Order Code IB89102
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Water Quality:
Implementing the Clean Water Act
Updated February 26, 2003
Claudia Copeland
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Act and Recent Amendments
Legislative activity after P.L. 100-4
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Requirements
Nonpoint Pollution Management
Adequacy of plans
Quality of plans
Funding
Program changes
Significance for TMDLs
State Revolving Fund Program
Other Issues
Stormwater discharges
Combined and separate sewer overflows
Wetlands
Strategy concerning animal feeding operations
Continuing Issue: Appropriations and the Federal Budget
FY2003
FY2004
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Reports and Issue Briefs

---

IB89102
02-26-03
Water Quality:
Implementing the Clean Water Act
SUMMARY
Congress enacted the most recent major
hindered by lack of resources, including fed-
amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1987
eral assistance. EPA adopted program guid-
(P.L. 100-4). Since then, the Environmental
ance intended to give states more flexibility
Protection Agency (EPA), states, and others
and to speed up progress in nonpoint source
have been working to implement the many
control.
program changes and additions mandated in
the law. At issue today–30 years after enact-
The third issue is funding to construct
ment of the core law–is what progress is being
municipal wastewater treatment plants under
made to achieve its goals. In general, states
the State Revolving Fund provisions of the
and environmental groups fault EPA for
1987 amendments. Budgetary constraints on
delays in issuing guidance and assistance
federal aid for wastewater treatment and large
needed to carry out the provisions of the law.
remaining funding needs are a continuing
EPA and others are critical of states, in turn,
concern.
for not reaching beyond conventional knowl-
edge and approaches to address their water
Reauthorization of the Act was on the
quality problems. Environmental groups have
agenda of the 104th Congress, when the
been criticized for insufficient recognition of
House passed H.R. 961, but no amendments
EPA’s and states’ need for flexibility to im-
were enacted. No major legislative activity
plement the Act. Finally, Congress has been
occurred in the 105th or 106th Congresses,
criticized for not providing adequate resources
although legislation was passed affecting
to meet EPA and state needs.
some individual program areas. In the 107th
Congress, legislation focused on water infra-
Three issues have predominated recently
structure funding legislation, but no bill was
in connection with implementation of the law.
enacted. Recent attention also has focused on
The first involves requirements under current
EPA rules for the Act’s TMDL program
law for states to develop total maximum daily
issued in 2000 (see CRS Issue Brief IB10108,
loads (TMDLs) to restore pollution-impaired
Clean Water Act Issues in the 108th Congress).
waters. The second issue involves the non-
point pollution management provisions added
The Bush Administration has proposed
in 1987. States are developing management
few new clean water initiatives. However, on
programs describing methods that will be used
January 13, the Agency announced a Water
to reduce nonpoint pollution, which may be
Quality Trading Policy intended as an innova-
responsible for as much as 50% of the nation’s
tive approach to assist industry and municipal-
remaining water quality problems. Most
ities in meeting Clean Water Act obligations.
observers agree that implementation of non-

point source control measures is significantly
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB89102
02-26-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On February 20, 5 months after the start of the fiscal year, President Bush signed
legislation providing FY2003 appropriations for EPA and other non-defense agencies (P.L.
108-7). The act provides $1.34 billion in grant funds for state clean water infrastructure
(SRF) programs, plus $405 million in special project grants earmarked by the legislation.
The President presented his FY2004 budget request on February 3, requesting $850 million
for clean water SRF grants.
On December 15, 2002, the EPA Administrator signed final revised rules to regulate
waste discharges from large animal feedlots (termed confined animal feeding operations,
CAFOs). EPA estimates that 15,500 CAFOs will need to obtain clean water permits to
comply with the rules, compared with 26,000-39,000 that would have been regulated under
the Clinton Administration’s proposed rule. Environmental advocates criticized the final
rules for inadequately addressing animal waste runoff problems, while farm groups said the
rules generally are workable.
The Bush Administration is continuing its review of controversial regulations issued by
the Clinton Administration in 2000 to strengthen existing rules that govern a Clean Water
Act (CWA) program intended to restore impaired waters, the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) program. On December 20, 2002, EPA proposed to withdraw the 2000 TMDL rule
while it considers initiating an entirely new rule or other options; no further timeframe was
announced.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Act and Recent Amendments
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act, is the principal law
concerned with polluting activity in the nation’s streams, lakes, and estuaries. Originally
enacted in 1948, it was totally revised by amendments in 1972 (P.L. 92-500) that gave the
Act its current form and spelled out ambitious programs for water quality improvements that
are now being put in place by industries and cities. Congress made certain fine-tuning
amendments in 1977 (P.L. 95-217) and 1981 (P.L. 97-117) and enacted the most recent
major amendments in 1987 (P.L. 100-4).
The Act consists of two major parts: regulatory provisions that impose progressively
more stringent requirements on industries and cities in order to meet the statutory goal of
zero discharge of pollutants, and provisions that authorize federal financial assistance for
municipal wastewater treatment construction. Industries were to meet pollution control
limits first by use of Best Practicable Technology and later by improved Best Available
Technology. Cities were to achieve secondary treatment of municipal wastewater (roughly
85% removal of conventional wastes), or better if needed to meet water quality standards.
Both major parts are supported by research activities authorized in the law, plus permit and
penalty provisions for enforcement. Programs are administered by the Environmental
CRS-1

