Order Code IB10069
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Clean Water Act Issues in the 107th Congress
Updated October 1, 2002
Claudia Copeland
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Recent Legislative and Clinton Administration Activity
Issues in the 107th Congress
Water Infrastructure Funding
Congressional Activity
TMDLs and State Water Quality Standards
Agricultural Impacts on Water Quality
Regulatory Protection of Wetlands
Other Issues: Wet Weather Pollution Problems
Stormwater
Combined and separate sewer overflows
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Reports


IB10069
10-01-02
Clean Water Act Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
Key water quality issues in the 107th
tion of an existing provision of the Act that
Congress include: actions to implement exist-
requires states to set "total maximum daily
ing provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
loads" (TMDLs) of pollution to ensure that
whether additional steps are necessary to
water quality standards are attained. Rules
achieve overall goals of the Act, and the
issued by EPA in July 2000 to strengthen the
appropriate federal role in guiding and paying
TMDL program have been very controversial.
for clean water activities. No major activity
The Bush Administration has decided to delay
occurred during the first session of the 107th
these rules until May 2003.
Congress, but in the second session, House
and Senate committees have approved legisla-
Also of interest are EPA and USDA ac-
tion to reauthorize water infrastructure fund-
tions during the Clinton Administration to
ing programs (H.R. 3930, S. 1961).
better manage waste discharges from animal
feeding operations, which can pollute water-
Rather than pursuing comprehensive
ways. Congress has been examining impacts
reauthorization of the CWA, the 106th Con-
on agricultural producers and how the pro-
gress focused on individual programs within
grams will be funded.
the Act, and a number of narrow bills related
to clean water were enacted. One is intended
Programs that regulate activities in wet-
to strengthen protection of coastal waters; one
lands, such as Section 404 of the CWA, have
reauthorized several existing CWA programs;
been criticized by landowners for intruding on
and one authorized grants for wet weather
private land-use decisions and imposing
sewerage projects.
excessive economic burdens. Environmental-
ists view these programs as essential for
CWA amendments in 1987, the last
maintaining the health of wetland ecosystems.
comprehensive revision, initiated a program of
Because of continuing wide disagreement
grants to capitalize State Water Pollution
about the nature of needed reforms, it has been
Control Revolving Funds, or SRF loan pro-
difficult for policymakers to reach consensus.
grams, for wastewater treatment construction.
States were to have flexibility in exchange for
Monitoring data have identified wet
a phaseout of federal assistance after FY1994.
weather discharges to rivers and lakes (in-
However, difficulties that some states and
cluding urban stormwater and sewer over-
small towns have had in implementing the
flows) as a serious threat to water quality.
SRF program, coupled with financing needs
Clean water programs are now focusing on
that are estimated to exceed $130 billion
solving these wet weather pollution problems.
nationwide, have made wastewater treatment
At issue is whether and how to specify wet
funding an important issue for Congress.
weather programs in the Act and how to pay
for related pollution control projects.
Congress is likely to review implementa-
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10069
10-01-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On September 30, EPA released a study, called the Gap Analysis, which estimates that
over the next 20 years and assuming no growth in investment, there will be a $122 billion
gap between current capital spending and projected needs for wastewater infrastructure
projects. Even before this report, Senate and House committees approved legislation to
extend current water infrastructure financing programs. On March 20, the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved a bill to reauthorize the Clean Water
Act’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) financing program (H.R. 3930). On May 17 the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee approved separate legislation to reauthorize the
Act’s SRF program and make a number of changes to update the program (S. 1961, S.Rept.
107-228). Controversies about provisions of both bills (especially allocation of funds among
the states and prevailing wage requirements) have clouded prospects for further action.
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, congressional attention
has focused on security, preparedness, and emergency response issues, including at the
nation’s water infrastructure facilities (both drinking water and wastewater).

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The principal law that deals with polluting activity in the nation’s streams, lakes, and
estuaries is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500, enacted in 1972),
commonly known as the Clean Water Act (amended by P.L. 95-217 in 1977, P.L. 97-117 in
1981, and P.L. 100-4 in 1987). It consists of two major parts: regulatory provisions that
impose progressively more stringent requirements on industries and cities to abate pollution
and meet the statutory goal of zero discharge of pollutants; and provisions that authorize
federal financial assistance for municipal wastewater treatment plant construction. Both
parts are supported by research activities, plus permit and enforcement provisions. Programs
at the federal level are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); state
and local governments have major responsibilities to implement those programs.
The objective declared in the 1972 Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. That objective was accompanied by statutory
goals to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985 and to attain,
wherever possible, waters deemed “fishable and swimmable” by 1983. While those goals
have not been fully achieved, considerable progress has been made, especially in controlling
conventional pollutants (suspended solids, bacteria, and oxygen-consuming materials)
discharged by industries and municipal sewage treatment plants.
Progress has been mixed in controlling discharges of toxic pollutants (heavy metals,
inorganic and organic chemicals), which are more numerous and can harm human health and
the environment even when present in minute amounts — at the parts-per-billion level.
Moreover, efforts to control pollution from diffuse sources, termed nonpoint source pollution
(rainfall runoff, for example) are more recent, following the traditional focus on point source
CRS-1

