Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

Congressional research reportJan 4, 2007

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the

109th Congress

-name redactedSpecialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

January 4, 2007

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL33465

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

Summary

Legislative initiatives to comprehensively amend the Clean Water Act (CWA) have stalled for

some time as interested parties have debated whether and exactly how to change the law.

Congress has instead focused legislative attention on narrow bills to extend or modify selected

CWA programs, but not any comprehensive proposals. In the 109th Congress, two such bills were

enacted: a bill extending authorizations for the Long Island Sound program (H.R. 3963, P.L. 109137), and another concerning the Lake Pontchartrain Basin (H.R. 6121, P.L. 109-392). The House

also passed H.R. 1721, a bill to reauthorize coastal water quality programs, and several other

CWA bills were reported by House and Senate committees (including H.R. 4126, concerning the

Chesapeake Bay; and S. 2781, concerning wastewater facility security). A free-standing bill

intended to promote remediation of abandoned hardrock mines (S. 1848), which would have

affected CWA requirements for such projects, also was reported but not passed.

Following Gulf Coast hurricanes in 2005, the Senate passed legislation to streamline delivery of

funds to repair storm-damaged sewage treatment plants (S. 1709). Other bills intended to simplify

environmental review of recovery and rebuilding projects also were introduced (S. 1711, S.

1765/S. 1766). None of these was enacted.

For several years, the most prominent legislative water quality issue has concerned financial

assistance for municipal wastewater treatment projects. At issue is how the federal government

will assist states and cities in meeting needs to rebuild, repair, and upgrade wastewater treatment

plants, especially in light of capital costs that are projected to be as much as $390 billion over the

next two decades. In the 109th Congress, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

approved S. 1400, a bill authorizing $20 billion in federal grants to capitalize state clean water

infrastructure loan programs. A House committee approved bills to reauthorize other Clean Water

Act programs: H.R. 624 would have provided $1.5 billion in grants over six years for sewer

overflow projects; and H.R. 1359 would have extended a pilot program for alternative water

source projects. None of these bills was passed.

Other Clean Water Act issues have received attention from numerous stakeholders, but were not

considered by the 109th Congress. In particular, programs that regulate activities in wetlands,

especially CWA Section 404, have been criticized by landowners for intruding on private land-use

decisions and imposing excessive economic burdens. Environmentalists view these programs as

essential for maintaining the health of wetland ecosystems. These groups are concerned about a

2001 Supreme Court decision, the SWANCC case, that narrowed regulatory protection of

wetlands, a 2006 Court ruling that also addressed the regulatory jurisdiction of Section 404, and

related administrative actions, including 2003 policy guidance intended to interpret the SWANCC

case. Legislation to reverse the SWANCC ruling (H.R. 1356/S. 912, the Clean Water Authority

Restoration Act), and another bill to narrow the government’s regulatory jurisdiction (H.R. 2658,

the Federal Wetlands Jurisdiction Act), were introduced but were not enacted.

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

Contents

Most Recent Developments.........................................................................................................1

Background and Analysis ............................................................................................................1

Legislative Activity Since P.L. 100-4.....................................................................................2

109th Congress ................................................................................................................3

Recovery from 2005 Hurricanes......................................................................................4

Wastewater Security........................................................................................................5

Legislative Issues in the 109th Congress.......................................................................................6

Authorization of Water Infrastructure Funding ......................................................................6

Legislative Responses .....................................................................................................8

Other Clean Water Act Issues .............................................................................................. 10

Regulatory Protection of Wetlands ................................................................................ 10

TMDLs and State Water Quality Standards.................................................................... 13

“Good Samaritan” Legislation....................................................................................... 14

Other Implementation Issues ......................................................................................... 15

For Additional Reading ............................................................................................................. 16

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 16

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

Most Recent Developments

Before adjourning sine die in December 2006, Congress passed legislation to reauthorize the

Clean Water Act’s Lake Pontchartrain Basin program (H.R. 6121). President Bush signed this bill

into law on December 12 (P.L. 109-392). House and Senate committees reported several other

bills near the end of the 109th Congress, but none of these was enacted. The House Transportation

and Infrastructure Committee reported H.R. 4126, to reauthorize the act’s Chesapeake Bay

program. Two other bills reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee dealt

with security of wastewater treatment facilities (S. 2781), and incentives to promote remediation

of inactive and abandoned hardrock mines (S. 1848).

