EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning
and Affordability of Water Infrastructure
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
October 8, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44223
EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure
Summary
For several years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working with states and
cities to develop and implement new approaches that will achieve water quality goals cost-
effectively and in a manner that addresses the most pressing water infrastructure problems first.
Two such recent EPA initiatives are an integrated planning policy and a framework policy for
assessing a community’s financial capability to meet objectives and requirements of the Clean
Water Act (CWA).
Pressed by municipalities about the challenges and costs that they face in addressing needs for
wastewater and stormwater control projects, in 2012 EPA issued an integrated permitting and
planning policy. The intention of the policy is to provide communities with flexibility to prioritize
and sequence needed water infrastructure investments so that limited public dollars can be
invested in ways that each municipality finds most valuable.
Water utilities and municipalities have welcomed the opportunity for flexibility under the
integrated planning policy. But they have sought clarification of a number of issues, including
EPA and state roles in developing integrated plans. A major point of contention between EPA and
local government stakeholders has been the agency’s reliance on administrative orders or
judicially approved consent decrees to codify integrated pollution reduction plans, rather than
through modification of CWA permits. City and town officials say that they would prefer that
EPA allow compliance flexibility through permits, rather than subjecting cities and towns to
legally binding consent decrees with penalties and fines for noncompliance. The agency takes the
position that both enforcement and permits are necessary, depending on individual circumstances.
While integrated planning may be helpful in identifying communities’ relative priorities, a long-
standing concern for local governments is EPA’s process for evaluating how much communities
can afford for CWA-mandated and other water infrastructure improvements. EPA has worked
with communities to refine how the agency determines when a project is affordable for individual
communities, because affordability considerations can influence schedules established for a
community to meet CWA requirements. In November 2014, EPA released a Financial Capability
Assessment Framework that identifies a range of information related to a community’s financial
strength that may help provide a complete picture of cities’ financial capability in relation to
water infrastructure investments.
State and local governments generally support EPA’s efforts to encourage ways for communities
to prioritize their CWA infrastructure investments and to consider a wide range of factors that
affect affordability. Nevertheless, cities and states have continuing concerns with aspects of both
policies. For example, some criticize EPA for relying in part on Median Household Income
(MHI) as a measure of community affordability. Further, cities are critical that integrated plans
that have been approved so far have been incorporated only into new or amended consent
decrees, not CWA permits.
EPA’s integrated planning process and water infrastructure affordability are issues of interest to
legislators. For example, a bill in the 114th Congress proposes to codify an integrated approach to
permitting and planning of water infrastructure projects and direct EPA to carry out a pilot
program to implement integrated planning approaches (H.R. 1093). The House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee Subcommittee on Water Resources has held several oversight
hearings on EPA’s integrated planning policy and the agency’s approach to determining a
community’s ability to afford water infrastructure projects.
Congressional Research Service
EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure
Contents
EPA’s Integrated Planning Policy .................................................................................................... 1
Determining Community Affordability ........................................................................................... 4
Congressional Interest ..................................................................................................................... 6
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Contacts
Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 8
Congressional Research Service
EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure
ccording to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, cities spend 6-7 cents of every tax dollar
collected from their citizens on water and sewer systems, making it the third biggest
A expense for cities behind education and emergency personnel.1 Many state and local
governments face difficult economic challenges with limited resources and financial capability to
meet their obligations to assure safe and clean water for their citizens.
For several years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working with states and
cities to develop and implement new approaches that will achieve water quality goals cost-
effectively and in a manner that addresses the most pressing water infrastructure problems first.
This report examines two such recent initiatives by EPA, an integrated planning policy and a
framework policy for assessing a community’s financial capability to meet objectives and
requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
EPA’s Integrated Planning Policy
The prominence of these issues is due in part to EPA’s use of governmental enforcement to
achieve compliance by the municipal sector with CWA requirements. Since 1998, and more
intensely since 2008, EPA has focused national enforcement actions on keeping raw sewage and
contaminated stormwater discharges out of the nation’s waters as part of the agency’s National
Enforcement Initiatives. It is estimated that approximately 70 communities are under federal
consent decrees or administrative orders, and many others are under state consent decrees or
orders requiring them to address uncontrolled discharges from combined sewer systems
(combined sewer overflo , or CSOs) and separate sewer systems (separate sewer overflows, or
SSOs).2 Consent decrees typically specify deadlines for complying with the CWA and involve
significant investments from ratepayers to bring about compliance and to achieve associated
improvements in water quality infrastructure.3 Construction associated with consent decrees
frequently involves long timeframes—more than a decade in many cases, according to EPA.
