The Clean Water Act at Fifty: Highlights and Lessons Learned from a Half Century of Transformative Legislation

The Clean Water Act at Fifty: Highlights and Lessons Learned from a Half Century of Transformative Legislation

Statement of
Laura Gatz
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Before
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
U.S. House of Representatives
Hearing on
“The Clean Water Act at Fifty: Highlights and
Lessons Learned from a Half Century of
Transformative Legislation”
September 20, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
TE10079

Congressional Research Service
1
hairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member Rouzer, and Members of the subcommittee, good
morning. My name is Laura Gatz, and I am an analyst in Environmental Policy for the
C Congressional Research Service (CRS). On behalf of CRS, I want to thank you for inviting me to
testify today. I have been asked by the Subcommittee to discuss the history of the Clean Water Act,
including the goals of the act, selected trends in its implementation identified by the subcommittee, and
challenges that remain.
In serving the U.S. Congress on a nonpartisan and objective basis, CRS does not take positions on
legislation and makes no recommendations to policymakers. My testimony draws on my own area of
specialization at CRS—the Clean Water Act and water quality. I work with a team of analysts with
relevant expertise, including policy, economics, toxicology, chemistry, engineering, and law to address
related issues for Congress. My CRS colleagues and I remain available to assist the subcommittee in its
development and consideration of water quality issues and other legislation.
History of the Clean Water Act
The origins of the modern-day Clean Water Act date back to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA),
which was the first use of a federal statute to control water pollution.1 Under Section 13 of the RHA,
sometimes referred to as the “Refuse Act,” it was unlawful to discharge “any refuse matter of any kind or
description whatever other than that flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid
state into any navigable water of the United States, or into any tributary of any navigable water.”2
Although the statute focused on preventing obstacles to navigation, it became a tool for controlling water
pollution.3
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (FWPCA) was the first major law enacted by Congress
specifically to address water pollution in the United States.4 Growing concern about untreated domestic
sewage and industrial waste polluting waterways, and the impacts on public health and welfare, prompted
its enactment.5 The FWPCA was designed to control water pollution primarily through state efforts, with
a limited federal role. It did not include federally required goals, objectives, limits, or guidelines. Rather,
the federal role consisted mainly of support for research and limited loans to state and local governments
to assist in the construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Federal involvement in enforcement was
limited to matters involving interstate waters and only with the consent of the state in which the pollution
originated.
During the latter half of the 1950s and well into the 1960s, several amendments to the FWPCA shaped
water pollution control programs.6 The amendments dealt largely with federal assistance to municipal
dischargers and with federal enforcement programs for all dischargers. During this period, the federal role
and federal jurisdiction were gradually extended to include navigable intrastate waters, as well as
interstate waters. Water quality standards became a feature of the law in 1965, requiring states to set
standards for interstate waters that would be used to determine actual pollution levels and pollution
control requirements.7 By the late 1960s, a widespread perception by a range of stakeholders existed that

1 33 U.S.C. §401 et seq.
2 33 U.S.C. §407.
3 Joel M. Gross and Lynn Dodge, “History of the Clean Water Act,” in Clean Water Act (American Bar Association, 2005), p. 5.
4 P.L. 80-845.
5 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works, Water Pollution Control, Bills to Provide for Water-
Pollution-Control Activities in the United States Public Health Service, and for Other Purposes, 80th Cong., 1st sess., June 1947.
6 P.L. 84-660, P.L. 87-88, P.L. 89-234, and P.L. 89-753.
7 P.L. 89-234.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————