Background and Analysis

Although much progress has been made in achieving the ambitious goals that Congress

established 30-plus years ago to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of the nation’s waters, problems persist. The types of remaining water quality problems

are diverse, ranging from pollution runoff from farms and ranches, city streets, and other diffuse

or “nonpoint” sources, to metals, as well as organic and inorganic toxic substances discharged

from factories and sewage treatment plants.

The principal law that deals with polluting activity in the nation’s streams, lakes, estuaries, and

coastal waters is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500, enacted in 1972),

commonly known as the Clean Water Act, or CWA (amended by P.L. 95-217 in 1977, P.L. 97-117

in 1981, and P.L. 100-4 in 1987). It consists of two major parts: regulatory provisions that impose

progressively more stringent requirements on industries and cities to abate pollution and meet the

statutory goal of zero discharge of pollutants; and provisions that authorize federal financial

assistance for municipal wastewater treatment plant construction. Both parts are supported by

research activities, plus permit and enforcement provisions. Programs at the federal level are

administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); state and local governments have

major responsibilities to implement CWA programs through standard-setting, permitting, and

enforcement.1

The objective declared in the 1972 act of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and

biological integrity of the nation’s waters was accompanied by statutory goals to eliminate the

discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985 and to attain, wherever possible, waters

deemed “fishable and swimmable” by 1983. While those goals have not been fully achieved,

considerable progress has been made, especially in controlling conventional pollutants

(suspended solids, bacteria, and oxygen-consuming materials) discharged by industries and

municipal sewage treatment plants.

Progress has been mixed in controlling discharges of toxic pollutants (heavy metals, inorganic

and organic chemicals), which are more numerous and can harm human health and the

environment even when present in minute amounts—at the parts-per-billion level. Moreover,

efforts to control pollution from diffuse sources, termed nonpoint source pollution (rainfall runoff

from urban, suburban, and agricultural areas, for example), are more recent, given the earlier

For further information, see CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

emphasis on “point source” pollution (discharges from industrial and municipal wastewater

treatment plants). Overall, data reported by EPA and states indicate that 39% of river and stream

miles assessed by states and 45% of assessed lake acres do not meet applicable water quality

standards and are impaired for one or more desired uses. Approximately 95,000 lakes and

544,000 river miles in the United States are under fish-consumption advisories (including 100%

of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters), due to chemical contaminants in lakes, rivers,

and coastal waters, and one-third of shellfishing beds are closed or restricted, due to toxic

pollutant contamination. For mercury—a contaminant of growing concern—as of 2003, 45 states

had issued partial or statewide fish or shellfish consumption advisories.

The most recent major amendments were enacted in 1987 (P.L. 100-4); this was the first

comprehensive revision to the law in a decade. Authorizations for some programs, such as general

grant assistance to states, research, and general EPA support authorized in that law, expired in

FY1990 and FY1991. Authorizations for wastewater treatment funding expired in FY1994. None

of these programs has lapsed, however, as Congress has continued to appropriate funds to

implement the act.2

The Clean Water Act has been viewed as one of the most successful environmental laws in terms

of achieving its statutory goals, which have been widely supported by the public, but lately some

have questioned whether additional actions to achieve further benefits are worth the costs.

Criticism has come from industry, which has been the long-standing focus of the act’s regulatory

programs and often opposes imposition of new 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.

Legislative Activity Since P.L. 100-4

Following enactment of amendments in 1987, no major CWA legislative activity occurred until

the 104th Congress (1995). The House approved a comprehensive reauthorization bill, H.R. 961,

that was opposed by environmentalists and the Clinton Administration. Critics said that the bill

would undermine the existing framework for protecting U.S. waters. The Senate did not take up

H.R. 961 or other CWA legislation.

In the 105th and 106th Congresses, no comprehensive reauthorization legislation was introduced,

but action occurred in the 106th Congress 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 (P.L. 106-457) that reauthorized several existing CWA programs (i.e., Chesapeake

Bay cleanup, clean lakes, and the National Estuary Program), and 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).

For further information, see CRS Report RL33466, Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act, by (name re

dacted).