IB10069
10-01-02
pollution (discharges from industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants). Overall,
data reported by EPA and states indicate that 39% of river and stream miles assessed by
states and 45% of assessed lake acres do not meet applicable water quality standards and are
impaired for one or more desired uses. Forty-four states now have some form of partial or
statewide fish-consumption advisory in effect (including 100% of Great Lakes waters and
a large portion of the nation's coastal waters), due to chemical contaminants in lakes, rivers,
and coastal waters, and one-third of shellfishing beds are closed or restricted, due to toxic
pollutant contamination.
In 1987 Congress passed major amendments, the first comprehensive revision to the law
in a decade (P.L. 100-4). (For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB89102, Water
Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act
.) Authorizations for a number of the provisions
expired in FY1990 and FY1991, for programs such as general grant assistance to states,
research, and general EPA support. Authorizations for funding of wastewater treatment
assistance expired in FY1994. None of these programs has lapsed, however, as Congress has
continued to appropriate funds to implement the Act.
The Act has been viewed as one of the most successful environmental laws in terms of
achieving the statutory goals, which have been widely supported by interest groups and the
public, but lately some have questioned whether actions to achieve further benefits are worth
the costs. Such criticisms have come especially from industry, which has been the long-
standing focus of the Act's regulatory programs and which often opposes imposition of
additional stringent and costly requirements. Criticism also has come from developers and
property rights groups who contend that federal regulations (particularly the Act's wetlands
permit program) are a costly intrusion on private land-use decisions. States and cities have
traditionally supported water quality programs and federal funding to assist them in carrying
out the law, but recently many have opposed CWA measures that they fear might impose
new unfunded mandates. Many environmental groups believe that further fine-tuning to
strengthen the Act is needed to maintain progress achieved to date and to address remaining
water quality problems.
Recent Legislative and Clinton Administration Activity
Following enactment of amendments in 1987, no major CWA legislative activity
occurred until the 104th Congress, when the CWA was one of the first environmental laws
to receive congressional attention. The House approved a comprehensive reauthorization
bill, H.R. 961, in May 1995. It would have amended many of the regulatory and standards
provisions of the law, required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use extensive
new risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis procedures, and increased flexibility with
regulatory relief from current clean water programs. The proposals in H.R. 961 were among
the early efforts of the Republican majority in the 104th Congress to make changes in
environmental laws and regulations and engendered extensive controversy. The Senate did
not take up that bill or other CWA legislation during the 104th Congress.
In the 105th Congress, committees did not initiate legislative activity on clean water
issues, and no comprehensive reauthorization legislation was introduced. Committee
leaders, especially in the House, said they would do so only if presented with consensus
proposals that did not raise controversies like those associated previously with H.R. 961.
CRS-2

IB10069
10-01-02
House and Senate subcommittees held hearings on water infrastructure and wetlands issues,
but no further congressional activity occurred.
Likewise, in the 106th Congress, committees did not pursue comprehensive
reauthorization legislation, but action was taken on bills dealing with specific water quality
issues. Congress passed a bill to strengthen protection of coastal recreation waters through
upgraded water quality standards and coastal waters monitoring programs (P.L. 106-284).
Congress also passed a bill reauthorizing several existing CWA programs (i.e., Chesapeake
Bay cleanup, clean lakes, and the National Estuary Program, in P.L. 106-457). Congress
passed a bill to authorize CWA grant funding for wet weather sewerage projects (included
as a provision of the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations bill, P.L. 106-554). Further, the
House and Senate also included limitations in appropriations laws intended to restrict
implementation of the Act’s Total Maximum Daily Load program (see discussion below,
TMDLs and State Water Quality Standards). (For additional information, see CRS
Report RL30908, Clean Water Act Issues and Legislation in the 106th Congress.)
During its tenure, the Clinton Administration did not offer proposals to reauthorize the
CWA. EPA Administrator Carol Browner was quoted in press reports as saying that the
agency did not plan to propose any major environmental legislation in the 106th Congress,
preferring to focus on achieving regulatory advances under existing law, out of concern that
congressional action could weaken the Clinton Administration's environmental protection
principles. Instead, EPA began a number of agency-wide and program-specific reforms
focusing on flexibility and "common sense" approaches to regulation, many of which affect
implementation of water quality programs. In 1998, the Clinton Administration released a
multi-agency Clean Water Action Plan intended to build on the environmental successes of
the Act and address many of the nation's remaining water quality challenges. Its purpose was
to coordinate federal efforts to achieve three goals: enhanced protection against public health
threats posed by water pollution, more effective control of polluted runoff, and promotion
of water quality protection on a watershed basis. Components of the Plan consisted mainly
of existing programs that were proposed to receive increased funding or be accelerated with
performance-specific deadlines. Besides EPA, other involved agencies were the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Complementing the Plan, President Clinton’s FY1999 budget submission identified it
as a high priority. That year’s was the first of three Clinton budgets that proposed funds to
implement the Plan. During the years FY1999-2001, Congress provided a total of $1.24
billion in increases for Plan activities above FY1998 baseline amounts. Each year’s budget
request was higher than the preceding year’s, and while Congress agreed to some increases,
it appropriated amounts less than the Administration had sought. (For information, see CRS
Report 98-150, Clean Water Action Plan: Background and Early Implementation.)
Issues in the 107th Congress
Key water quality issues in the 107th Congress include: actions to implement existing
provisions of the Clean Water Act, whether additional steps are necessary to achieve overall
goals of the Act, and the appropriate federal role in guiding and paying for clean water
activities. Legislative prospects for comprehensively amending the Act have for some time
stalled over whether and exactly how to change the law. Many issues that might be
CRS-3