Congressional Research Service
2
the enforcement procedures were too time-consuming, and that the water quality standards approach was
flawed because of difficulties in linking a particular discharger to violations of stream quality standards.8
Additionally, frustration among stakeholders mounted over the slow pace of pollution cleanup efforts, and
the concern that control technologies were being developed but not applied to the problems.9 These
perceptions and frustrations, along with increased public interest in environmental protection, set the
stage for the 1972 amendments.
In congressional hearings and reports in the early 1970s, some Members of Congress contended that the
existing water pollution control legislation was inadequate, and that many of the nation’s waters
continued to be polluted, with those waters near urban and industrial areas “unfit for most purposes.”10
On October 18, 1972, Congress passed sweeping amendments to the FWPCA, which gave the act its
current shape.11 As amended in 1972, the law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The 1972 amendments significantly reorganized and expanded the FWPCA, establishing a new
framework to control water pollution. Among the revisions, the amendments set ambitious goals for water
quality; established the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into waters of the United States;
strengthened and streamlined enforcement; and increased federal assistance for municipal treatment
facility construction. The amendments expanded the federal role, giving the recently established U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to implement the act’s programs while retaining the
states’ role of day-to-day implementation of the law.12
The CWA’s objective, as stated in the 1972 amendments, is “to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”13 The CWA also established two goals: to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985; and as an interim goal, wherever
attainable, to achieve water quality that is “fishable” and “swimmable” by July 1, 1983.14 Although much
progress has been made, those goals have not been met fully in many places. While those dates have long
passed, the goals remain, and efforts to attain them continue.
Over the years, a number of laws have amended portions of the CWA. While a comprehensive discussion
of the amendments is beyond the scope of this testimony, some of these amendments are discussed below
in the context of trends in CWA implementation.
Selected Trends in Clean Water Act Implementation
The CWA consists of six titles and a range of provisions, which collectively aim to achieve the act’s
objectives. The following discussion of trends focuses on selected elements of the statute, identified by
the subcommittee:
 federal financial assistance for wastewater infrastructure;
 permitting programs to reduce discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States;

8 Joan M. Kovalic, The Clean Water Act with Amendments (Washington, D.C.: The Water Pollution Control Federation, 1982), p.
7.
9 Ibid.
10 Congressional Research Service (CRS), A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Serial
No. 93-1, January 1973, pp. 1412, 1420-1425.
11 P.L. 92-500.
12 Ibid.
13 CWA §101(a); 33 U.S.C. §1251.
14 Ibid. Fishable and swimmable are the terms commonly used to reflect the goal that waters provide for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, as well as for recreation in and on the water.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————

link to page 5 link to page 5 Congressional Research Service
3
 efforts to manage more diffuse nonpoint source pollution; and
 place-based restoration programs, such as the National Estuary Program and CWA
Geographic Programs.
Wastewater Infrastructure Funding15
Prior to the 1972 amendments to the CWA, the federal government administered a comparatively small
program of aid for constructing municipal wastewater treatment plants.16
Title II of the 1972 CWA authorized grants to states for wastewater treatment plant construction under a
program administered by the EPA. Federal funds were provided through annual appropriations under a
state-by-state allocation formula contained in the act. States used their annual allotments to make grants to
local governments to build or upgrade categories of wastewater treatment projects, including treatment
plants and related sewer infrastructure. Between FY1973 and FY1990, Congress appropriated nearly $52
billion under the CWA Title II program, representing the largest nonmilitary public works program since
the Interstate Highway System.17
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4) amended the CWA to establish the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program. The CWSRF program is the main federal funding program for
wastewater infrastructure projects throughout the country.18 After a two-year transition period, this
program effectively replaced the CWA Title II grants program. Since the first appropriations for the
CWSRF program in FY1989, Congress has provided more than $49 billion in grants to states and Puerto
Rico to capitalize their CWSRFs.19 According to EPA’s national CWSRF funding data report, federal
funds—together with state matching contributions, repaid loans, and other funds—have provided $153
billion in SRF assistance to support more than 44,000 SRF loans and debt refinance agreements.20 Figure
1 illustrates the history of EPA wastewater infrastructure appropriations from FY1973 to FY2026 in both
nominal dollars and inflation-adjusted (2018) dollars.21