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

During its tenure, the Clinton Administration did not offer legislation to reauthorize the CWA, but

rather initiated a number of agency-wide and program-specific reforms focusing on flexibility and

what were termed “common sense” approaches to regulation.

The 107th Congress focused legislative attention on one of the key programs of the act, provisions

concerning financial assistance for municipal wastewater treatment projects. A House

subcommittee and a Senate committee approved bills to extend the act’s State Revolving Fund

(SRF) program through FY2007 (H.R. 3930, S. 1961). Neither bill received further action, in

large part due to controversies over application of the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that

contractors, engaging in certain federal contract construction, pay workers on such projects not

less than the locally prevailing wage for comparable work, and over the formula for allocating

SRF grants among the states.

The single water quality measure enacted by the 107th Congress was the Great Lakes Legacy Act

(P.L. 107-303). It amended existing Great Lakes provisions of the CWA (Section 118) to

authorize $50 million annually for FY2004-FY2008 for EPA to carry out projects to remediate

sediment contamination in the Great Lakes. The bill also reauthorized CWA provisions

concerning the Lake Champlain Basin program (Section 120). Miscellaneous provisions revived a

number of CWA reports to Congress that had been discontinued under a previously passed

“sunset” law (P.L. 104-66) and allowed states to use CWA Section 319 grant funds for stormwater

management projects in FY2003.

In the 108th Congress, attention again focused on water infrastructure financing issues, although

no bill was enacted (see “Authorization of Water Infrastructure Funding,” below). However, there

was some action on bills to reauthorize existing, mostly geographic-specific programs in the

Clean Water Act. Before recessing for the 2004 election, the House and Senate passed H.R. 4731,

to reauthorize the National Estuary Program through FY2010. The President signed this bill on

October 30, 2004 (P.L. 108-399). The National Estuary Program, authorized by the 1987 CWA

amendments, is directed at improving the quality of estuaries of national importance. Also in

September 2004, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reported three other

bills. They were (1) H.R. 784, to reauthorize section 221 of the act and provide $1.5 billion over

six years for sewer overflow projects (H.Rept. 108-675); (2) H.R. 4470, to extend the Lake

Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program in Section 121 through FY2010 (H.Rept. 108-676); and

(3) H.R. 4688, to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program through FY2010 (H.Rept. 108-677).

The House passed H.R. 4470 on October 7, 2004, but no further action occurred. Also on October

7, the House passed H.R. 4794, to amend and reauthorize the Tijuana River Valley Estuary and

Beach Sewage Cleanup Act (P.L. 106-457) in order to address treatment of sewage from Tijuana,

Mexico, that impacts the San Diego border region. The Senate passed this bill on November 16,

2004, and the President signed it on November 30 (P.L. 108-425; this law did not amend the

CWA).

109th Congress

Wastewater infrastructure legislation again received attention in the 109th Congress (see further

discussion below). In July 2005, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved

S. 1400 (S.Rept. 109-186), authorizing federal funds for water quality and drinking water State

Revolving Fund programs. In May 2005, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

approved bills to reauthorize funding for two other related CWA programs. The bills are (1) H.R.

624 (H.Rept. 109-166), to reauthorize Section 221 of the act and provide $1.5 billion over six

years for sewer overflow projects (identical to H.R. 784 from the 108th Congress) and (2) H.R.

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

1359 (H.Rept. 109-167), to extend Section 220 of the act, authorizing a pilot program for

alternative water source projects. The House did not take up either of these bills.

Other bills concerned with specific CWA programs received attention; two were enacted. In

December 2005, Congress passed H.R. 3963 (H.Rept. 109-293), authorizing $40 million per year

to extend the Long Island Sound program in Section 119 of the act for six years (through

FY2010). President Bush signed it on December 22 (P.L. 109-137). In November 2006, Congress

passed H.R. 6121, a bill to reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin program in Section 121 of

the act through FY2011. President Bush signed it on December 12 (P.L. 109-392).

Other bills were considered but not enacted. In December 2005, the House approved H.R. 1721

(H.Rept. 109-292), to extend the coastal water quality program in Section 406 of the act and to

authorize $30 million over six years for coastal water quality monitoring. In September 2006, the

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved H.R. 4126, a bill to improve and

reauthorize the CWA Chesapeake Bay program in Section 117 of the act (no report on this bill

was filed). Also in September, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported S.