---

IB89102
02-26-03
Protection Agency (EPA), while state and local governments have the principal day-to-day
responsibility for implementing the law.
The most recent major amendments to the law are the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L.
100-4). These amendments culminated 6 years of congressional efforts to extend and revise
the Act and are the most comprehensive amendments to it since 1972. They recognize that,
despite much progress to date, significant water quality problems persist. Among its many
provisions, the 1987 legislation:
! established a comprehensive program for controlling toxic pollutant
discharges, beyond that already provided in the Act, to respond to so-called
“toxic hot spots;”
! added a program requiring states to develop and implement programs to
control nonpoint sources of pollution, or rainfall runoff from farm and urban
areas, plus construction, forestry, and mining sites;
! authorized a total of $18 billion for wastewater treatment assistance under
a combination of the Act’s traditional construction grants program through
FY1990 and, as a transition to full state funding responsibility, a new
program of grants to capitalize State Revolving Funds, from FY1989-1994;
! authorized or modified a number of programs to address water pollution
problems in diverse geographic areas such as coastal estuaries, the Great
Lakes, and the Chesapeake Bay; and
! revised many of the Act’s regulatory, permit, and enforcement programs.
Legislative activity after P.L. 100-4. Congressional oversight of water quality
issues was limited following enactment of P.L. 100-4. Subcommittees held general oversight
hearings, as well as several hearings on individual issues (wetlands protection, Chesapeake
Bay programs, and toxics contamination of Great Lakes waters), but reserved extensive
review and oversight until implementation had been underway for some time.
EPA, states, industry, and other citizens continue to implement the 1987 legislation,
including meeting the numerous requirements and deadlines in it. Three sets of issues have
been the focus of attention regarding the pace and effectiveness of implementation: the toxic
pollutant control provisions, nonpoint pollution management provisions, and the State
Revolving Fund provisions to transfer wastewater treatment funding responsibility to the
states after 1994. Attention has also focused on the cost-effectiveness of clean water
requirements and flexibility of implementation.
Implementation issues discussed below were the basis for legislation to reauthorize the
Clean Water Act during the 103rd Congress. Committees held hearings in 1993, and the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported a comprehensive reauthorization
bill, S. 2093, in May 1994. Legislation also was introduced in the House, but no further
action occurred because of controversies specific to the Act and the pending bills, as well as
controversies over regulatory relief issues that became barriers to a number of bills in 1994.
CRS-2

---

IB89102
02-26-03
In the 104th Congress, the House moved quickly on Clean Water Act legislation,
approving a comprehensive reauthorization bill in May 1995. H.R. 961 would have amended
many of the regulatory and standards provisions of the law, required EPA to use extensive
new risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis procedures, and increased flexibility with
regulatory relief from current clean water programs. However, the Senate did not take up the
Clean Water Act during the 104th Congress; thus, no legislation was enacted.
1997 marked the 25-year anniversary of the 1972 Clean Water Act amendments, which
established the goals, objectives, and structure that continue to guide the law today. In the
105th Congress, no major committee activity over the Act occurred either in the House or
the Senate. In the 106th Congress, legislative attention focused on individual program areas
of the law; no comprehensive reauthorization legislation was introduced. However, activity
on bills dealing with specific water quality issues did occur. 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, clean lakes, and the
National Estuary Program; P.L. 106-457). Further, Congress passed a bill to authorize CWA
grant funding for wet weather sewerage projects (included as a provision of P.L. 106-554,
FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations bill). (For detailed information, see CRS Report
RL30908, Clean Water Act Issues and Legislation in the 106th Congress.) In the 107th
Congress, attention was focused on bills to authorize funding for water infrastructure
projects, but no legislation was enacted. However, before adjournment, Congress approved
the Great Lakes Legacy Act (P.L. 107-303), which authorizes $200 million for EPA to carry
out projects to remediate sediment contamination in the Great Lakes. (See CRS Report
RL31683, Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues and Legislation in the 107th Congress.)
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 wastewater and drinking water) 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. Physical security of
wastewater treatment plant operations is one of the issues under consideration. In October
2002, the House passed legislation to provide $200 million in grants for security activities
at wastewater treatment plants (H.R. 5169). Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate
(S. 3037), but no further action occurred. In the 108th Congress, H.R. 866 was introduced
on February 13 and approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on
February 26; it is identical to H.R. 5169 as passed in the 107th Congress.
Although much progress has been made in achieving the ambitious goals established
in the law 30 years ago to restore the maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, problems persist. Based on the limited water quality
monitoring that is done by states, EPA recently reported in the 2000 National Water Quality
Inventory Report that 39% of assessed river and stream miles and 45% of assessed lake acres
do not meet applicable water quality standards and were found to be impaired for one or
more desired uses. The types of remaining water quality problems are diverse, ranging from
runoff from farms and ranches, city streets, and other diffuse sources to metals (especially
CRS-3