IB10069
10-01-02
addressed involve making difficult tradeoffs between impacts on different sectors of the
economy, taking action when there is technical or scientific uncertainty, and allocating
governmental responsibilities for implementing the law.
Many observers have speculated that, rather than taking up comprehensive
reauthorization legislation as it has traditionally done, Congress would consider only narrow
bills to extend or modify selected CWA programs, as was the case in the 106th Congress. If
broader clean water issues receive attention, it could focus on implementation of current
programs for developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to restore pollution-impaired
waters and impacts of agricultural activities on water quality. The Act’s wetlands permit
program, a pivotal and contentious issue in the recent past, also remains on the legislative
agenda for some Members.
More generally, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, congressional attention has focused on security, preparedness, and
emergency response issues. Among the many topics of interest is protection of the nation’s
water infrastructure facilities (both drinking water and wastewater) from possible physical
damage, biological/chemical attacks, and cyber disruption. (For information, see CRS
Report RS21026, Terrorist and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector.)
Policymakers are considering a number of legislative options in this area, including enhanced
physical security, communication and coordination, and research. In July, legislation to
provide $200 million in grants for security activities at wastewater treatment plants was
approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (H.R. 5169, H.Rept.
107-645). Congress previously enacted legislation authorizing $160 million in grants for
drinking water utilities to conduct vulnerability assessments (P.L. 107-188).
Water Infrastructure Funding
The Act’s program of financial aid for municipal wastewater treatment plant
construction is a central feature of the law. At issue today is how the federal government will
assist states and cities, especially in view of the high projected funding needs that exist.
Since 1972 Congress has provided $73 billion to assist cities in constructing projects to
achieve the Act’s requirements for secondary treatment of municipal sewage (equivalent to
85% reduction of wastes), or higher where required by local water quality conditions. The
CWA does not authorize funds for operation or maintenance of completed projects. State
and local governments have spent more than $25 billion of their own funds for construction,
as well. Nevertheless, funding needs remain very high: an additional $139.5 billion
nationwide by 2016 for all types of projects eligible for funding under the Act, according to
the most recent estimate by EPA and the states, completed in 1996. On September 30, EPA
released a study, called the Gap Analysis, which assesses the difference between current
spending for wastewater infrastructure and total funding needs (both capital and operation
and maintenance). EPA estimates that, over the next two decades, the United States needs
to spend nearly $390 billion to replace existing wastewater infrastructure systems and to
build new ones. Funding needs for operation and maintenance are an additional $148 billion,
the Agency estimates. According to the study, if there is no increase in investment, there will
be about a $6 billion gap between current annual capital expenditures for wastewater
treatment ($13 billion annually) and projected spending needs. The study also estimates that,
if wastewater spending increases by 3% annually, the gap would shrink by nearly 90% (to
about $1 billion annually). In addition to the Gap Analysis, EPA and states are preparing a
CRS-4

IB10069
10-01-02
new wastewater needs survey, as required by the CWA, which is due later this year; it will
update the 1996 survey. Outside groups, including a coalition called the Water Infrastructure
Network, have offered proposals for a multi-billion dollar investment program in wastewater
and drinking water infrastructure which have attracted some congressional interest. (For
additional information, see CRS Report RL31116, Water Infrastructure Funding: Review
and Analysis of Current Issues
.)
The 1987 amendments initiated a program of grants to capitalize State Water Pollution
Control Revolving Funds (SRFs), or loan programs. This program in Title VI of the Act
replaced the previous categorical grants program, under which the federal share was 55% of
project costs and localities were not obligated to repay federal funds that they received.
Under the revolving fund concept, monies used for construction will be repaid by borrowing
communities to the states, to be recycled for future construction in other communities, thus
providing an ongoing source of financing. States must provide a 20% match of the federal
amount. The intent of the 1987 amendments was that federal contributions to SRFs would
assist in making a transition to full state and local financing by FY1995. The essential
tradeoff was that states would have greater flexibility to set priorities and administer funding
in exchange for ending federal aid after FY1994. (For additional information, see CRS
Report 98-323, Wastewater Treatment: Overview and Background.) Congressional
committees are considering legislation to address these issues (see below).
All states have established the mechanisms to administer the new loan programs and
have been receiving SRF capitalization funds under Title VI for several years. Some with
prior experience using similar financing programs moved quickly, while others had difficulty
in making a transition from the previous grants program to one that requires greater financial
management expertise for all concerned. Moreover, many states have complained that the
SRF program is unduly complicated by federal rules, even though Congress had intended that
states were to have greater flexibility. Congressional oversight since 1987 has examined the
progress towards reducing the backlog of wastewater treatment facilities needed to achieve
the Act’s water quality objectives, but newer estimates of future funding needs, discussed
above, are drawing increased attention from Members of Congress and others.
Small communities and states with large rural populations have experienced the largest
share of problems with the SRF program. Many small towns did not participate in the
previous grants program and consequently are likely to require major projects to achieve
compliance with the law. Yet these communities often lack an industrial tax base and thus
face the prospect of very high per capita user fees, if their citizens are required to repay the
full capital cost of sewage treatment projects.
While initial intent was to phase out federal support for this program, Congress has
continued to appropriate SRF capitalization grants to the states, providing an average of
$1.35 billion annually in recent years. The SRF provisions have been less controversial than
others in the Act, such as wetlands reform, because of apparent general agreement on the
need to extend funding assistance (as reflected in continued appropriations). The CWA's
SRF provisions also were a model for similar provisions added to the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) in 1996 (P.L. 104-182). However, because remaining clean water funding
needs are still so large, at issue is whether and how to extend SRF assistance to address those
needs, how to allocate SRF funds among the states, and how to prioritize projects and
funding. Bush Administration officials have said that infrastructure funding needs go beyond
CRS-5