1848 (S.Rept. 109-351), a bill intended to promote remediation of inactive and abandoned

hardrock mines by modifying requirements of the Clean Water Act and certain other

environmental laws as an incentive to persons carrying out such projects (see ““Good Samaritan”

Legislation,” below).

Recovery from 2005 Hurricanes

Throughout the Gulf Coast region affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, high winds

and water damaged a wide range of public service facilities, including sewage treatment plants,

and restoring those facilities is part of the overall cleanup and restoration process. Damages at

many facilities included loss of electric power after the storm to pump, process, and treat raw

water supply and wastewater. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff have assisted state

and local government personnel to evaluate damages. Efforts continue throughout the region to

assess facilities to determine their operating status, including needs to repair or rebuild, but EPA

reported that six weeks after Hurricane Katrina, more than 95% of wastewater treatment facilities

in the affected region were operational, although many may require major repairs or rebuilding.

Even more than a year after the storms, facilities in some cities (serving parts of New Orleans, for

example) were not fully operational.3

The 109th Congress considered a wide range of legislative proposals to aid generally in response

and recovery. In particular, S. 1709, passed by the Senate on September 27, 2005, would have

modified the revolving loan provisions of the Clean Water Act to provide favorable treatment

(such as forgiveness of loan principal and extended repayment) for sewage treatment repair or

rebuilding projects in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. It also would have permitted those

states for two years to provide CWA assistance even for projects not included on a state’s

Intended Use Plan, since many of the systems affected by Hurricane Katrina are believed to not

be included in the plans. The House did not act on this legislation. More generally, some

suggested that environmental review and permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act and

other federal environmental laws should be modified to enable swift recovery from the storms.

For information, see CRS Report RS22285, Hurricane-Damaged Drinking Water and Wastewater Facilities: Impacts,

Needs, and Response, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

Several bills with provisions intended to do so were introduced (S. 1711, S. 1765/S. 1766) but

received no further congressional consideration. 4

Wastewater Security

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, congressional attention has

focused on security, preparedness, and emergency response issues. Among the topics of interest

are protection of the nation’s water infrastructure facilities (both drinking water and wastewater)

from possible physical damage, biological/chemical attacks, and cyber disruption.5

Policymakers have examined a number of legislative options in this area, including enhanced

physical security, communication and coordination, and research. In October 2002, the House

passed legislation to authorize $200 million in grants for security activities at wastewater

treatment plants (H.R. 5169). It also authorized $15 million in technical assistance for small

treatment plant facilities and $5 million to EPA for improved vulnerability assessment tools.

Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate (S. 3037), but no further action occurred.

Congress did enact legislation authorizing $160 million in grants for drinking water utilities to

conduct vulnerability assessments (P.L. 107-188).

In the 108th Congress, the House passed legislation similar to H.R. 5169. H.R. 866 (H.Rept. 10833) would have authorized $200 million in grants to wastewater utilities to conduct vulnerability

assessments and an additional $20 million for technical assistance and improved assessment

tools. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved a similar bill (S. 1039,

S.Rept. 108-149) in May 2003. No further action occurred, due in part to concerns expressed by

some that the legislation would not mandate vulnerability assessments and would not require that

they be submitted to EPA, as is the case with drinking water assessments required by P.L. 107188.

Wastewater security issues again received attention in the 109th Congress. In May 2006, the

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved S. 2781 (S.Rept. 109-345). It was

similar to S. 1039 in the 108th Congress in that it would encourage wastewater utilities to conduct

vulnerability assessments and would authorize $220 million to assist utilities with assessments

and preparation of site security plans. It also included provisions responding to a March 2006

GAO report that found that utilities have made little effort to address vulnerabilities of collection

systems, which may be used by terrorists to introduce hazardous substances or as access points

for underground travel to a potential target.6 S. 2781 would have authorized EPA to conduct

research on this topic. During committee consideration of the bill, an amendment was rejected

that would have required, rather than encouraged, treatment works to conduct vulnerability

assessments and also would have required high-risk facilities to switch from using chlorine and

similar hazardous substances to other chemicals that are often referred to as “inherently safer

technologies.” No further action on this bill occurred.

