Order Code RS20770
January 5, 2001
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Clean Water Issues in the 107th Congress:
An Overview
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
Key water quality issues that may face 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. This Act is the principal law that deals with
polluting activity in the nation’s lakes, rivers, and coastal waters and authorizes funds to
aid construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Legislative prospects for
comprehensively amending it have been stalled over whether and exactly how to change
the law.
If clean water issues receive attention in the 107th Congress, attention could focus
on water infrastructure funding, 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
contentious issue in the past, also remains on the legislative agenda for some Members.
Consideration of specific issues will depend in part on the CWA policy agenda of the
new Bush Administration and on priorities of the key committees that have major
jurisdiction over the Act. This report will be updated as developments warrant.
Background
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal law that governs pollution in the
nation’s lakes, rivers, and coastal waters. Originally enacted in 1948 and significantly
revised in 1972 (P.L. 92-500), the Act was last comprehensively amended in 1987 (P.L.
100-4). These amendments are now being implemented by states, cities, regulated
industries, and the federal government. Since 1972, application of pollution control
technology by industries and cities has led to significant water quality improvements: about
60% of waters surveyed by states are clean enough to support basic uses such as fishing
and swimming, while about 40% of surface waters fail to meet standards. Forty-seven
states now have some form of fish-consumption advisory in effect (including 100% of
Great Lakes waters), and one-third of shellfishing beds are closed or restricted, due to
water pollution problems.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
Authorizations for most current program funding expired Sept. 30, 1990, but
Congress has continued to appropriate funds to carry out 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.
The Act consists of two major parts: regulatory provisions that impose stringent
requirements on industries and cities to abate pollution; and provisions that authorize
federal financial assistance for municipal wastewater treatment plant construction. Both
major parts are supported by research activities, plus permit and enforcement provisions.
In the past, congressional efforts to amend the CWA have dealt with all aspects of the law,
with the objective of strengthening water quality programs.
Recent 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 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.
However, the proposals in H.R. 961 were very controversial, and the Senate did not take
up that bill or other CWA legislation during the 104th Congress.
In the 105th Congress, congressional committees did not initiate legislative activity
on clean water issues. 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 ("House Staff Initiate Effort to Find Consensus on
Clean Water Issues,"
Inside EPA, May 30, 1997: 9). 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, clean lakes, and the
National Estuary Program, in P.L. 106-457). Further, 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).
CRS-3
During this time, the Clinton Administration did not offer proposals to reauthorize
the CWA. 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 February 1998, the 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 is 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, more than 100 actions, consist mainly of existing programs that were proposed
to receive increased funding or be accelerated with performance-specific deadlines.
President Clinton’s FY1999 budget identified the Clean Water Action Plan as a high
priority for environmental programs in the budget. It requested a total of $2.5 billion
(33% over 1998 base funding levels) for activities under the Plan. However, in the
appropriations process, where the Plan has primarily been considered, congressional
support was mixed. FY1999 funding bills provided $2.0 billion, including less than 10%
of the increased funding that had been sought. Similarly, for FY2000, the Administration
requested $2.45 billion for the Plan. Appropriations bills provided $2.17 billion–$128
million more than in FY1999, but $322 million less than was requested. While EPA has
received close to full funding for its activities, other agencies and departments involved in
the Plan received no or only small increases to support their activities. For FY2001, the
President’s budget requested $2.76 billion for the Plan, a 27% increase over FY2000.
Final FY2001 appropriations have not been calculated. (For additional information, see
CRS Report 98-150,
Clean Water Action Plan: Background and Early Implementation.)
Issues in the 107th Congress
Key water quality issues that may face 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 been at an impasse over whether and exactly how to change
the law. Many issues that might be 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.
Some observers speculate that, rather than taking up comprehensive CWA
reauthorization legislation as it has traditionally done, Congress might 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 in the 107th Congress, topics that
might be of interest include water infrastructure funding, 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.
Consideration of specific issues will depend in part on the policy agenda of the Bush
Administration. The new Administration’s views on clean water topics are not well
CRS-4
known, as these issues were not prominent in the 2000 Presidential campaign. Specific
legislative issues also will be guided by priorities of the key committees that have major
jurisdiction over the Act (Senate Environment and Public Works, House Transportation
and Infrastructure). Because of provisions of House rules adopted in 1995 that limit
committee leaders to three consecutive terms, new full committee and subcommittee
chairmen will direct the activities of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Water Infrastructure Funding. The 1987 CWA amendments authorized $18
billion to aid construction of public wastewater treatment facilities and established a new
program of federal grants to capitalize State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds
(SRFs), or state loan programs for water infrastructure. Authorizations for SRF grants
expired at the end of FY1994. 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. Research by others estimates that needs are much higher, perhaps
as much as $1 trillion over the next 20 years. Because remaining funding needs are large,
at issue is whether and how to extend assistance to meet needs, how to allocate funds
among states, and how to prioritize projects and funding. Of particular concern is assisting
small and poor communities that have had the most difficulty in adjusting from the Act’s
previous categorical grants program to SRF loans. (For additional information, see CRS
Report 98-323,
Wastewater Treatment: Overview and Background.)