IB10069
10-01-02
what the federal government can do on its own. Of particular concern is assisting small and
economically disadvantaged communities that have had the most difficulty in adjusting from
the Act's previous categorical grants program to SRF loans. There also is interest in
availability and adequacy of SRF funding for projects dealing with combined and separate
sewer overflow problems (discussed below). In the 106th Congress, several SRF
reauthorization bills were introduced and hearings were held, but no further action occurred.
Congressional Activity. During the first session of the 107th Congress, committees
held several hearings on water infrastructure financing and need issues: the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee held hearings in March and October 2001, and
in the House, separate hearings were held on March 28 by the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.
In the second session, attention turned to specific legislative proposals. On March 13,
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment held a hearing on H.R. 3930, a bill to authorize $20 billion for the CWA SRF
program through FY2007 and make several programmatic changes, including to the method
for allotting SRF funds to states. At the hearing, EPA witnesses said that the Administration
opposes the high authorization level in the bill, preferring a lower funding level that would
allow SRFs to maintain the current activity level of $2 billion per year. The full committee
approved H.R. 3930 with the $20 billion funding on March 20. The committee approved one
amendment to provide that Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements apply to projects
and activities funded by capitalization grants and recycled monies in an SRF.
In February, the Senate Environment Committee held two hearings on several bills to
reauthorize the CWA water infrastructure program. The committee heard testimony on S.
252 (a bill to authorize $15 billion in SRF appropriations, expand eligibilities, and authorize
SRF loan subsidies for financially distressed communities), S. 285 (to authorize use of SRF
monies for construction of water conservation and water quality improvements), S. 1044 (to
authorize grant assistance to Chesapeake Bay states for wastewater nutrient removal
projects), and S. 1961 (to authorize $20 billion in CWA SRF appropriations, incorporate
several provisions of the SDWA SRF program into the CWA such as loan subsidies for small
communities, and establish demonstration programs for innovations in technology and
alternative approaches to water quality or water supply management). S. 1961 also would
authorize $15 billion in SDWA SRF appropriations.
On May 17, the Senate committee approved an amended version of S. 1961 (S.Rept.
107-228). It authorizes $20 billion in CWA SRF capitalization grants. The committee
adopted several amendments, including reauthorizing a wet-weather grant program at $250
million a year for 5 years to remedy sewerage overflows (see discussion below, Combined
and separate sewer overflows
), revising the Act’s formula for allocating SRF capitalization
grants among the states, and requiring the streamlining of SRF application procedures. A
number of issues were contentious during markup, including debate over an amendment
adopted by the committee to incorporate prevailing wage provisions under the Davis-Bacon
Act, debate over provisions in the bill which some Members argued place excessive
restrictions on SRF funding, and debate over the bill’s revised allocation formula. Further
action on the House and Senate bills is uncertain, in part due to controversies over the Davis-
Bacon Act and allocation formula issues in both measures. (For information on H.R. 3930
CRS-6

IB10069
10-01-02
and S. 1961, see CRS Report RL31344, Water Infrastructure Financing Legislation:
Comparison of S. 1961 and H.R. 3930
.)
TMDLs and State Water Quality Standards
The CWA requires states to identify pollution-impaired water segments and develop
"total maximum daily loads" (TMDLs) that set the maximum amount of pollution that a
water body can receive without violating water quality standards. If a state fails to do so,
EPA is required to develop a priority list for the state and make its own TMDL
determination. Most states have lacked the resources to do TMDL analysis, which involves
complex assessments of water quality problems, pollution sources, and needed pollution
reductions, and EPA has both been reluctant to override states and has also lacked resources
to do so. Thus, there has been little implementation of the provision (Section 303(d)), which
Congress enacted in 1972. At issue today is controversies over implementation of the
existing TMDL program and regulatory revisions that EPA issued in July 2000 to strengthen
that program.
Since the late 1980s, citizen groups have filed more than 40 lawsuits in 38 states against
EPA and states for failure to fulfill the TMDL requirements of the Act. Of the lawsuits tried
or settled to date, 19 have resulted in court orders requiring expeditious development of
TMDLs under timeframes ranging from 8-1/2 to 13 years. The lawsuits have increased
public attention to the TMDL program and led EPA to seek ways to re-focus EPA’s and
states’ resources on TMDL activities, rather than litigation. In August 1999, EPA proposed
regulatory changes to strengthen the existing program. The proposal set forth criteria for
states, territories and Indian tribes to identify impaired waters and establish all TMDLs
within 15 years. It would require more comprehensive waterway assessments, cleanup plans,
and timetables for implementation.
The 1999 proposal became highly controversial because of issues such as potential
burdens on states, industries, cities and others to implement a revised TMDL program and
potential impacts on some agriculture and forestry sources which are not now subject to
CWA regulations. The controversies also drew congressional attention, and 13 congressional
hearings were held by the House and Senate Agriculture committees, the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee during the 106th Congress. Committees and many Members expressed concern
about details of the TMDL requirements and deadlines and adequacy of resources for states
to develop TMDLs and related assessments. Several legislative proposals to modify the
Clean Water Act by explicitly exempting agriculture and forestry from the TMDL program
or to delay the rule were introduced. EPA attempted to respond to the widespread criticism
and signal flexibility on some of the most contentious points. In July 2000, EPA issued a
final revised rule, but controversies persist. The final rule builds on the current TMDL
regulatory program and adds details, specific requirements, and deadlines that require states
to implement plans to clean up polluted waters. It retains the basic elements of the 1999
proposal for more comprehensive identification of impaired waters, schedules and minimum
elements for TMDLs, and new public participation requirements. (For additional
information, see CRS Report 97-831, Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) of Pollutants
.)
CRS-7