---

IB89102
02-26-03
mercury), organic and inorganic toxic substances discharged from factories and sewage
treatment plants, as well as nonpoint sources.
The Bush Administration has been reviewing a number of current clean water programs
and rules but has proposed few new initiatives. However, on January 13, the Agency
announced a Water Quality Trading Policy intended as an innovative approach to assist
industry and municipalities in meeting Clean Water Act obligations. Trading allows one
source to meet regulatory requirements by using pollutant reductions created by another
source that has lower pollution control costs. The policy revises a May 2002 proposal which
reflected lessons learned from a similar policy issued by the Clinton Administration in 1996.
Water quality or effluent trading projects have occurred in the United States since the early
1980s. (For information, see CRS Report RS21403, EPA’s Water Quality Trading Policy.)
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Requirements
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify pollutant-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 analyses,
which involve complex assessment of point and nonpoint sources and mathematical
modeling, and EPA has both been reluctant to override states and has also lacked resources
to do the analyses. Thus, for many years there was little implementation of the provision that
Congress enacted in 1972. In recent years, national and local environmental groups have filed
more than 40 lawsuits in 38 states against EPA and states for failure to fulfill requirements
of the Act. Of the suits tried or settled to date, 19 have resulted in court orders requiring
expeditious development of TMDLs. EPA and state officials have been concerned about
diverting resources from other high-priority water quality activities in order to meet the
courts’ orders. In 1996, EPA created an advisory committee to solicit advice on the TMDL
problem. Recommendations from the advisory committee formed the basis of program
changes that EPA proposed in August 1999. The 1999 proposal set forth criteria for states,
territories, and authorized Indian tribes to identify impaired waters and establish all TMDLs
within 15 years. It would require more comprehensive assessments of waterways, detailed
cleanup plans, and timetables for implementation. (For additional information, see CRS
Report 97-831, Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of Pollutants.)
The 1999 proposal was highly controversial because of issues such as burdens on states
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 have
drawn congressional attention, and 13 congressional hearings were held during the 106th
Congress by four separate House and Senate committees. Public and congressional pressure
on EPA to revise or withdraw the TMDL proposal entirely was great. Several legislative
proposals to modify EPA’s TMDL proposals or delay implementation of final rules were
introduced (For information, see CRS Report RL30908, Clean Water Act Issues and
Legislation in the 106th Congress).
TMDL issues also were addressed in FY2001 appropriations bills. Before the July 4,
2000, congressional recess, the House and Senate approved a FY2001 Military Construction
CRS-4

---

IB89102
02-26-03
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 FY 2001 to finalize or
implement new TMDL rules. President Clinton signed the bill on July 13, 2000, in spite of
the TMDL restriction, which the Administration opposed (P.L. 106-246). However, the
EPA Administrator signed the new rules on July 11 but delayed the effective date until
October 2001 when the limitation in P.L. 106-246 would expire. (For information, see CRS
Report 30611, EPA’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program: Highlights of the Final
Revised Rule.) EPA’s signing of the rule before the rider took effect led to more criticism.
The FY2001 appropriations act providing funds for EPA, P.L. 106-377, 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. In August 2001, EPA issued a draft
report on costs of the 2000 TMDL program. It estimates 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).
The Bush Administration announced in October 2001that it would delay the effective
date of the 2000 rule until April 30, 2003, to allow for further review. That announcement
came after a federal court granted the Administration’s request for a similar 18-month
suspension of litigation which is challenging the regulation (nearly a dozen interest groups
sued EPA over various parts of the TMDL rule). In the interim, current program
requirements under existing regulations and court-sanctioned TMDL schedules remain in
place. A House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee held an oversight hearing
in November 2001 concerning EPA’s plans to revise the rule. Most recently, on December
22, 2002, EPA proposed to withdraw the July 2000 TMDL rule while it considers initiating
an entirely new rule or other options; no further timeframe was announced. EPA officials
said that additional time beyond May 2003 is needed to decide whether and how to revise the
current program and that allowing the rule to take effect on April 30 would be disruptive of
ongoing review efforts.
CRS-5