15 Jonathan Ramseur, CRS Specialist in Environmental Policy, authored this section.
16 The FWPCA of 1948 (P.L. 80-845) first started the federal aid to municipal wastewater treatment authorities.
17 This figure is nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
18 33 U.S.C. §§1381-1387. For more details regarding the history of the CWSRF and its predecessor grant program in CWA Title
II, see CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by Jonathan L. Ramseur and Mary
Tiemann.
19 U.S. territories, Indian tribes, and the District of Columbia receive grants from EPA under separate CWA authorities. This
figure is nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
20 EPA, Clean Water SRF Program Information, National Summary, February 2022, https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/clean-water-
state-revolving-fund-cwsrf-national-information-management-system-reports. This figure is nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
21 The increase in FY2009 was due to $4.0 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5). For more information, see CRS Report R46464, EPA Water Infrastructure
Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by Jonathan L. Ramseur and Elena H. Humphreys. The
appropriations for FY2022 through FY2026 include emergency supplemental appropriations provided in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58). The FY2022 CWSRF appropriations include both supplemental appropriations
from IIJA of $1.902 billion and regular appropriations (P.L. 117-103), a portion of which did not go directly to the CWSRF
program. The regular appropriations for FY2022 in P.L. 117-103 include “community project funding/congressionally directed
spending” (CPF/CDS) items, which some have referred to as “earmarks.” The act sets aside 27% ($443.6 million) of the FY2022
CWSRF appropriations ($1.639 billion) to CPF/CDS. Such funds are to be distributed directly to recipients, instead of to states’
SRF programs. Thus, the reservation of funds effectively decreases the total amount available for allotment as state capitalization
grants to $1.195 billion. The combined FY2022 appropriations illustrated in the figure for the CWSRF program are $3.097
billion.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————

link to page 6
Congressional Research Service
4
Figure 1. EPA Wastewater Infrastructure Annual Appropriations
(adjusted [$2018] and not adjusted for inflation [nominal])

Source: Prepared by CRS using information from annual appropriations acts, committee reports, and explanatory
statements presented in the Congressional Record. Amounts reflect applicable rescissions and supplemental appropriations,
including $4 bil ion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). Constant dol ars calculated from
Office of Management of Budget, Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–
2026,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/. The deflator values used for FY2021 through FY2026 are
estimates.
Notes: The funding levels for FY2023 through FY2026 are likely to change reflecting funding for the CWSRF through
annual appropriations. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 provides $1.639 bil ion for the CWSRF program in
FY2022. Of this amount, $443 mil ion would be provided as “Community Project Funding Items/Congressionally Directed
Spending,” and is not included in the figure. In addition, the figure does not include funding for special purpose projects
(often referred to as “earmarks”) that occurred between FY1989 and FY2011. For more historical details, see CRS Report
96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by Jonathan L. Ramseur and Mary Tiemann.
Figure 2 illustrates the enacted appropriations for the CWSRF program. The figure depicts regular
appropriations between FY1989 and FY2022. As the figure indicates, regular appropriation levels have
remained relatively consistent in recent years. The figure also illustrates (1) the supplemental
appropriations from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5), which
provided $4 billion in FY2009, and (2) supplemental appropriations from the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), which provides supplemental appropriations for FY2022 through
FY2026.22

22 For more information, see CRS Report R46892, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Drinking Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure, by Elena H. Humphreys and Jonathan L. Ramseur.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————

Congressional Research Service
5
Figure 2. CWSRF Appropriations: FY1989-FY2026
(not adjusted for inflation)

Source: Prepared by CRS using information from annual appropriations acts, ARRA, IIJA, committee reports, and
explanatory statements presented in the Congressional Record.
Notes: ARRA = American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5); IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (P.L. 117-58), signed by President Biden on November 8, 2021. IIJA provided supplemental appropriations for the
CWSRF for FY2022 through FY2026. The funding levels for FY2023 through FY2026 are likely to change reflecting funding
for the CWSRF through annual appropriations. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 provides $1.639 bil ion for the
CWSRF program in FY2022. Of this amount, $443 mil ion would be provided as “Community Project Funding
Items/Congressionally Directed Spending,” and is not included in the figure. In addition, the figure does not include funding
for special purpose projects (often referred to as “earmarks”) that occurred between FY1989 and FY2011. For more
historical details, see CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by Jonathan L.
Ramseur and Mary Tiemann.
Over time, Congress has amended the list of projects and activities eligible for CWSRF assistance. Prior
to 2014, states were authorized to provide CWSRF financial assistance for a range of projects and
activities that was more narrow than the list of eligible projects and activities available today. This earlier
list generally included the construction or repair of publicly owned municipal wastewater treatment
plants, related equipment and piping, and stormwater systems. Prior to 2014, additional eligible uses
included implementation of approved state nonpoint source management programs, and development and
implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans developed under the National
Estuary Program.23
In 2014, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA; P.L. 113-121) amended
the CWA, adding several projects and activities, including measures to manage, reduce, treat, or recapture
stormwater or subsurface drainage water; replacement of decentralized treatment systems (e.g., septic
tanks); energy-efficiency improvements at treatment works; reuse and recycling of wastewater or
stormwater; and security improvements at treatment works.
In 2018, the America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA; P.L. 115-270) amended the list of
eligible activities to allow qualified nonprofits to provide assistance to certain individuals for the repair or