Other communities are not specifically subject to court-approved enforcement schedules, but are
required by CWA permits to take actions, including infrastructure upgrades, to maintain their
compliance status.
For some time, municipalities have pressed EPA for greater flexibility to meet the financial and
compliance challenges that they face for wastewater, stormwater, and other CWA infrastructure
improvements. Correcting CSO problems typically represents the most expensive CWA
compliance issue. Cities and towns have urged regulators to recognize how difficult and
expensive it can be for them to implement wastewater upgrades, stormwater improvements, and
related infrastructure projects, while also providing a range of other necessary municipal services
on a day-to-day basis.
1 U.S. Conference of Mayors, “Mayors & EPA to Begin Dialogue Focused on Protecting Human Health and
Environment at an Affordable Cost for Residents,” press release, October 16, 2012, http://www.usmayors.org/
pressreleases/uploads/2012/1016-release-epadialogue.pdf.
2 A consent decree is a negotiated settlement between the enforcing agency and the permittee. The consent decree can
include injunctive relief, which requires actions to bring the defendant back into compliance, and monetary penalties.
3 EPA’s Inspector General estimated that it will cost communities more than $32 billion to complete the required
actions and penalties that are contained in 47 federal consent decrees that address CSOs. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Inspector General, EPA Needs to Track Whether Its Major Municipal Settlements for Combined
Sewer Overflows Benefit Water Quality, Project No. 15-P-0280, September 15, 2015,
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2015/20150916-15-P-0280.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure
In response to such concerns, EPA officials in 2011 issued a memorandum describing the
agency’s support for an integrated approach to wastewater and stormwater management. Such an
approach, the memorandum said, would allow communities to “maximize their infrastructure
improvement dollars through appropriate sequencing of work.” Implementing the integrated
approach would require coordination between permit and enforcement actions and
complementary state actions.4
EPA also began a round of talks with municipal officials about the costs of CWA requirements
facing local governments. The talks resulted in a framework policy issued in 2012 for
communities to pursue integrated planning to manage wastewater and stormwater and thus
implement the approach outlined in the 2011 EPA memorandum.5 The policy’s intention is to
reduce overall a community’s compliance costs by considering all wastewater and stormwater
management obligations in an integrated fashion. It allows communities to prioritize water
management goals—such as water conservation or lower wastewater treatment costs—so that
limited public dollars can be invested in ways that each city finds most valuable. The policy
allows cities and towns to voluntarily seek modification of consent decrees and the terms of CWA
discharge permits, and to gain the flexibility to prioritize water quality and infrastructure projects
based on affordability. Under this integrated approach, municipalities can evaluate how best to
meet all of their CWA obligations within their financial capability, while maintaining existing
regulatory standards that protect public health and water quality, and to sequence wastewater and
stormwater projects in a way that allows the highest priority environmental projects to come first.
The policy identifies six elements of an integrated plan. Flexibility is the final element.
Description of the water quality, human health, and regulatory issues to be
addressed in the plan.
Description of existing wastewater and stormwater systems under consideration,
including description of current performance.
A process for enabling public participation in development and implementation
of the plan.
A process for identifying, evaluating, and selecting alternative means of
compliance, such as use of green infrastructure.
A process for evaluating performance and measuring success.
A process for identifying, evaluating, and selecting proposed new projects or
modifications to ongoing or planned projects and implementation schedules
based on changing circumstances.
A major point of contention between EPA and local government stakeholders has been the
agency’s reliance on administrative orders or judicially approved consent decrees to codify
pollution reduction plans, including plans approved under the integrated planning policy, rather
than through modification of CWA permits. Mayors, represented by the U.S. Conference of
4 Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water, and Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator,
EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Achieving Water Quality Through Integrated Municipal
Stormwater and Wastewater Plans, memorandum, October 27, 2011, http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/
greeninfrastructure/upload/memointegratedmunicipalplans.pdf.
5 Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water, and Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator,
EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning
Approach Framework, memorandum, June 5, 2012, http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/upload/
integrated_planning_framework.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure
Mayors, have stated that they would prefer that EPA authorize compliance flexibility through
permits, rather than subjecting cities and towns to legally binding consent decrees with penalties
and fines for noncompliance. The agency takes the position that both enforcement and permits are
necessary, depending on individual circumstances.