---

IB89102
02-26-03
Nonpoint Pollution Management
The 1987 amendments added a new Section 319 to the Act, under which states were
required to develop and implement programs to control nonpoint sources of pollution, or
rainfall runoff from farm and urban areas, as well as construction, forestry, and mining sites.
Previously, the Act had largely focused on controlling point sources, while helping states and
localities to plan for management of diverse nonpoint sources. Yet, as industrial and
municipal sources have abated pollution, uncontrolled nonpoint sources have become a
relatively larger portion of remaining water quality problems—perhaps contributing as much
as 50% of the nation’s water pollution.
States were required to identify waters not expected to meet water quality standards—
because of nonpoint source pollution and to implement plans for managing pollution from
runoff. Federal grants totaling $400 million were authorized to cover as much as 60% of the
costs of implementing a state’s management plan.
The funding issue has become more urgent as states have moved from assessment and
plan development to management, since Congress intended that Section 319 funds be used
primarily to implement nonpoint pollution controls on the ground. EPA has urged states to
use a portion of monies that they receive under Section 106 of the Act, water quality program
assistance grants, for nonpoint source activities. But, doing so utilizes money otherwise
needed for core state efforts, such as permit issuance, monitoring, enforcement, etc. Several
concerns have been raised about the Section 319 program.
Adequacy of plans. Whether state plans have comprehensively addressed nonpoint
pollution problems is a lingering question. Some environmental groups criticize EPA for
providing inadequate guidance on methods, or management practices, to advance control of
nonpoint sources beyond known problems and existing implementation steps, such as
voluntary compliance and public education. Moreover, some believe that states should be
required to repeat the nonpoint source assessments, which were one-time-only activities
under the 1987 law, in order to reflect improvements in technical and scientific information.
Quality of plans. EPA officials acknowledge that the quality of assessment reports
and management plans was quite variable and that many (including some that have been
approved) were disappointing. Several reasons were cited: staff limitations affecting states’
and EPA regions’ ability to prepare and oversee plans; lack of funding; limited federal clout,
since the program is essentially voluntary; and variations in the way regions administered the
program.
Funding. Precise estimates of the cost to manage nonpoint source pollution are not
available, but in 1994 EPA estimated that current and planned spending by private sources,
states, and cities under provisions of current law is between $750 million and $1.1 billion per
year. Without adequate funding to implement state management plans, it is doubtful that
much will be achieved under Section 319 to control nonpoint source pollution. Lack of
funding risks the possibility of Section 319 becoming the Section 208 of this decade: in the
1970s, states and regions prepared areawide waste treatment management plans under
Section 208 of this Act, intended to comprehensively cover point and nonpoint sources. No
implementation monies were authorized, and few of the plans were realized, as a result.
CRS-6

---

IB89102
02-26-03
Program changes. EPA and states negotiated changes intended to give the 319
program a new framework by giving states more flexibility. As a result, in 1996, EPA issued
revised guidance concerning state management of nonpoint source programs that is intended
to recognize that federal and state processes need to be streamlined to increase program
effectiveness and to speed progress towards solving nonpoint pollution problems. The
revised guidance outlines nine key elements to be reflected in state programs (e.g., strong
partnerships with stakeholders, explicit short and long term goals for protecting surface and
ground waters). States that meet the nine criteria can be designated as leadership states,
making them eligible for incentives such as multi-year grants, reduced amount and frequency
of reporting, and self-assessment by states themselves. These incentives contrast with the
previous program approach, in which states competed for grants and those which did not
meet particular requirements received less grant money.
Significance for TMDLs. Attention has focused on nonpoint source management
efforts as a result of recent emphasis by EPA and states on meeting TMDL requirements
(see TMDL discussion, above). Scrutiny of nonpoint pollution problems and how they are
being addressed has intensified as policymakers and program officials assess additional steps
to continue progress towards the Act’s water quality goals. EPA has recently begun to
explicitly link implementation of Section 319 with TMDL activities. For example, in
September 2001, EPA published guidance saying that grants awarded under Section 319
should have a concentrated focus on the development and implementation of TMDLs for
nonpoint sources of pollution, although funds will still be awarded to activities other than
TMDLs. However, states and agricultural interests criticized the guidance as being too
restrictive, and in August 2002, EPA modified the guidance which continues to encourage
development of nonpoint source TMDLs but gives states more flexibility to do so, especially
in areas that lack formally-established TMDLs.