For additional discussion, see CRS Report RL33107, Emergency Waiver of EPA Regulations: Authorities and

Legislative Proposals in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

For information, see CRS Report RL32189, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector, by

(name redacted).

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Securing Wastewater Facilities, Utilities Have Made Upgrades but Further

Improvements to Key System Components May Be Limited by Costs and Other Constraints, GAO-06-390, March 2006,

64 p.

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

Legislative Issues in the 109th Congress

The year 2002 marked the 30th anniversary of passage of the Clean Water Act and 15 years since

the last major amendments to the law. While, as noted, there has been measurable clean water

progress as a result of the act, observers and analysts agree that significant water pollution

problems remain. However, there is less agreement about what solutions are needed and whether

new legislation is required. Several key water quality issues exist: evaluating actions to

implement existing provisions of the law, assessing whether additional steps are necessary to

achieve overall goals of the act that have not yet been attained, and defining the appropriate

federal role in guiding and paying for clean water infrastructure and other activities. For some

time, efforts to comprehensively amend the act have stalled as interests have debated 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 for implementing

the law.

These factors partly explain why Congress has recently favored focusing legislative attention on

narrow bills to extend or modify selected CWA programs, rather than taking up comprehensive

proposals. Other factors also are at work. These include a general reluctance by most Members of

Congress to address controversial environmental issues in view of the slim majorities held by

political parties in the House and the Senate; lack of presidential initiatives on clean water issues

(neither the Clinton nor the Bush Administration proposed CWA legislation); and, since the

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, more prominent congressional focus on security,

terrorism, and Iraq war issues than on many other topics, including environmental protection.

Authorization of Water Infrastructure Funding

The act’s program of financial aid for municipal wastewater treatment plant construction is a

central feature of the law. At issue today is how the federal government will assist states and

cities, especially in view of the high projected funding needs that exist. It received attention in the

109th Congress, as it has for several years, although controversies have stymied enactment of new

legislation. Since 1972, Congress has provided a total of $76.5 billion to assist cities in

constructing projects to achieve the act’s requirements for secondary treatment of municipal

sewage (equivalent to 85% reduction of wastes), or more stringent treatment where required by

local water quality conditions. The CWA does not authorize funds for operation or maintenance

of completed projects. State and local governments have spent more than $25 billion of their own

funds for construction, as well. In addition to CWA programs, other sources of federal funding are

administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban

Development.7

Nevertheless, funding needs remain very high: an additional $181 billion nationwide for all types

of projects eligible for funding under the act, according to the most recent Needs Survey estimate

by EPA and the states, issued in August 2003.8 In September 2002, EPA released a study, called

For information, see CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs,

coordinated by (name redacted).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000, Report to Congress, Washington,

August 2003, EPA 832-03-001, 1 vol.

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

the Gap Analysis, that assessed the difference between current spending for wastewater

infrastructure and total funding needs (both capital and operation and maintenance).9 In that

report, EPA estimated that, over the next two decades, the United States needs to spend nearly

$390 billion to replace existing wastewater infrastructure systems and to build new ones

(including for some projects not currently eligible for CWA funds, such as system replacement,

which are not reflected in the EPA-state Needs Survey). Funding needs for operation and

maintenance, which are not currently eligible for federal aid, are an additional $148 billion, the

agency estimates. According to the Gap Analysis, if there is no increase in investment, there will

be about a $6 billion gap between current annual capital expenditures for wastewater treatment

($13 billion annually) and projected spending needs. The study also estimated that, if wastewater

spending increases by 3% annually, the gap would shrink by nearly 90% (to about $1 billion

annually). Outside groups, including a coalition called the Water Infrastructure Network, have

offered proposals that have attracted some congressional interest for a multibillion dollar

investment program in wastewater and drinking water infrastructure.10

The 1987 amendments initiated a program of grants to capitalize State Water Pollution Control

Revolving Funds (SRF), or loan programs. This program in Title VI of the act replaced the

previous categorical grants program, under which the federal share was 55% of project costs, and

localities were not obligated to repay federal funds that they received. Under the revolving fund

concept, monies used for construction will be repaid by borrowing communities to the states, to

be recycled for future construction in other communities, thus providing an ongoing source of

financing. States must provide a 20% match of the federal amount. The intent of the 1987

amendments was that federal contributions to SRFs would assist in making a transition to full

state and local financing by FY1995. The essential tradeoff was that states would have greater

flexibility to set priorities and administer funding in exchange for ending federal aid after