IB10069
10-01-02
TMDL issues were addressed in FY2001 appropriations bills. Prior to the July 4th,
2000, congressional recess, the House and Senate approved a FY2001 Military Construction
and emergency supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 4425, H.Rept. 106-710) that included
a provision to prevent EPA from spending any funds in FY2000 or FY2001 to finalize or
implement new TMDL rules. President Clinton signed the bill on July 13, 2000, in spite of
the TMDL provision, which the Administration opposed (P.L. 106-246). However, EPA
Administrator Browner signed the new TMDL rules two days earlier, on July 11, but delayed
the effective date until October 2001 when the limitation in P.L. 106-246 would expire. In
addition, the FY2001 appropriation act providing funds for EPA, P.L. 106-377, signed on
October 27, 2000, included report language mandating studies by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) and EPA on the scientific basis of the TMDL program and on the potential
costs to states and businesses of implementing the revised TMDL rules. The NAS report,
examining the role of science in the TMDL program, was issued June 15, 2001. It did not
specifically analyze the July 2000 revised regulations. The NAS panel concluded that
scientific knowledge exists to move forward with the TMDL program and recommended that
EPA and states use adaptive implementation for TMDL development. In many cases, the
report said, water quality problems and solutions are obvious and should proceed without
complex analysis. In other cases, solutions are more complex and require a different level
of understanding and something like phased implementation. A House Transportation
Committee subcommittee held a hearing on the NAS report on June 28, 2001. EPA issued
a draft report on costs of the 2000 TMDL program in August 2001, estimating that average
annual costs to states and EPA of developing TMDLs could be $63-$69 million, while
implementation costs for pollutant sources could be between $900 million and $4.3 billion
per year, depending on states’ actions. (For information, see CRS Report RL31091, The
Clean Water Act’s TMDL Program: Newly Presented Options and Cost Estimates
.) The
General Accounting Office recently reported that inconsistent monitoring, data collection,
and listing procedures used by states to identify impaired waters have hindered efforts to
develop effective TMDL programs (Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches
Complicate Nation’s Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters
, GAO-02-186).
In October 2001, the Bush Administration announced that it will delay the effective date
of the 2000 rules for 18 months (until May 2003) to allow EPA officials time to review the
rule and the recent NAS report. This action came after a federal court approved the
Administration’s request for a similar suspension of litigation which is challenging the
regulation (nearly a dozen interest groups have sued EPA over various parts of the TMDL
rule). In the interim, existing rules and requirements and court-sanctioned TMDL schedules
remain in place. A House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee held a hearing on
November 15 to review issues of interest in development of a new rule.

Agricultural Impacts on Water Quality
A key element of the Clinton Administration’s Clean Water Action Plan was to
minimize public health and environmental impacts of runoff from animal feeding operations
(AFOs), which are agricultural facilities that confine livestock feeding activities, thus
concentrating animal populations and waste. Animal waste is frequently applied to land for
disposal and to utilize the nutrient value of manure to benefit crops. If not managed properly,
it can pose risks to water quality and public health, contributing pollutants such as nutrients,
sediment, pathogens, and ammonia to the environment. At issue today are controversies over
CRS-8

IB10069
10-01-02
programs and rules initiated by the Clinton Administration seeking to better control adverse
environmental impacts of agricultural activities.
Existing EPA rules, issued in the 1970s, require CWA discharge permits for the largest
AFOs (about 6,000 out of 450,000 total facilities nationwide). However, EPA acknowledges
that compliance and enforcement of these permit rules have been poor (less than one-third
of covered facilities actually have permits) and that the regulations themselves are outdated.
In March 1999, EPA and USDA issued a national AFO strategy containing a number of steps
to improve compliance and strengthen existing regulations, obtain better information through
data collection and research on water quality impairments, and coordinate federal and state
activities. It proposed that all AFOs, regardless of size, should develop and implement
comprehensive nutrient management plans by 2009. The plans would include manure
handling and storage, application of manure to land, recordkeeping, feed management, land
management, and other manure-use options. Officials estimate that 95% of all AFOs will
be encouraged to implement voluntary nutrient management plans, while 15,000 to 20,000
large-scale operations will be required to develop the plans as part of CWA discharge
permits. Also, EPA is working with states on a 2-phase approach for issuing permits to
animal feedlot operations: requiring coverage of large-scale operations by permits by 2005;
and revising existing regulations by 2002.
In December 2000, EPA proposed rules to increase the number of AFOs required to
obtain CWA permits and to restrict land application of animal wastes. A House
Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee held an oversight hearing on this proposal
on May 16, 2001. A final rule has not yet been published but is due by December in order
to meet a court deadline. Issues that Congress has addressed and is likely to continue
reviewing include impacts and costs imposed on the agricultural sector (especially small
farmers), which for the most part is not regulated by the Clean Water Act or other EPA
programs; how the proposed combination of regulatory and incentive-based measures in the
National AFO Strategy will achieve the goal of minimizing water pollution from
confinement facilities and land application of manure; the adequacy of agriculture’s relevant
programs to support implementation; and whether legislation is needed to define national
rules and policies regarding animal waste. (For additional information, see CRS Report
RL30437, Water Quality Initiatives and Agriculture.)
While the AFO strategy focuses mainly on large facilities which are subject to CWA
permit requirements, other activities also are of interest. State and EPA survey data report
that uncontrolled polluted runoff from agriculture and city streets and storm sewers is the
leading cause of water quality impairment in the United States. EPA's most recent National
Water Quality Inventory Report finds that these nonpoint sources of water pollution, along
with runoff from forestry and construction sites, land disposal activities, and deposition of
air pollution contaminants, contribute more than 50% of remaining water quality problems
in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. Agriculture is believed to be responsible for the largest
portion of today’s water quality impairments due to polluted runoff–the main source
adversely affecting 48% of impaired river and stream miles and 41% of impaired lake acres,
according to EPA. Scrutiny of nonpoint pollution problems, including from agriculture, may
occur as policymakers assess steps to continue progress towards water quality goals.
CRS-9