State Revolving Fund Program
The Act’s program of financial aid for municipal wastewater treatment plant
construction was a central and controversial aspect of debate on the 1987 amendments.
Since 1972 Congress has provided $73 billion to assist wastewater treatment construction,
but funding needs remain very high: an additional $139.5 billion nationwide over the next
20 years 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). At issue has been what should be the federal role in assisting
states and cities, especially in view of such high projected funding needs.
CRS-7

---

IB89102
02-26-03
The 1987 amendments extended through FY1990 the traditional Title II program of
grants for sewage treatment project construction, under which the federal share was 55% of
project costs. The 1987 law initiated a program of grants to capitalize State Water Pollution
Control Revolving Funds (SRFs), or loan programs, in a new Title VI. States are required
to deposit an amount equal to at least 20% of the federal capitalization grant in the Fund
established under Title VI. Under the revolving fund concept, monies used for wastewater
treatment construction would be repaid by loan recipients to the states (repayment was not
required for grants under the Title II program), to be recycled for future construction in other
communities, thus providing an ongoing source of financing. The expectation in 1987 was
that the federal contributions to SRFs would assist in making a transition to full state and
local financing by FY1995. Although most states believe that the SRF is working well, early
funding and administrative problems have delayed the anticipated shift to full state
responsibility. Thus, SRF issues have been prominent on the Clean Water Act
reauthorization agenda in recent Congresses. (For further information, see CRS Report 98-
323, Wastewater Treatment: Overview and Background.)
SRF monies may be used for certain types of financial activity, including loans for as
much as 100% of project costs (at or below market interest rates, including interest-free
loans), to buy or refinance cities’ debt obligation, or as a source of revenue or security for
payment of principal and interest on a state-issued bond. SRF monies also may be used to
provide loan guarantees or credit enhancement for localities.
Loans made by a state from its SRF are to be used first to assure progress towards the
goals of the Act and, in particular, on projects to meet the standards and enforceable
requirements of the Act. After states achieve those requirements of the Act, SRF monies also
may be used to implement nonpoint pollution management and national estuary programs.
Table 1 summarizes wastewater treatment funding under Title II (traditional grants
program) and Title VI (capitalization grants for revolving loan programs). (Note: Table 1
does not include appropriations for special project grants in individual cities.)
One issue of interest is impacts on small communities. These entities in particular have
found it difficult to participate in the SRF loan program, since many are characterized by
narrow or weak tax bases, limited or no access to capital markets, lower relative household
incomes, and higher per capita needs. They often find it harder to borrow to meet their
capital needs and pay relatively high premiums to do so. Meeting the special needs of small
towns, through a reestablished grant program, other funding source, or loan program with
special rules, has been an issue of interest to Congress.
Congressional oversight of wastewater/SRF issues has focused on several points,
including: many small communities have found it difficult to participate in the SRF loan
program, and the lack of funds for high-cost categories of projects such as correcting
combined sewer overflows. Although there has been some criticism of the SRF program,
and debate continues over specific concerns (such as small community impacts), the basic
approach is well supported in Congress and elsewhere. Congress used the clean water SRF
as the model when it established a drinking water SRF in the Safe Drinking Water Act in
1996 (P.L. 104-182). (For further information, see CRS Report 97-677, Safe Drinking Water
Act: State Revolving Fund Program.)
CRS-8

---

IB89102
02-26-03
Table 1. Wastewater Treatment Funding
(billions of dollars)
Authorizations
Appropriations
Fiscal Year
Title II
Title VI
Title II
Title VI
1986
$2.4
—
$1.8
—
1987
2.4
—
2.36
—
1988
2.4
—
2.3
—
1989
1.2
1.2
0.941
0.941
1990
1.2
1.2
0.967
0.967
1991
—
2.4
—
2.1
1992
—
1.8
—
1.95
1993
—
1.2
—
1.93
1994
—
0.6
—
1.22
1995
—
—
—
1.24
1996
—
—
—
2.07
1997
—
—
—
0.625
1998
—
—
—
1.35
1999
—
—
—
1.35
2000
—
—
—
1.345
2001
—
—
—
1.35
2002
—
—
—
1.35
2003
—
—
—
1.34
Other Issues
A number of other Clean Water Act issues continue to receive attention, as well. Like
those discussed previously, many of these topics have recently been part of Congress’ agenda
in connection with reauthorization (see CRS Issue Brief IB10069).
Stormwater discharges. EPA has struggled since the 1970s to regulate industrial
and municipal stormwater discharges in a workable yet comprehensive manner. In P.L. 100-
4 Congress established firm deadlines and priorities for EPA to require permits for these
discharges of stormwater that is not mixed or contaminated with household or industrial
waste. EPA issued rules in November 1990 (21 months after the statutory deadline) that
CRS-9