The 2012 policy provides that all or part of an integrated plan can be incorporated into a CWA
discharge permit. For example, innovative practices for managing stormwater as a resource—
green infrastructure practices and technologies—can be considered and incorporated into permits
where such practices provide sustainable solutions for municipal wet weather control.6
The policy further provides that all or part of an integrated plan may be incorporated into the
remedy of a federal or state enforcement action to address noncompliance with the CWA. EPA
initially focused the policy on new enforcement, meaning that cities already subject to consent
decrees were unable to take advantage of flexibility to modify existing plans to resolve
enforcement actions.7 However, in 2012, EPA, the Department of Justice, and officials of one city,
the District of Columbia, agreed to consider extending compliance deadlines in that city’s 2005
consent decree in order to allow the city to test green infrastructure technologies. To address
sewer overflows, the original consent decree called for the city to construct by 2025 three large
tunnels capable of holding 31 million gallons of diluted sewage at any one time, allowing the
city’s wastewater treatment plant to process the effluent after storms. The 2012 agreement
contemplated extending deadlines for some of the new construction required by the consent
decree. Further it potentially would allow the city to avoid some construction project elements
(constructing one tunnel as planned, but reducing a second tunnel’s size and eliminating the third
tunnel), if implementation of a green infrastructure program can reasonably be expected to lead to
CSO reductions required by the consent decree, while also satisfying the city’s responsibility to
mitigate stormwater runoff.8 The DC plan illustrates integrated planning because it allows the city
to compare the effectiveness of alternatives—green infrastructure and constructed tunnels—to
reduce rainwater flows into storm drains enough to stop overflows into nearby waterways.
Under terms of the 2012 agreement, EPA indicted that it would support reopening the consent
decree only if it were convinced that green infrastructure will perform as well as construction of
tunnels that are designed to capture combined stormwater and wastewater and hold it until it can
be processed by the city’s wastewater treatment plant. EPA agreed to support DC’s research into
whether the extensive use of green infrastructure could reduce rainwater runoff into sewers
enough to eliminate the need for the planned tunnel projects.
In May 2015, EPA, the Department of Justice, and the DC Government revised the 2005 consent
decree with the modifications outlined in the 2012 agreement. The revised consent decree also
extends the deadline for compliance by five years, to 2030. Officials in other cities have hoped
that the EPA-DC agreement could provide a model to be applied elsewhere. Some environmental
groups criticized EPA for granting DC additional compliance time for green infrastructure
projects that the city could already have pursued, under the existing consent decree.
6 Green infrastructure uses or mimics natural processes to infiltrate, evapotranspire, or reuse stormwater runoff on the
site where it is generated. It includes green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavements. For information, see CRS
Report R43131, Green Infrastructure and Issues in Managing Urban Stormwater, by Claudia Copeland.
7 Many consent decrees are modified to reflect new information, improved design, or other factors. These modifications
often result in extended compliance timelines.
8 District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Government of the
District of Columbia, Green Infrastructure Partnership Agreement, December 10, 2012, http://www.epa.gov/
reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/GreenPartnshipAgreement.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure
Utilities and municipalities have welcomed the opportunity for flexibility under the integrated
planning policy. But they sought clarification on a number of issues, such as how communities
can proactively ensure that the plan they develop will be acceptable to regulators; who determines
a community’s most pressing water quality needs; and whether a municipality can include
ongoing needs for infrastructure rehabilitation under an integrated planning approach. Some
stakeholders believe that clarification is needed regarding state and EPA roles. The agency’s
position is that it is the responsibility of cities to work and coordinate with state permitting
agencies to develop integrated plans. However, states are uncertain what EPA’s oversight role
would be if a state and municipality agree on a plan, but EPA disagrees.9
Some states believe that examples of integrated stormwater and wastewater plans are needed, in
part to serve as models for states and communities. To do so, in October 2014, EPA awarded
grants to five communities to assist them in developing integrated plans, as well as to provide
transferable tools for other interested communities. Funding was awarded to Burlington, VT;
Durham, NH; Santa Maria, CA; Springfield, MO; and Onondaga County, NY. The five were
selected from 28 communities that had expressed interest in technical assistance from EPA.