IB10069
10-01-02
Regulatory Protection of Wetlands
Restoring and protecting wetlands also was a key feature of the Clinton Administration's
Clean Water Action Plan. One element of the plan was a goal of achieving a net gain of as
many as 100,000 acres of wetlands annually by the year 2005. Even before this specific
policy goal was declared, how best to protect the nation's remaining wetlands and regulate
activities taking place in wetlands had become one of the most contentious environmental
policy issues, especially in the context of the CWA, which contains a key wetlands regulatory
tool, the permit program in Section 404. It requires landowners or developers to obtain
permits for disposal of dredged or fill material that is generated by construction or similar
activity into navigable waters of the United States, including wetlands. Section 404 has
evolved through judicial interpretation and regulatory change to become one of the principal
federal tools used to protect wetlands, although that term appears only once in Section 404
itself and is not defined there. At the same time, its implementation has come to be seen as
intrusive and burdensome to those whose activities it regulates. At issue today is addressing
criticism of the Section 404 regulatory program while achieving desired goals of wetlands
protection. (For additional information, see CRS Issue Brief IB97014, Wetlands Issues.)
Unlike the rest of the Act, the permit aspects of Section 404 are administered by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, using EPA environmental guidance. Other federal agencies
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) have more limited roles in the Corps’ permitting decisions. Tension has
existed for many years between the regulation of activities in wetlands under Section 404 and
related laws, on the one hand, and the desire of landowners to develop property that may
include wetlands, on the other hand. The conflicts over wetlands regulation have for the
most part occurred in administrative proceedings, as Congress has not amended Section 404
since 1977, when it provided exemptions for categories of routine activities, such as normal
farming and forestry. Controversy has grown over the extent of federal jurisdiction and
impacts on private property, burdens and delay of permit procedures, and roles of federal
agencies and states in issuing permits.
Legislative proposals to modify Section 404 have presented a number of issues,
including whether all wetlands should be treated the same, or whether some could be
accorded less stringent regulatory protection; whether activities or areas covered by federal
regulation should be modified; and whether federal and state roles in implementing Section
404 should be revised. Views on these issues vary. Many wetland protection advocates
contend that statutory changes that have been proposed would weaken current protection
efforts and that more modest administrative reforms would effectively improve the current
program. Many landowners say that changes are needed to lessen burdens of the regulatory
program. Some also argue that the CWA should compensate landowners whose property is
adversely affected by regulatory "takings" when application of Section 404 limits desired
property use, since an estimated 74% of all remaining wetlands are on private lands.
Legislative proposals for comprehensive reform of wetlands regulatory programs have
been controversial, leading some to focus instead on narrower revisions. Specific issues that
could draw congressional attention include a federal court ruling that overturned a regulation
(called the Tulloch rule) issued by the Corps and EPA in 1993 that had expanded the scope
of wetlands regulation to certain landclearing and excavation activities that previously had
not been regulated. The Clinton Administration issued a revised Tulloch rule before leaving
CRS-10