---

IB89102
02-26-03
addressed the process of applying for stormwater permits. The Agency worked with an
advisory committee of stakeholders beginning in 1994 to develop rules for regulating smaller
stormwater dischargers, which were not covered by EPA’s 1990 rules. Rules for smaller
dischargers (unregulated industries and small cities) were issued in October 1999. The
burden of complying with the rules continues to be an issue with many affected industries
and municipalities, especially small cities, which face compliance deadlines in March 2003.
(For further information, see CRS Report 97-290, Stormwater Permits: Status of EPA’s
Regulatory Program.)
Combined and separate sewer overflows. A total of 772 municipalities have
combined sewers where domestic sanitary sewage, industrial wastes, infiltration from
groundwater, and stormwater runoff are collected. These systems serve approximately 40
million persons, mainly in older urban and coastal cities. Normally (under dry-weather
conditions), the combined wastes are conveyed to a municipal sewage treatment plant.
Properly designed, sized, and maintained combined sewers can be an acceptable part
of a city’s water pollution control infrastructure. 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.
In 1994 EPA issued a CSO permitting strategy after negotiations with key stakeholder
groups. Cities 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 did not contain a deadline for issuance of permits or for controlling CSOs.
Deadlines will be contained in plans developed by permitting authorities, which primarily
are states. 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 1998 that only about one-half of the cities with combined
sewers 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 concerning 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 estimates that there are about 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, the Clinton Administration finalized regulations
to improve the operation of municipal sanitary sewer collection systems, reduce the
frequency and occurrence of overflows, clarify the existing CWA prohibition on SSO
CRS-10

---

IB89102
02-26-03
discharges, and clarify circumstances appropriate for enforcement action. The new rules, not
yet published, are being reviewed by the Bush Administration.
Funding CSO and SSO projects is a major concern of states and cities. In December
2000, the 106th Congress passed legislation, the Wet Weather Water Quality Act,
authorizing a 2-year $1.5 billion grants program to reduce wet weather flows from municipal
sewer systems. This bill was included in H.R. 4577, the FY2001 Consolidated
Appropriations bill (Section 112 of Division B, P.L. 106-554). The measure also codified
EPA’s 1994 CSO policy on sewer overflows (discussed above).
Wetlands. Public debate over the nation’s wetlands has come to focus on questions
of the effectiveness and costs of wetland resource protection efforts, rather than on whether
such resources should be preserved. The permit program authorized by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act is one of the major federal programs that protects wetlands. However,
environmentalists and others have criticized Section 404 as being inadequate to prevent the
continuing loss of wetlands, due to statutory exemption of certain types of actions on
farmlands and weak enforcement. Those wishing to develop wetlands maintain that existing
laws are already an intrusion on private land-use decisions and that further federal
involvement is unwarranted. How best to protect remaining wetlands and regulate activities
taking place in wetlands has become one of the most contentious environmental policy issues
facing Congress and was a prominent element of clean water debate during the 103rd and
104th Congresses. The 107th Congress examined few wetlands issues, and the main activity
concerned wetlands provisions of omnibus farm bill legislation. Although there was no
legislative activity on Section 404, committee hearings were held on several issues arising
from judicial decisions, administrative actions of interest, and implementation of current law.
For example, in October 2001, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Water Resources
and Environment Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on enforcement of wetlands
regulatory programs, hearing from a number of witnesses who claimed to have been treated
improperly by federal regulators and enforcement officials. In September 2002, the House
Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory
Affairs held a hearing on the government’s response to a 2001 Supreme Court case which
narrowed the government’s regulatory jurisdiction over isolated waters, Solid Waste Agency
of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159
(2001)). Committee Members and public witnesses indicated that a lack of guidance on the
government’s interpretation of the case has led to inconsistent regulatory decisions in
individual regions of the country. (For additional information, see CRS Issue Brief IB97014,
Wetland Issues.)
Strategy concerning animal feeding operations. Public and policy attention
has been increasing on steps to minimize public health and environmental impacts of runoff
from animal feeding operations (AFOs). AFOs 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, however, it can pose risks to water quality and public health,
contributing pollutants such as nutrients, sediment, pathogens, and ammonia to the
environment. In 1999, EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture initiated a national AFO
strategy to improve compliance and strengthen existing regulations that are intended to
control adverse environmental impacts of these agricultural activities.
CRS-11