With the planning policy in place, a number of communities have developed plans pursuant to it
(e.g., Kansas City, KS; Seattle and King County, WA; and Cincinnati, OH). EPA officials have
had discussions with other cities about writing and implementing integrated plans to manage
stormwater and wastewater. But, more than three years after the framework policy was
announced, the biggest concern to many is that, so far, integrated plans have been incorporated
only into new or amended consent decrees, not in CWA permits. Some believe that EPA
(especially at the EPA Regional level) is hesitant to approve integrated plans in permits. EPA
officials reject such criticism, saying that the agency fully supports use of integrated plans and
will work with cities to develop the best approach in individual cases.
Determining Community Affordability
While integrated planning may be helpful in identifying communities’ relative priorities, a long-
standing concern for local governments is EPA’s process for evaluating how much communities
can afford for CWA-mandated and other water infrastructure improvements. Affordability
considerations can influence schedules established by EPA and states for communities to meet
CWA requirements. In assessing municipalities’ capability to finance infrastructure upgrades, EPA
relies significantly on guidance issued in 1997.10
This guidance is intended to provide general boundaries to aid EPA, states, and cities in
negotiating reasonable and effective schedules for implementing infrastructure upgrades. It uses a
two-phase approach to assess financial capability. First, EPA identifies the combined impact of
wastewater and CSO control costs on individual households, calculating average costs per
household as a percentage of the local median household income (MHI). This phase analyzes the
residential share of current and planned controls needed to meet CWA requirements using a value
9 In all but four states (Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) and the District of Columbia, EPA
has delegated CWA permitting to state permitting authorities. However, under Section 402(d) the act (33 U.S.C. §
1342(d)), EPA retains an oversight role and may review individual permits that a state proposes to issue, and it may
object to a permit outside the guidelines and requirements of the act. If the state does not revise the permit to meet the
agency’s objections, EPA may issue a permit that meets the act’s requirements.
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, Combined Sewer
Overflows—Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development, EPA 832-B-97-004, February
1997, http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/csofc.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure
range of whether the costs impose a “low” (less than 1% of MHI), “mid-range” (1%-2% of MHI),
or “high” (more than 2% of MHI) financial impact on residential users, yielding a Residential
Indicator. Second, EPA develops Financial Indicators to evaluate the debt, socioeconomic, and
financial conditions that affect the community’s financial capability as “weak,” “mid-range,” or
“strong.” The combined indicators measure a community’s ability to afford compliance with
CWA regulations. Many local government officials contend that EPA regions use the 2% of MHI
measure as an absolute benchmark, or minimum threshold for determining that affordability is an
issue for a given community.
For several years, municipal officials have urged EPA to revise the guidance, arguing that it
should take into consideration a larger set of factors and that MHI is a misleading indicator of a
community’s ability to pay. In some cases, they say, cost impacts for an entire community may be
in EPA’s “mid-range,” although impacts in portions of the community (e.g., low-income
neighborhoods) are more than 2% of MHI.11 Alternative household affordability metrics could
include average water rates as a percentage of income for potentially vulnerable populations, or
expected future water rate increases, or using other indicators of economic need such as the
unemployment rate or poverty rate, or percentage of households receiving public assistance.
Further, they say that affordability should be tailored to each local government.
Municipal officials also favor having EPA look at the overall financial impacts of both CWA and
drinking water projects (which are not addressed in the 1997 guidance), rather than considering
them separately. In 2013, local government officials issued a report with recommendations on
alternative analyses that cities can present to federal and state regulators with data and
information that demonstrate a range of additional factors relevant to evaluating affordability.12
Further, a 2013 white paper issued by municipal water officials recommended that EPA assess
financial capability to meet CWA obligations through an integrated planning framework that
allows EPA to go beyond taking a “snapshot” of current financial indicators to also consider past
or emerging trends that affect current conditions.13
EPA repeatedly insisted that it’s not necessary to revise the guidance, which the agency believes
already provides flexibility for financially disadvantaged municipalities, including allowing a
phased approach for implementing wastewater management controls. As noted above, EPA
already has the flexibility and discretion to reopen consent decrees. Officials also point out that as
a result of the integrated planning framework, in determining affordability, municipalities now
can factor in the costs to manage stormwater flows, along with combined sewer overflows and
wastewater treatment. The 1997 guidance did not include consideration of stormwater. To some
extent, it appears that EPA and municipal officials fundamentally disagree on this point, with
mayors and others contending that the 2% MHI metric is strictly enforced and is EPA’s primary
11 A report of the U.S. Conference of Mayors criticized EPA’s use of MHI to assess affordability at the local level,
arguing that MHI, which looks at household income across all parts of a community, masks the distributional cost
impacts on below median income households. Based on a survey of California cities, the report found that the
economic burden of water and stormwater costs falls disproportionately on such households. U.S. Conference of
Mayors, Public Water Cost Per Household: Assessing Financial Impacts of EPA Affordability Criteria in California
Cities, November 2014, http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/2014/1202-report-watercostsCA.pdf.