IB10069
10-01-02
office in January 2001, and after reviewing it, the Bush Administration agreed to let the rule
take effect. Industry groups have challenged the regulation in court.
Another issue of interest is the Corps’ implementation of the nationwide permit
program, which is intended to minimize the burden of regulation through a streamlined
permitting process.. Nationwide permits are issued for periods of no longer than 5 years.
Thus, in January 2002, the Corps reissued all 43 nationwide permits, most of which were last
re-issued in 1996. EPA and environmental groups object to some revisions that the Corps
included in order to add flexibility, including relaxation of certain permit conditions, fearing
that they would result in a net loss of wetland acres. Industry groups favor flexibility in the
revised, but say that some requirements for case-by-case review could nullify the positive
aspects. At issue is whether the nationwide permit program has become so complex that it
can neither protect aquatic resources nor provide for a fair regulatory system, which are its
dual objectives. (See CRS Report 97-223, Nationwide Permits for Wetlands Projects:
Regulatory Developments and Current Issues
.) Also of interest is impacts of a January 2001
Supreme Court decision that ruled that the Corps’ regulatory authority does not extend to
isolated wetlands, areas which have been among the most controversial in terms of Section
404 jurisdiction (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, No. 99-1178, January 9, 2001; for information, see CRS Report RL30849, The
Supreme Court Addresses Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction Over “Isolated Waters”: The
SWANCC Decision
). The House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy,
Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs held a hearing on the government’s response to
the SWANCC decision on September 19.
Controversy also surrounds revised regulations issued by EPA and the Corps on May
3 which redefine two key terms in the 404 program, “fill material” and “discharge of fill
material.” The agencies say that the revisions are intended to clarify certain confusion in the
program, but environmental groups contend that the changes allow for inadequate regulation
of certain disposal activities, including disposal of coal mining waste. Legislation to reverse
the agencies’ action has been introduced (H.R. 4683). (For additional information, see CRS
Report RL31411, Controversies over Redefining “Fill Material” Under the Clean Water
Act
.)
While Congress has not been able to agree on how to address regulatory questions, it
has supported programs to restore wetlands and to provide incentives for setting them aside.
For example, interest has grown in creating “mitigation banks,” in which wetlands are
created, restored, or enhanced in advance to serve as “credits” that may be used or acquired
by permit applicants when they are required to mitigate impacts of their activities. Numerous
public and private banks have been established, and federal policy and guidance support the
concept. However, controversy exists over whether it is possible to restore or create
wetlands with ecological and other functions equivalent to or better than those of natural
wetlands that have been lost over time and, thus, whether reliance on mitigation banks is
appropriate. In the 107th Congress, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on September 20, 2001, on H.R.
1474, a bill which promotes restoration, conservation, and enhancement of wetlands by
specifically authorizing a wetlands mitigation banking program. It would require the Corps
to establish standards and criteria for mitigation banking, on-site mitigation, in-lieu fees, and
other off-site mitigation.
CRS-11

IB10069
10-01-02
Other Issues: Wet Weather Pollution Problems
In recent years, as projects for treating traditional municipal pollution have been
identified and successfully addressed, water quality officials have turned their attention to
stormwater discharges and overflows from municipal sewer systems. These problems, which
are most often associated with weather events during which rain or snowmelt overwhelm the
capacity of sewerage collection systems, and untreated wastes are discharged directly into
waterways, have received little attention in the past and have been largely uncontrolled. Wet
weather discharges, unlike discharges from industrial facilities, are intermittent and variable
and present regulatory challenges for policymakers. At issue is whether and how to detail
wet weather programs in the Act versus encouraging flexibility that recognizes the site-
specific nature of intermittent wet weather pollution.
Stormwater. Stormwater discharge systems are the pipes and sewer lines that carry
rainwater or snowmelt (but not sanitary wastes) away from urban areas and commercial and
industrial facilities. Although stormwater is discharged from pipes, it is intermittent and
weather-dependent. Thus, it has characteristics of both point and nonpoint pollution.
Although stormwater can transport significant amounts of pollutants, it had been largely
unregulated until the 1987 CWA amendments directed EPA to implement a specific permit
program for stormwater discharges from industrial sources and municipalities. Delays in
issuing regulations, coupled with high compliance costs (especially for some cities), have
been frustrating and controversial. Under the regulatory program developed by EPA,
industrial facilities and cities with populations of 100,000 were required to seek stormwater
permits by May 1993. Under the 1987 amendments, smaller cities were to comply with rules
that EPA was to issue by October 1993, but those rules were not issued until October 1999.
Under those 1999 rules, permit applications for small cities are due in March 2003. (For
information, see CRS Report 97-290, Stormwater Permits: Status of EPA’s Regulatory
Program.
) Questions of how small sources will be regulated and the general complexity of
the permit program have brought stormwater back as a legislative issue. In the 106th
Congress, several bills dealing with local government stormwater programs were introduced,
but no further action occurred. Those bills proposed to limit and clarify local governments’
liability for certain stormwater discharges.
Combined and separate sewer overflows. Nearly 1,200 municipalities have
combined sewers where domestic sanitary sewage, industrial wastes, infiltration from
groundwater, and stormwater runoff are collected and treated together. These systems serve
approximately 40 million persons, mainly in older urban and coastal cities. Properly
designed, sized, and maintained combined sewers can be an acceptable part of a city’s water
pollution control infrastructure. Normally (under dry-weather conditions), the combined
wastes are conveyed to a municipal sewage treatment plant. However, combined sewer
overflow (CSO) occurs when the capacity of the collection and treatment system is exceeded
due to high volumes of rainwater or snowmelt, and the excess volume is diverted and
discharged directly into receiving waters, bypassing the sewage treatment plants. Often the
excess flow that contains raw sewage, industrial wastes, and stormwater is discharged
untreated. Many combined sewer systems are found in coastal areas where recreational
areas, fish habitat and shellfish beds may be contaminated by the discharges.
CRS-12