23 33 U.S.C. §1383(c).
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————

Congressional Research Service
6
replacement of existing decentralized wastewater treatment systems, or for the connection of an
individual household to a centralized publicly owned treatment works.
Although the CWSRF program is generally a loan program, the CWSRF program authorizes states to
provide SRF recipients with additional subsidization (e.g., “forgiveness of principal” and “negative
interest loans”) under certain conditions. The conditions for awarding this support include either (1)
affordability criteria (as determined by the state) for the entity receiving the subsidization; or (2) project
eligibility, which include projects that (i) address water-efficiency goals; (ii) address energy-efficiency
goals; (iii) mitigate stormwater runoff; or (iv) encourage sustainable project planning, design, and
construction. IIJA amended the CWSRF statutory provisions to direct states to use at least 10% of their
capitalization grants for additional subsidization under certain conditions. This “floor” for additional
subsidization would apply to grants provided through the regular appropriations process in the future. In
addition, appropriations acts from recent years have required states to use minimum percentages of their
federal grant amounts to provide additional subsidization. This trend began with the ARRA in 2009 (P.L.
111-5), which required states to use at least 50% of their funds to “provide additional subsidization to
eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans or grants or any
combination of these.” Subsequent appropriation acts have included similar conditions, with varying
percentages of subsidization. The FY2022 appropriations act (P.L. 117-103) contains a provision that
requires states to use 10% of their capitalization grant for additional subsidization. In an EPA
memorandum on May 12, 2022, EPA interprets this provision as “additive” to the 10% floor in the CWA.
In addition to the CWSRF program, Congress has established other funding and financing programs in
recent years that support wastewater infrastructure projects.24 These programs include the following:
 Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program. Congress
established the WIFIA program in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of
2014 (P.L. 113-121; 33 U.S.C. §§3901-3914). WIFIA authorizes EPA and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to provide credit assistance—secured or direct loans—for a
range of water infrastructure projects.25 Under WIFIA, EPA provides credit assistance
directly to an eligible recipient. To be eligible for WIFIA assistance, projects must
generally cost $20 million or more. The WIFIA program can provide a large amount of
credit assistance relative to its budget authority. Annual WIFIA appropriations primarily
cover long-term credit subsidy costs, which are calculated to cover the risk that the loan
will not be repaid. As such, relative to its budget authority (e.g., $63.5 million in FY2022
to cover subsidy costs), appropriations provide a larger amount of total credit assistance.
For example, Congress capped the FY2022 WIFIA credit assistance authority at $12.5
billion.
 Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Grant Program. In 2000, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-554) amended the CWA by adding Section 221,
which authorized EPA to establish a grant program to address overflows from municipal
combined sewer systems and from municipal separate sanitary sewers. In 2018, AWIA
modified the program to include stormwater infrastructure. P.L. 117-103 provides $43.0
million for FY2022.