12 U.S. Conference of Mayors, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation, Affordability
Assessment Tool for Federal Water Mandates, May 2013, http://www.mayors.org/urbanwater/media/2013/0529-report-
WaterAffordability.pdf.
13 National Association of Clean Water Agencies, The Evolving Landscape for Financial Capability Assessment: Clean
Water Act Negotiations and the Opportunities for Integrated Planning, May 2013, http://www.nacwa.org/images/
stories/public/2013-05-31fcalandsapesipdesign.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure
determinant, and EPA responding that it is one of many financial factors that should be evaluated
to assess overall burden on a community.
Nevertheless, EPA committed to further dialog with cities and states and to clarifying guidelines
on how it considers financial capability. Based on those discussions and in consultation with its
Environmental Financial Advisory Board, in November 2014, the agency released a Financial
Capability Assessment Framework. The document identifies additional information that may help
some communities provide a more complete picture of their financial capability than under the
1997 guidance alone. The new framework includes two sets of examples meant to supplement—
but not revise—the existing guidance. One set of examples concerns residential impacts, such as
service area poverty rates and trends, or the percent of households that own versus rent. The
second set of examples concerns the financial strength of the community, such as: unemployment
data; state or local legal limitations on property taxes, other revenue streams, or debt levels; or
other financial obligations, such as drinking water infrastructure, that significantly affect a city’s
ability to raise revenue.14
Communities’ investment needs for clean water infrastructure are large—estimated by states and
EPA in 2008 to be nearly $300 billion through 2028.15 Funding needs for drinking water projects
also are substantial; projects needs were estimated in 2011 to total $385 billion nationwide
through 2031.16 The 2014 Financial Capability Assessment Framework does allow for
consideration of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) obligations as relevant information about a
community’s overall financial capability. For example, a city’s bond rating can be affected by
both wastewater and drinking water obligations. The purpose of the assessment is to aid in
establishing schedules for developing and implementing integrated plans and permit and consent
decree implementation to meet CWA requirements. EPA’s policies do not similarly address or
integrate planning for communities’ additional water infrastructure challenges of meeting SDWA
requirements.
Using a wider range or more nuanced factors to assess financial capability would in all likelihood
lead to additional determinations that affordability is a challenge for many U.S. communities.
Still, what response regulators and policymakers should make to such information is unclear.
Some stakeholders would likely be satisfied with additional time to achieve compliance with
applicable requirements, while others undoubtedly would prefer more time and relaxation of the
requirements themselves. Many stakeholders seek flexibility in meeting regulatory requirements,
as well as increased federal spending on local water and wastewater infrastructure projects.
Federal and state regulators have considerable, but not unlimited, discretion to provide extended
compliance time, but much less flexibility to alter standards or provide additional funds.
Congressional Interest
EPA’s integrated planning process and community affordability are issues of interest to
legislators, because they relate to policymakers’ overall concern with funding needs for water
infrastructure projects and the federal role in assisting communities. Both issues have been
14 Ken Kopocis, EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, and Cynthia Giles, EPA Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement, Financial Capability Assessment Framework for Municipal Clean Water Act Requirements,
memorandum, November 24, 2014, http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/cso/upload/municipal_fca_framework.pdf.
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008, Report to Congress, EPA-832-R-10-
002, May 2010, http://epa.gov/cwns/cwns2008rtc.pdf.