IB10069
10-01-02
For many years, CSOs were not considered a high regulatory or permitting priority for
EPA or states. There are no express provisions in the Act dealing with CSOs, except to the
extent that they are subject to permit requirements and deadlines as are other point sources.
Congress has recognized the impacts of CSO discharges, however, and legislative options
to address the CSO issue directly have been discussed.
In both the 103rd and 104th Congresses, consensus began to emerge on modifying the
CWA to endorse EPA’s current permitting strategy which was developed in 1994 after
negotiations with key stakeholder groups. As a first priority, EPA’s strategy calls for
eliminating overflows from combined sewers that occur even in the absence of rainfall (due
to normal flows that exceed the capacity of sewers) and then calls for states and cities to
address CSOs based on impacts on water quality and human health. Cities also were to
implement nine minimum controls by January 1, 1997 (e.g., proper operation and
maintenance programs for sewer systems and pollution prevention programs). The EPA
strategy does not contain a deadline for issuance of permits or for controlling CSOs.
Deadlines will be contained in plans developed by permitting authorities. Controls are
available and generally are based on combinations of management techniques (such as
temporary retention of excess flow during storm events) and structural measures (ranging
from screens that capture solids to construction of separate sewer systems). EPA officials
stated in May 1998 that only about one-half of the cities with combined sewers have
implemented the minimum measures called for in the 1994 strategy. EPA is now working
with states to remind cities of their obligations to address CSO problems. However, a formal
enforcement strategy is not contemplated.
A more recent issue that concerns some cities is the problem of overflows from
municipal separate sanitary sewers (SSOs) that are not CSOs because they transport only
sanitary wastes. Discharges of untreated sewage from these sewers occur from manholes,
broken pipes and deteriorated infrastructure, and undersized pipes, and can occur in wet or
dry weather. EPA has estimated that there are 18,000 municipalities with separate sanitary
sewers, all of which can, under certain circumstances, experience overflows. No explicit
EPA or statutory control policy currently exists. In 1995, EPA convened a stakeholders’
group to discuss how to address those overflows that pose the highest environmental and
public health risk first. On January 5, 2001, EPA finalized regulations that will improve the
operation of municipal sanitary sewer collection systems, reduce the frequency and
occurrence of overflows, clarify the existing CWA prohibition on SSO discharges, and
clarify circumstances appropriate for enforcement action. However, the rules were not
published before the Clinton Administration left office, and the Bush Administration is
currently reviewing the regulations.
Funding for CSO and SSO projects is a major issue for states and cities. At the end of
the 106th Congress, legislation was enacted which amends the CWA to codify EPA’s 1994
CSO policy on sewer overflows (discussed above) and create a 2-year $1.5 billion grant
program to reduce wet weather flows from municipal sewer systems. The text of this bill
was included in the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations bill, enacted in December (P.L.
106-554; Division B, Title I of H.R. 5666, Section 112).
CRS-13

IB10069
10-01-02
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment. Improving Water Quality: States’ Perspectives on the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Hearing, Feb. 28, 2001. 107th Congress, 1st
session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 53 p. (107-3)
—— Clean Water Infrastructure and Wet Weather Flows Legislation. Hearing, June 22,
1999. 106th Congress, 1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 296 p. (106-23)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Water
Infrastructure. Hearing, Oct. 7, 1999, on S. 968, S. 914, and S. 1699. 106th Congress,
1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 108 p. (S. Hrg. 106-618)
—— Clean Water Act Issues. Hearing, Oct. 13, 1999, on S. 188, S. 669, S. 1706. 106th
Congress, 1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 90 p. (S. Hrg. 106-590)
—— Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water. Proposed Rule Changes to the
TMDL and NPDES Permit Programs. Hearings, Mar. 1, 23, and May 18, 2000. 106th
Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 597 p. (S.Hrg. 106-971)
—— Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Needs. Hearing, Mar. 21, 2001. 107th Congress,
1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1417 p. (S.Hrg. 107-316)
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Goplerud, C. Peter. “Water Pollution Law: Milestones from the Past and Anticipation of
the Future.” Natural Resources & Environment, v. 10, no. 2, Fall 1995: 7-12.
Houck, Oliver A. “TMDLs: The Resurrection of Water Quality Standards-Based
Regulation Under the Clean Water Act.” Environmental Law Reporter News &
Analysis
, v. 27, no. 7, July 1997: 10329-10344.
Loeb, Penny. "Very Troubled Waters." U.S. News & World Report, v. 125, no. 12,
September 28, 1998: 39, 41-42.
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. ASSESSING THE TMDL
APPROACH TO WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT. National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C. June 2001. 82 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to
Congress. Washington, June 2000. “EPA841-R-00-001."
U.S. General Accounting Office. Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and
Incomplete Data. (GAO/RCED-00-54) March 2000. 73 p.
CRS-14

IB10069
10-01-02
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief IB89102, Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act, by Claudia
Copeland.
CRS Issue Brief IB97014, Wetland Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn and Claudia Copeland.
CRS Reports
CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by
Claudia Copeland.
CRS Report 97-223, Nationwide Permits for Wetlands Projects: Regulatory Developments
and Current Issues, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS Report 98-323, Wastewater Treatment: Overview and Background, by Claudia
Copeland.
CRS Report RL31116, Water Infrastructure Funding: Review and Analysis of Current
Issues, by Claudia Copeland and Mary Tiemann.
CRS Report RL31344, Water Infrastructure Financing Legislation: Comparison of Two
Bills, by Claudia Copeland and Mary Tiemann.
CRS Report 98-150, The Clean Water Action Plan: Background and Early Implementation,
by Claudia Copeland.
CRS Report RL30437, Water Quality Initiatives and Agriculture, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS Report 97-831, Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of
Pollutants, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS Report RL30611, EPA’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program: Highlights of
the Final Revised Rule, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS Report RL31091, The Clean Water Act’s TMDL Program: Newly Presented Options
and Cost Estimates, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS Report RL30908, Clean Water Act Issues and Legislation in the 106th Congress, by
Claudia Copeland.
CRS-15