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 waterbody can receive without violating
water quality standards. If a state fails to do so, EPA is required to develop the list of
impaired waters and make its own TMDL determination. Most states have lacked the
resources to do TMDL analyses, which involve complex assessments of water quality
problems, pollution sources, and needed pollution reductions, and EPA has been both
reluctant to override states and has also lacked resources to do so. Thus, there has been
little implementation of the provision, which Congress enacted in 1972.
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
suits tried or settled to date, 19 have resulted in court orders requiring expeditious
development of TMDLs. In 1999, EPA proposed regulatory changes to strengthen the
TMDL program. EPA’s proposal was widely criticized for its costs and possible new
pollution controls that might be imposed on industries, cities, farmers, and others. On July
11, 2000, EPA issued a final rule to revise the program, stimulating more controversy.
The rule, which is scheduled to take effect Oct. 31, 2001, 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.
Congressional interest has been high: committees held 13 oversight hearings during
the 106th Congress, and bills to modify or delay the proposal were introduced. The
FY2001 appropriation bill with funds for EPA (P.L. 106-377) includes report language
mandating studies by the National Academy of Sciences on the scientific basis of the July
final rule and by EPA on the potential costs to states and businesses of implementing the
CRS-5
revised TMDL program. Congressional oversight is likely to continue in the 107th
Congress; legislation is possible. (For additional information, see CRS Report 97-831,
Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of Pollutants.)
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 feeding activities, thus concentrating animal populations
and manure. Animal waste is frequently applied to land for disposal and to utilize the
nutrient value of manure to benefit crops. However, if not managed properly, it can pose
risks to water quality and public health, contributing pollutants such as nutrients,
pathogens, sediment, and ammonia to the environment.
Existing EPA regulations, issued in the 1970s, require CWA discharge permits for
the largest AFOs (about 6,600 out of 450,000 total facilities nationwide). However, EPA
acknowledges that compliance and enforcement of these permit rules are poor, and the
regulations themselves are outdated. In March 1999, EPA and the Department of
Agriculture issued a national strategy intended 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. The strategy consists of multiple elements
and is based on a national performance expectation that all AFO owners and operators —
regardless of the size of their operations — will develop and implement site-specific
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs) by 2009. With the exception of
large AFO operations that already are subject to CWA requirements, the agencies expect
that the vast majority of CNMPs will be developed and implemented voluntarily.
As part of the national AFO strategy, EPA currently is working with states on a 2-
phase approach for issuing permits for 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. Issues that Congress has
addressed and is likely to continue reviewing include impacts and costs imposed on the
agricultural sector; how the proposed combination of regulatory and incentive-based
measures will achieve control of agricultural runoff that adversely affects water quality;
and whether legislation is needed to define national rules and policies regarding animal
waste management. (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–70% of impaired rivers and streams and 49% of impaired lakes, according to EPA.
CRS-6
Scrutiny of nonpoint pollution problems, including from agriculture, may occur as
policymakers assess additional steps to continue progress towards water quality goals.
Regulatory Protection of Wetlands. Restoring and protecting wetlands was a key
feature of the Clinton Administration’s Clean Water Action Plan. One of its goals has
been to achieve a net gain of 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 has been one of the most
contentious environmental policy issues, especially in the context of the CWA which
contains a key regulatory tool, the wetlands permit program in Section 404. It requires
landowners or developers to obtain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits to carry out
activities involving disposal of dredged or fill material into navigable waters of the United
States, including wetlands. EPA provides environmental guidance on permitting and can
veto a permit, based on environmental impacts. 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.
Recent legislative proposals to modify Section 404 have raised 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 each of these issues vary. Many conservationists
contend that statutory changes that have been proposed would weaken wetlands
protection 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" due to Section 404
requirements, 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 the Corps’ implementation of the
nationwide permit program, which is intended to minimize the burden of regulation but has
been widely criticized, and a federal court ruling that overturned a regulation (called the
Tulloch rule) issued by the Corps and EPA which had extended the scope of wetlands
regulation to certain landclearing and excavation activities that previously had not been
regulated. 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. Legislation to establish statutory requirements for mitigation banks
has been proposed and could receive attention in the 107th Congress. (For additional
information, see CRS Issue Brief IB97014,
Wetlands Issues.)