FY1994.11

All states have established the mechanisms to administer the new loan programs and have been

receiving SRF capitalization funds under Title VI for several years. Many have complained that

the SRF program is unduly complicated by federal rules, even though Congress had intended that

states were to have greater flexibility. Congressional oversight has examined the progress toward

reducing the backlog of wastewater treatment facilities needed to achieve the act’s water quality

objectives, while newer estimates of future funding needs have drawn increased attention to the

role of the SRF program in meeting such needs.

Small communities and states with large rural populations have experienced the largest share of

problems with the SRF program. Many small towns did not participate in the previous

construction grants program and consequently are likely to require major projects to achieve

compliance with the law. Yet these communities often lack an industrial tax base and thus face the

prospect of very high per capita user fees, if their citizens are required to repay the full capital

cost of sewage treatment projects.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis,

September 2002, EPA 816-R-02-020, 50 p.

For additional information, see CRS Report RL31116, Water Infrastructure Needs and Investment: Review and

Analysis of Key Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

For additional information, see CRS Report 98-323, Wastewater Treatment: Overview and Background, by (name re

dacted).

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

While the initial intent was to phase out federal support for this program, Congress has continued

to appropriate SRF capitalization grants to the states, providing an average of $1.35 billion

annually in recent years. The SRF provisions have been less controversial than others in the act,

such as wetlands reform, because of apparent general agreement on the need to provide funding

assistance (as reflected in continued appropriations). The CWA’s SRF provisions also were a

model for similar provisions added to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1996 (P.L. 104182).

However, because remaining clean water funding needs are still so large, at issue is whether and

how to extend SRF assistance to address those needs, how to allocate SRF funds among the

states, and how to prioritize projects and funding. Bush Administration officials have said that

infrastructure funding needs go beyond what the federal government can do on its own. Of

particular concern is assisting small and economically disadvantaged communities that have had

the most difficulty in adjusting from the act’s previous categorical grants program to SRF loans.

Additionally, there is concern about the adequacy of SRF or other funding specifically for

projects dealing with problems of overflows from municipal combined and separate sewers which

can release partially treated or untreated wastewaters that harm public health and the

environment. EPA estimates that the cost of projects to control sewer overflows, from combined

and separate sanitary sewer systems, is nearly $140 billion nationwide. And more recently,

wastewater utilities have sought assistance to assess operational vulnerabilities and upgrade

physical protection of their facilities against possible terrorist attacks that could threaten water

infrastructure systems. 12

Legislative Responses

Congress has actively considered water infrastructure funding issues since the 107th Congress,

when House and Senate committees approved bills to extend the act’s SRF program through

FY2007 and increase federal assistance (H.R. 3930; S. 1961, S.Rept. 107-228). A report on H.R.

3930 was not filed. Neither bill received further action, in large part due to controversies over

application of prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act and over the formula for

allocating SRF grants among the states.

In the 108th Congress, four bills to reauthorize the Clean Water Act SRF program were introduced

(S. 170, S. 2550, H.R. 20, H.R. 1560). In addition, separate bills to reauthorize funding for sewer

overflow grants (CWA Section 221) were introduced (H.R. 784, S. 567). In October 2004, the

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported legislation authorizing $41.25 billion

over five years for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure programs, including $20 billion

for the clean water SRF program (S. 2550, S.Rept. 108-386). The bill included a new formula for

state-by-state allocation of clean water SRF grants, renewal of the Clean Water Act’s sewer

overflow grant program, and provisions such as extended loan repayments and subsidies for

disadvantaged communities.

Prior to the Senate committee’s action, in July 2003, the House Transportation and Infrastructure

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment approved H.R. 1560, legislation similar to

H.R. 3930, the bill approved by that committee in the 107th Congress. H.R. 1560 would have

Water infrastructure funding issues related to annual appropriations also are an issue of interest to Congress; for

information see CRS Report RL33466, Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

authorized $20 billion for the clean water SRF program for FY2004-FY2008. It included several

provisions intended to benefit economically disadvantaged and small communities, such as

allowing extended loan repayments (30 years, rather than 20) and additional subsidies (e.g.,

principal forgiveness and negative interest loans) for communities that meet a state’s affordability

criteria. It included provisions to require communities to plan for capital replacement needs and

to develop and implement an asset management plan for the repair and maintenance of

infrastructure that is being financed. 13 No further action occurred.