24 For more information, see CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported Projects and Programs for Wastewater, Drinking Water,
and Water Supply Infrastructure, coordinated by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
25 For information on USACE implementation, see CRS Insight IN11577, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Infrastructure Financing Program (CWIFP): Status and Issues.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————

Congressional Research Service
7
 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Programs.26 IIJA established several
new grant programs that address specific objectives, such as efficiency, resiliency, and
support for infrastructure in low-income communities or communities with smaller
populations. The act authorized appropriations for these new programs, but to date, these
programs have not received appropriations.
Permitting Programs
Another key aspect of the CWA is the statute’s permit requirements. The CWA prohibits the discharge of
pollutants from any point source (i.e., a discrete conveyance such as a pipe or outfall) to waters of the
United States without a permit.27 One such permit, issued by states and EPA under the act’s National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, applies to industrial and municipal
dischargers.28 These permits incorporate both technology-based and water-quality-based requirements. A
separate type of permit, issued primarily by the USACE under Section 404 of the act, is required to
discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.29 Both of these permitting programs
were established in the 1972 CWA.
For many years following the enactment of the CWA, EPA and states used their NPDES permitting
authorities to reduce discharges from municipal wastewater treatment facilities and industrial facilities. As
these more discrete sources of pollution became better controlled, attention turned to the remaining
sources that continued to prevent attainment of water quality standards. In the 1987 CWA amendments,
Congress directed EPA to implement permitting requirements for stormwater discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems, construction activities, and industrial activities.30
In the decades following the promulgation of stormwater permitting requirements, municipalities, in
particular, have faced challenges in complying with these permitting requirements, and in funding efforts
to achieve compliance, particularly in areas with more stringent permit limits.31 Some of these challenges
have been exacerbated in more recent years by increased rainfall and flooding events.32 Population growth
and development have also, in some areas, led to increases in impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, parking
lots) that block rainfall from infiltrating into the subsurface. These changes may increase both the volume
and pollutant concentrations in the stormwater runoff.
Congress has responded to the concerns of municipalities through efforts such as modifying eligible uses
for CWSRF funds and by amending the eligibility provisions for the CWA Section 221 grant program
(discussed above) to include stormwater infrastructure. Congress and EPA have also taken action to

26 For more information, see CRS Report R46892, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Drinking Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure, by Elena H. Humphreys and Jonathan L. Ramseur.
27 33 U.S.C. §1311.
28 33 U.S.C. §1342. Under CWA Section 402, the authority to issue NPDES permits to regulated sources and enforce permits is
delegated to states that meet the statutory criteria for delegation (e.g., adequate laws and procedures). EPA has authorized 47
states and 1 territory to administer the NPDES permit program. EPA administers NPDES permits in Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, and certain territories and Indian lands. Per CWA Section 502(3) (33 U.S.C.
§1362(3)), state is defined to include a state, the District of Columbia, or any of the U.S. territories. Per CWA Section 518 (33
U.S.C. §1377), EPA is authorized to treat an Indian tribe as a state for certain sections of the CWA, including the sections
pertaining to CWA permitting.
29 33 U.S.C. §1344.
30 P.L. 100-4.
31 Environmental Financial Advisory Board, Evaluating Stormwater Infrastructure Funding and Financing, March 2020,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/documents/efab-
evaluating_stormwater_infrastructure_funding_and_financing.pdf.
32 Ibid.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————

link to page 10 Congressional Research Service
8
support the use of green infrastructure—measures that use plant or soil systems, permeable pavement, or
other similar surfaces to help reduce stormwater runoff.33 Some studies have shown that green
infrastructure may be more cost-effective than traditional gray infrastructure, particularly when co-
benefits are considered.34
Efforts to Manage Nonpoint Source Pollution
Prior to the 1987 CWA amendments, CWA programs were primarily directed at point source pollution.
Except for general planning activities, little attention had been given to nonpoint source pollution (runoff
from agricultural lands, forests, and urban areas), despite estimates that it might represent a significant
source of the nation’s remaining surface water pollution issues.35 Amendments to the CWA in 1987
established measures intended to address such pollution by directing states to develop and implement
nonpoint source management programs.36 Further, the 1987 amendments authorized EPA to provide funds
to implement nonpoint source management programs. Under Section 319, EPA awards grants to states,
territories, and tribes to support a variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance,
education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of
specific nonpoint source implementation projects.37 Figure 3 illustrates the history of Section 319 grant
funds provided by EPA, in millions, from 1990 through 2022.
Over the past several decades, concern about nonpoint source pollution, and its significance to remaining
water quality issues, has persisted. Notably, EPA recognizes that nutrient pollution—including nitrogen
and phosphorus—is one of the nation’s most serious, pervasive, costly, and challenging water quality
problems.38 Nutrient pollution contributes to toxic harmful algal blooms and anoxic zones, contamination
of drinking water sources, and costly impacts on recreation, tourism, and fisheries. While both point and
nonpoint sources contribute nutrients to waterways, it is widely recognized that nonpoint sources play a
substantial role in nutrient pollution in many watersheds.39 The CWA does not authorize EPA to regulate
nonpoint sources. EPA’s authority to address nonpoint sources involves the use of grants and funding—
such as Section 319—and related grants and technical assistance. Some argue that the voluntary nature of
controlling nonpoint sources is a key challenge in achieving the act’s water quality objectives. Some also
argue that EPA’s current role emphasizes the importance of funds that support nonpoint source pollution
reduction efforts.