---

IB89102
02-26-03
Existing EPA regulations, issued in the 1970s, require CWA discharge permits for the
largest AFOs, termed confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). However, EPA
acknowledges that compliance and enforcement of these permit rules has been poor (less
than one-third of covered facilities actually have permits) and that the regulations themselves
are outdated. For example, they do not reflect changed waste management practices or
address the need for management plans dealing with land application of manure. The 1999
national strategy contains a number of short-term and long-term steps to improve compliance
and strengthen existing regulations, obtain better information through data collection and
research on water quality impairments due to AFOs, and together with other federal agencies
and states, coordinate activities related to AFOs. 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. In May 2001, a House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee
held an oversight hearing on the December regulatory proposal. Issues that Congress has
addressed during this period include impacts and costs imposed on the agricultural sector,
especially small farmers, and how the proposed combination of regulatory and incentive-
based measures in the 1999 National AFO Strategy will achieve control of agricultural runoff
that adversely affects water quality. (For additional information, see CRS Report RL30437,
Water Quality Initiatives and Agriculture.) In legislation providing FY2000 funding for EPA
(P.L. 106-74), Congress directed EPA in conjunction with USDA to submit a report to
Congress by May 15, 2001, providing a cost and capability assessment of the AFO strategy.
This report was expected to be delivered to Congress in December 2001.
On December 15, 2002, the EPA Administrator signed final revised rules to regulate
waste discharges from CAFOs. The final rules, which the Agency was under court order to
issue by December 2002, modified the Clinton Administration’s 2000 proposal in a number
of areas. The final rules retain much of the structure of the existing rules, such as regulatory
thresholds and definitions, but include requirements for development of nutrient management
plans to better manage land application of manure. EPA estimates that 15,500 CAFOs will
be regulated by these rules (compared with 26,000-39,000 under the proposal), at an annual
compliance cost of $335 million (versus $850 million-$980 million under the proposal). The
final rules dropped a controversial proposal to require co-permitting of integrators (large
companies that contract with farmers to raise livestock), as well as the farmers themselves.
Farm groups said that the regulations are generally workable and consistent with
environmental initiatives in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), but environmental groups are
criticizing the rules for inadequately addressing animal waste runoff problems. A January
2003 GAO report concludes that the new rules will be ineffective unless EPA increases its
oversight of state regulatory programs, which have primary responsibility for ensuring
compliance by feedlot operators (Increased EPA Oversight Will Improve Environmental
Program for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, GAO-03-285.)
Continuing Issue: Appropriations and the Federal
Budget
Although the 1987 Clean Water Act amendments dealt extensively with financial aid
issues, funding questions have continued to arise and be addressed in the context of
appropriations. (For additional information, see CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure
Financing: History of EPA Appropriations.)
CRS-12

---

IB89102
02-26-03
FY2003. The Bush Administration presented its FY2003 budget request on February
4, 2002. It sought a total $1.335 billion for clean water infrastructure funds (compared with
$1.8 billion appropriated for FY2002), consisting of $1.212 billion for clean water SRF
grants and $123 million for a limited number of special projects (especially in Alaska Native
Villages and in communities on the U.S.-Mexico border). The Administration eliminated
funds for unrequested project spending that Congress earmarked in the FY2002 law which
totaled $344 million. Also, the Administration requested no funds for the municipal sewer
overflow grants program authorized in 2000 in P.L. 106-554 (discussed above). The FY2003
budget included a request to establish a $20 million grant program for a Targeted Watersheds
Project in a limited number of areas. Members of Congress criticized the request level for
SRF capitalization grants, which is $138 million below the FY2002 enacted amount. In
August, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an FY2003 funding bill for EPA
that would provide $1.45 billion, $100 million more than the FY2002 level (S. 2797, S.Rept.
107-222). The House Appropriations Committee approved its version of an FY2003 funding
bill, providing $1.3 billion for the clean water SRF program (H.R. 5605, H.Rept. 107-740).
Final action did not occur before the 107th Congress adjourned in November and
extended into 2003, more than 5 months after the start of the fiscal year. Congress and the
President reached agreement on funding levels for EPA and the other non-defense agencies
in omnibus appropriations legislation, H.J.Res. 2, which the President signed on February
20 (P.L. 108-7). The enacted bill includes $1.34 billion for clean water SRF grants and $405
million more for special water infrastructure project grants to individual cities. It also
provides a total of $1.14 billion for categorical state grants, including $15 million for
targeted watershed grants.
FY2004. On February 3, before completion of the FY2003 appropriations, the
President submitted his budget request for FY2004. It requests a total of $948 million for
clean water infrastructure funds, consisting of $850 million for SRF grants and $98 million
for priority projects (especially in Alaska Native Villages and in communities on the U.S.-
Mexico border). As in previous years, the Administration requested no funds for
congressionally earmarked project grants. The Administration responded to criticism of the
request for SRF grants by saying that it reflects a commitment to fund this program at the
$850 million level through FY2011. Funding at the that level, plus repayments of previous
SRF loans made by states, is expected to increase the revolving levels of the overall program
from $2.0 billion to $2.8 billion per year, the Administration says. The budget includes a few
increases for water quality activities, including $15 million for remediation of contaminated
sediments in the Great Lakes (to implement P.L. 107-303) and $5 million in additional
funding (totaling $20 million) for state wetlands program development.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
(Note: Congress has held more than 75 hearings on Clean Water Act and water quality
issues since enactment of P.L. 100-4. Those highlighted below are a partial list of the most
recent published hearings on implementation of the Act.)
CRS-13