The issue of the applicability of the prevailing local wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act to

SRF-funded projects has affected consideration of water infrastructure legislation for some time,

because that act has both strong supporters and critics in Congress. Critics of Davis-Bacon say

that it unnecessarily increases public construction costs and hampers competition, while

supporters say that it helps stabilize the local construction industry by preventing competition that

would undercut local wages and working conditions. The bill approved by the House

subcommittee in July 2003 (H.R. 1560) did not include language specifying that the Davis-Bacon

Act shall apply to SRF-funded projects, while S. 2550 did include such a requirement. Other

factors that clouded the bills were Administration opposition to authorization levels in both bills

and disputes over funding allocation formulas.

In the 109th Congress, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved S. 1400,

the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, in July 2005 (S.Rept. 109-186). The bill was similar to S.

2550 in the 108th Congress; it would have authorized $20 billion for grants to capitalize the Clean

Water Act SRF program and $15 billion for Safe Drinking Water Act SRFs through FY2010. As

approved by the committee, S. 1400 would have revised and updated the CWA formula for stateby-state allocation of SRF monies and also specified that the prevailing wage requirements of the

Davis-Bacon Act shall apply to all projects financed from an SRF (as similarly provided in the

committee’s bill in the 108th Congress). No further action on this bill occurred.

For some time, interest has been growing in identifying and developing new mechanisms to help

localities pay for water infrastructure projects, beyond federal grants or SRFs, which appear

insufficient to fully meet funding needs. In June 2005, the House Transportation and

Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held hearings on alternative

means to fund water infrastructure projects in the future. At the first hearing, witnesses focused

on one way to increase funding for water infrastructure that has recently been advocated by some

groups, creating a national clean water trust fund that would conceptually be similar to trust funds

that exist for highway and aviation projects. Witnesses and subcommittee members discussed

difficulties in identifying potential revenue sources that would be deemed fair and equitable. The

second hearing addressed other financing options, such as expanded use of tax-exempt private

activity bonds, and more efficient management techniques, such as asset management programs

and sustainable infrastructure initiatives. In December 2005, legislation was introduced to

establish a $7.5 billion federal trust fund for wastewater infrastructure improvements. This bill,

H.R. 4560, proposed to use a concept for funding such projects that has been promoted by

wastewater treatment industry officials, other stakeholders, and some environmentalists, who

argue it could provide a new source of money for necessary system upgrades amid dwindling

federal funds. The bill contemplated a system of user fees to create the fund, but the source of

revenue was not specified in the bill. Congress did not act on this legislation.

For information, see CRS Report RL32503, Water Infrastructure Financing Legislation: Comparison of S. 2550 and

H.R. 1560, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

Other Clean Water Act Issues

Several other CWA issues have drawn some degree of congressional attention.

Regulatory Protection of Wetlands

How best to protect the nation’s remaining wetlands and regulate activities taking place in

wetlands has become one of the most contentious environmental policy issues, especially in the

context of the CWA, which contains a key wetlands regulatory tool, the permit program in

Section 404. It requires landowners or developers to obtain permits for disposal of dredged or fill

material that is generated by construction or similar activity into navigable waters of the United

States, including wetlands. Section 404 has evolved through judicial interpretation and regulatory

change to become one of the principal federal tools used to protect wetlands, although that term

appears only once in Section 404 itself and is not defined there. At the same time, its

implementation has come to be seen as intrusive and burdensome to those whose activities it

regulates. At issue today is how to address criticism of the Section 404 regulatory program while

achieving desired goals of wetlands protection. 14

Unlike the rest of the act, the permit aspects of Section 404 are administered by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, rather than EPA, although the Corps uses EPA environmental guidance.