33 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA: P.L. 111-5) required states to use not less than 20% of ARRA
grants “for projects to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative
activities.” Additionally, the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act (P.L. 115-436), which was enacted in January 2019,
amended the CWA to add a definition for the term green infrastructure (at 33 U.S.C. §1362(27) and a new section directing the
EPA Administrator to “promote the use of green infrastructure in, and coordinate the integration of green infrastructure into,
permitting and enforcement under this Act, planning efforts, research, technical assistance, and funding guidance of the
Environmental Protection Agency.”
34 EPA, “Green Infrastructure Cost-Benefit Resources,” https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/green-infrastructure-cost-
benefit-resources.
35 See, for example, “Senate consideration and passage of 100 H.R. 1,” Congressional Record, vol. 133 (January 21, 1987), pp.
1578, 1581, 1583.
36 P.L. 100-4.
37 EPA, “319 Grant Program for States and Territories,” https://www.epa.gov/nps/319-grant-program-states-and-territories.
38 EPA, “Nutrient Pollution,” https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/issue. See also Joel Beauvais, Deputy Assistant
Administrator, EPA, memorandum to State Environmental Commissioners, State Water Directors, “Renewed Call to Action to
Reduce Nutrient Pollution and Support for Incremental Actions to Protect Water Quality and Public Health,” September 22,
2016, https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/renewed-call-action-reduce-nutrient-pollution-and-support-incremental-actions.
39 Ibid.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————

Congressional Research Service
9
Figure 3. CWA Section 319 Grant Funds: 1990-2022
(as reported by EPA, in millions; not adjusted for inflation)

Source: EPA, 319 Grant Program for States and Territories, https://www.epa.gov/nps/319-grant-program-states-and-
territories.
Place-Based Restoration Programs
Although not initially included in the 1972 CWA, place-based restoration programs, another key element
of the CWA, have been established through amendments to the act. Place-based restoration programs
include the National Estuary Program (NEP) and CWA Geographic Programs.
National Estuary Program (NEP)
Congress established the NEP through amendments to the CWA in 1987.40 This program, administered by
the EPA, identifies “estuaries of national significance”41 that are threatened by pollution, development, or
overuse. Under this program EPA awards grants intended to support the development and implementation

40 P.L. 100-4.
41 The CWA does not define “estuary of national significance.” However, to facilitate its review of estuary nominations, EPA
developed guidance on the nomination process. Regarding national significance, governors were to provide information on why
the estuary is important to the nation, the geographic scope of the estuary, and how lessons learned from the estuary could apply
to other areas, among other things. EPA, The National Estuary Program: Final Guidance on the Contents of a Governor’s
Nomination, January 1990.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————