---

IB89102
02-26-03
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Subcommittee on
Oversight, Investigations and Emergency Management. Total Maximum Daily Load
Initiatives under the Clean Water Act. Hearing. 106th Congress, 2nd session, July 27,
2000. Washington: GPO, 2000. 77 p. (106-106)
U.S. Congress. House. Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Improving
Water Quality: States’ Perspectives on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Hearing. 107th Congress, 1st session, February 28, 2001. Washington: GPO, 2001. 53
p. (107-3)
—— Water Infrastructure Needs. Hearing. 107th Congress, 1st session, March 28, 2001.
Washington: GPO, 2001. 178 p. (107-8)
—— The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council Report on Assessing
the Scientific Basis of the Total Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Quality
Management. Hearing. 107th Congress, 1st session, June 28, 2001. Washington: GPO,
2001. 118 p. (107-29)
—— The Future of the TMDL Program: How to Make TMDLs Effective Tools for Improving
Water Quality. Hearing. 107th Congress, 1st session, November 15, 2001. Washington:
GPO, 2001. 34 p. (107-56)
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Water Quality.
Hearing. 106th Congress, 2d session, February 23, 2000. S.Hrg. 106-699. Washington:
GPO, 2000. 336 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Clean Water
Action Plan. Hearings. 106th Congress, 1st session, May 13, 1999. S.Hrg. 106-389.
Washington: GPO, 1999. 148 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water. Proposed Rule
Changes to the TMDL and NPDES Permit Programs. Hearings. 106th Congress, 2d
session, March 1, 23, and May 18, 2000. S.Hrg. 106-971. Washington: GPO, 2000.
597 p.

—— Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Needs. Hearings. 107th Congress, 1st session,
March 27, 2001. S.Hrg. 107-316. Washington: GPO, 2001. 141 p.
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. pp. 7-12.
Knopman, Debra S. and Richard A. Smith. “20 Years of the Clean Water Act, Has U.S.
Water Quality Improved?” Environment. v. 31, no. 1, January/February 1993. pp. 16-
20, 34-41.
CRS-14

---

IB89102
02-26-03
Loeb, Penny. “Very Troubled Waters.” U.S. News & World Report, v. 125, no. 12,
September 28, 1998: 39, 41-42.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Water Quality Inventory: 2000
Report. Washington, September 2002. “EPA-841-R-2-001.”
—— 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Report to Congress. Washington, 1997. 1 vol.
“EPA832/R-97-003.”
U.S. General Accounting Office. Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and
Incomplete Data. (GAO/RCED-00-54) March 2000. 73 p.
—— Water Infrastructure: Information on Financing, Capital Planning, and Privatization.
(GAO-02-764) August 2002. 79 p.
CRS Reports and Issue Briefs
CRS Report RL30030. Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS Report 97-831. Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of
Pollutants, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS Issue Brief IB10108. Clean Water Act Issues in the 108th Congress, by Claudia
Copeland.
CRS Report RL31091, The Clean Water Act’s TMDL Program: Newly Presented Options
and Cost Estimates, 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 96-442. Great Lakes Water Quality: Current Issues, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS Report 98-323. Wastewater Treatment: Overview and Background, by Claudia
Copeland.
CRS Report 96-647. Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by
Claudia Copeland.
CRS Report RL30437. Water Quality Initiatives and Agriculture, by Claudia Copeland.
CRS Issue Brief IB97014. Wetland Issues, by Jeffrey Zinn and Claudia Copeland.
CRS-15

---