairman John Barrasso (R-NY) opened the hearing by criticizing the Obama Administration version of the rule that expanded the application of the Clean Water Act to more bodies of water throughout the country. He asserted that the rule cost farmers millions of dollars in fines and protected "every pond in the United States." Barrosso introduced the witnesses and defined their purpose as finding out whether the Trump Administration's rule can actually be implemented by farmers or if there is still uncertainty on what waters are included under WOTUS.

Participating in the hearing along with Chairman Barrasso were Senators Mike Braun (R-IN), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Joni Ernst (R-IA), John Boozman (R-AR), Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tom Carper (D-DE), Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). Witnesses included Todd Fornstrom, the President of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation; Dough Goehring, the Commissioner of the North Dakota Department of Agriculture; and Richard Elías, a Supervisor of District 5 in Pima County, Arizona.

Senator Carper from Delaware addressed the higher pollution and drinking water problems that will occur with the Trump rule, citing the American Public Works Association. He

expressed concern about public health, and in regard to farmers claimed that the Trump Administration's rule is even more confusing and less detailed than the Obama rule.

Senator Cramer from North Dakota criticized the Obama rule as an abuse of "massive federal power."  He stated that the federal government cannot overrule state action on this issue. He further noted that he believes farmers themselves know how to protect their waters, and that there are others beside the federal government capable of protecting the waters.

A witness at the hearing, Todd Fornstrom, testified that he is in favor of the Trump Administration's rule, but also mentioned the lack of clarity for some terms which are used in the rule. He expressed concern about the farmers in Wyoming as they are still unsure whether or not their water is covered by WOTUS or not. He also criticized what he called the federal overreach of power by way of the overly vague definitions in the Clean Water Rule. Another witness, Richard Elías, explained the incident in his home county, Pima County, Ariz. where Trichlorethylene (TCE) pollution in water caused cancer and the deaths of many residents. He believes federal protection is necessary to protect public health.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Chairman Barasso emphasized the necessity of a clear definition that can be readily understood by all interested parties and does not diminish states' rights. Senator Carper, however, pointed out that all parties want clean water and clarity about the Clean Water Act. The panel ended the discussion by acknowledging that their farmers and citizens need to know what the rule actually entails and who it is that enforces the rule, be it states or the federal government.