Congressional Research Service
10
of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) to restore and protect them.42 CCMPs
are long-term plans that contain actions to address a range of environmental issues, including water
quality, habitat, land use, fish and wildlife, and invasive species in the estuary. Through the NEP, EPA
works with federal agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, industry, and citizens
to address the environmental challenges in each estuary. The NEP includes 28 estuaries located along the
Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts, and in Puerto Rico.43 Congress has reauthorized the NEP program
several times; changes have included establishing new competitive grant awards to address urgent and
challenging issues that threaten the ecological and economic well-being of coastal areas, or that relate to
the coastal resiliency of NEP estuaries.44
CWA Geographic Programs
The CWA Geographic Programs, administered by EPA, also reflect broader collaborative efforts to
improve some of the nation’s aquatic resources that Congress, EPA, and states have identified as
economically and ecologically valuable. Some of the Geographic Programs have specific statutory
authority under individual provisions of the CWA (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Long Island
Sound, Lake Champlain, Lake Pontchartrain Basin, and Columbia River Basin). The 1987 amendments to
the CWA added the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes provisions to the statute.45 Congress later added
provisions for Long Island Sound and Lake Champlain in 1990,46 for Lake Pontchartrain in 2000,47 and
for the Columbia River Basin in 2016.48
Several other geographic programs are not individually authorized in the CWA, but Congress has
provided funding for each program in EPA appropriations (e.g., Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound, South
Florida, San Francisco Bay, and Southern New England estuaries). Within its congressional budget
justifications, EPA cites broad CWA authority for the administration of these other programs. Some of the
geographic programs receive funds through both the CWA Geographic Programs appropriations and
through NEP appropriations (e.g., Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, and San Francisco Bay).
Under the CWA Geographic Programs, activities include efforts to address water quality impairments,
clean up beaches, decrease coastal erosion, protect and improve aquatic habitat, support fisheries, and
protect public water supplies. Appropriations provided for the CWA Geographic Programs leverage
additional resources including funding and technical assistance made available from other federal and
state programs, local stakeholder groups, individuals, and others.

42 P.L. 100-4.
43 EPA, “Overview of the National Estuary Program,” https://www.epa.gov/nep/overview-national-estuary-program. Accessed
August 12, 2021.
44 P.L. 114-162 and P.L. 116-337. CWA §320(g)(4)(C) lists seven specific issues, such as extensive seagrass habitat losses that
result in significant impacts on fisheries and water quality, recurring harmful algal blooms, and unusual marine mammal
mortalities, that are included as “urgent and challenging issues.”
45 P.L. 100-4. Chesapeake Bay (33 U.S.C. §1267), Great Lakes (33 U.S.C. §1268).
46 P.L. 101-596. Long Island Sound (33 U.S.C. §1269), Lake Champlain (33 U.S.C. §1270).
47 P.L. 106-457. 33 U.S.C. §1273.
48 P.L. 114-322. 33 U.S.C. §1275. In 2016, Congress authorized the Columbia River Basin program in the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation Act (P.L. 114-322), but did not provide an authorization of appropriations for the program. In 2018,
Congress amended the CWA to add an authorization of appropriations for the program in America’s Water Infrastructure Act
(P.L. 115-270).
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————

Congressional Research Service
11
Successes and Challenges
The past 50 years of CWA implementation have yielded improvements in water quality in certain aspects.
CWA funding programs and CWA permitting programs have done much to reduce direct discharges of
untreated domestic sewage and industrial waste to the nation’s waterways. States continue to make
progress in their efforts to reduce stormwater discharges and to address nonpoint sources of pollution
through best management practices and other activities. Implementation of place-based programs, such as
the National Estuary Program and CWA Geographic Programs, have also bolstered coordination among a
range of stakeholders, leveraged resources, and led to comprehensive plans to achieve water quality and
restoration goals.
However, challenges remain as population growth and development and climate-related changes (e.g.,
increased frequency and intensity of storms) limit the progress made in addressing remaining water
quality issues, including those caused by nonpoint sources of pollution. In addition, although Congress
has provided and continues to provide funds for wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, funding needs
persist as states and localities address aging systems and needs for increased capacity and resilience to
address population growth and climate-related impacts.49 These and other aspects of CWA
implementation will continue to present Congress, EPA, states, and other stakeholders with hurdles in
their efforts to achieve the ambitious goals of the 1972 act.
This concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have. If additional research and analysis related to this issue would be
helpful, my CRS colleagues and I stand ready to assist the subcommittee.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

49 For example, EPA published its most recent needs survey in 2016, documenting infrastructure needs from 2012. In this survey,
EPA estimated that the capital cost of wastewater infrastructure needed to meet statutory water quality and public health
requirements and objectives exceeds $270 billion over a 20-year period. EPA, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) Report
to Congress—2012, 2016, https://www.epa.gov/cwns.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
TE10079