16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, EPA-816-R-
13-006, April 2013, http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/dwns/index.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
6
EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure
addressed in legislation and through congressional oversight. In the 114th Congress, H.R. 1093,
the Clean Water Compliance and Ratepayer Affordability Act of 2015, would direct EPA to carry
out a pilot program to work with communities desiring to implement an integrated
stormwater/wastewater management program. The bill would allow extended CWA discharge
permit terms for such communities, and it would allow for modification of consent decrees to
reflect terms of an integrated plan.17
In addition, while communities generally support the financial capability framework issued by
EPA in 2014, some support legislation that would further expand the criteria for determining
affordability. In report language accompanying FY2016 appropriations legislation for EPA, the
Senate Appropriations Committee directed EPA to contract with the National Academy of Public
Administration to conduct an independent study to create a definition and framework for
community affordability and report to Congress within one year.18
Some in Congress have sought financial support to test EPA’s integrated planning policy. In 2014,
Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s
Water Resources Subcommittee wrote to House appropriators to request funds for a limited
number of pilot projects. The letter requested $5 million in FY2015 appropriations for three to
five projects per EPA region (30 to 50 projects in all) to assist communities in developing and
implementing integrated plans. If successfully implemented, the letter said, EPA’s framework
“could help communities more affordably manage their clean water obligations while ensuring
continuous progress toward water quality goals.”19 Some utility and municipal groups also have
been seeking funding for pilot projects, and, as noted above, in October 2014, EPA awarded
grants to five communities to assist them in developing integrated plans. In the report
accompanying FY2016 appropriations legislation for EPA, the House Appropriations Committee
said that it supports EPA’s efforts to expand technical assistance for communities seeking to
develop and implement an integrated planning approach, but the committee did not recommend
specific funding for such assistance.20
In July 2014, the Water Resources Subcommittee held a hearing to review EPA’s 2012 integrated
planning policy. The subcommittee heard from witnesses who contended that EPA has not
provided enough regulatory flexibility in implementing the policy. Some witnesses urged
Congress to pass legislation that would require EPA to speed its approval of integrated plans, and
some urged EPA to develop “model permits” to serve as templates for integrated plans.21
17 Related bills have been introduced previously, including H.R. 2707, H.R. 3862, and S. 2995 in the 113th Congress,
and H.R. 1189 and S. 2094 in the 112th Congress. In addition to addressing integrated planning, H.R. 3862 in the 113th
Congress and S. 2094 in the 112th Congress would have directed EPA to revise the 1997 affordability guidance, which
has been heavily criticized by some local governments.
18 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations, 2016, Report to accompany S. 1645, 114th Cong., 1st sess., June 23, 2015, S.Rept. 114-70, p.
54.
19 Letter from Representative Bob Gibbs and Representative Tim Bishop to Representative Ken Calvert, Chairman, and
Representative Jim Moran, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, House
Committee on Appropriations, April 1, 2014.
20 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, 2016, Report together with Minority Views to accompany H.R. 2822, 114th Cong., 1st sess., June 18,
2015, H.Rept. 114-170, p. 53.
21 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, Integrated Planning and Permitting Framework: An Opportunity for EPA to Provide Communities with
Flexibility to Make Smart Investments in Water Quality, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., July 24, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
7
EPA Policies Concerning Integrated Planning and Affordability of Water Infrastructure
The Water Resources Subcommittee also held two hearings in the 112th Congress on EPA’s efforts
to provide flexibility to communities in addressing wastewater and stormwater project needs. The
first hearing, in December 2011, examined EPA’s integrated planning policy, then still in draft
form, and the second hearing invited witnesses to discuss the policy document, which EPA had
issued in June. Particularly at the second hearing, in July 2012, witnesses addressed concerns
with EPA’s approach to determining a community’s ability to afford water infrastructure projects.
Conclusion
Local government stakeholders generally support EPA’s efforts to encourage ways for
communities to prioritize their investments in CWA infrastructure and to consider a wide range of
factors that affect affordability of such investments. As described in this report, cities and states
have continuing concerns with aspects of both the integrated planning policy and the financial
capability assessment framework. Nevertheless, these recent policies may partially help local
governments address the economic challenges of meeting their CWA water infrastructure
obligations. As discussed in this report, EPA’s 2014 Financial Capability Assessment Framework
is focused on plans and implementation to meet CWA requirements. While it might be beneficial
to municipalities if EPA’s policies encompassed priorities, plans, and schedules for all of a
community’s water infrastructure obligations—including for drinking water projects—currently
that is not the case.
Author Contact Information
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
ccopeland@crs.loc.gov, 7-7227
Congressional Research Service
8