Other federal agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Natural Resource

Conservation Service (NRCS) have more limited roles in the Corps’ permitting decisions. Tension

has existed for many years between the regulation of activities in wetlands under Section 404 and

related laws, on the one hand, and the desire of landowners to develop property that may include

wetlands, on the other hand. The conflicts over wetlands regulation have for the most part

occurred in administrative proceedings, as Congress has not amended Section 404 since 1977,

when it provided exemptions for categories of routine activities, such as normal farming and

forestry. Controversy has grown over the extent of federal jurisdiction and impacts on private

property, burdens and delay of permit procedures, and roles of federal agencies and states in

issuing permits.

Judicial Proceedings Involving Section 404

One issue involving long-standing controversy and litigation is whether isolated waters are

properly within the jurisdiction of Section 404. Isolated waters that are wetlands which are not

physically adjacent to navigable surface waters often appear to provide only some of the values

for which wetlands are protected, such as flood control or water purification, even if they meet

the technical definition of a wetland. On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled on the

question of whether the CWA provides the Corps and EPA with authority over isolated waters.

The Court’s 5-4 ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)) held that the Corps’ denial of a 404 permit for a

disposal site on isolated wetlands solely on the basis that migratory birds use the site exceeds the

authority provided in the act.

The full extent of impacts on the regulatory program resulting from this decision remains unclear,

even five years after the ruling, in part because of different interpretations of SWANCC reflected

For additional information, see CRS Report RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of Issues, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

in subsequent federal court cases. While it continues to be difficult to fully assess how regulatory

protection of wetlands will be affected as a result of the SWANCC decision and other possible

changes, the remaining responsibility to protect affected wetlands falls on states and localities.15

Environmentalists believe that the Court misinterpreted congressional intent on the matter, while

industry and landowner groups welcomed the ruling. Policy implications of how much the

decision restricts federal regulation depend on how broadly or narrowly the opinion is applied.

Some federal courts have interpreted SWANCC narrowly, thus limiting its effect on current permit

rules, while a few read the decision more broadly.

The government’s current view on this key question was expressed in EPA-Corps guidance issued

in January 2003. It provides a legal interpretation essentially based on a narrow reading of the

Court’s decision, thus allowing federal regulation of some isolated waters to continue, but it calls

for more headquarters review in disputed cases. Administration press releases say that the

guidance demonstrates the government’s commitment to “no-net-loss” wetlands policy. However,

it is apparent that the issues remain under discussion, because at the same time, the

Administration issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on

how to define waters that are under jurisdiction of the regulatory program.16 The ANPRM did not

actually propose rule changes, but it indicated possible ways that Clean Water Act rules might be

modified to further limit federal jurisdiction, building on SWANCC and some subsequent legal

decisions.

The government received more than 133,000 comments on the ANPRM, most of them negative,

according to EPA and the Corps. Environmentalists and many states opposed changing any rules,

saying that the law and previous court rulings call for the broadest possible interpretation of the

Clean Water Act (and thus a narrow interpretation of SWANCC), but developers sought changes to

clarify interpretation of the SWANCC ruling. In December 2003, EPA and the Corps announced

that the Administration would not pursue development of rule changes concerning federal

regulatory jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. The EPA Administrator said that the Administration

wanted to avoid a contentious and lengthy rulemaking debate over the issue. Environmentalists

and state representatives expressed relief at the announcement. Interest groups on all sides have

been critical of confusion in implementing the 2003 guidance, which constitutes the main tool for

interpreting the reach of the SWANCC decision. Environmentalists remain concerned about

diminished protection resulting from the guidance, while developers said that without new

regulations, confusing and contradictory interpretations of wetland rules will continue.

Federal courts continue to have a key role in interpreting and clarifying the SWANCC decision.

On February 21, 2006, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases brought by landowners

(Rapanos v. United States; Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) seeking to narrow the

scope of the CWA permit program as it applies to development of wetlands. The issue in both

cases had to do with the reach of the CWA to cover “waters” that were not navigable waters, in

the traditional sense, but were connected somehow to navigable waters or “adjacent” to those

waters. (The act requires a federal permit to discharge dredged or fill materials into “navigable

For additional information, see CRS Report RL30849, The Supreme Court Addresses Corps of Engineers

Jurisdiction Over “Isolated Waters”: The SWANCC Decision, by (name redacted).

U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Clean Water Act Regulatory Definition of ‘Waters of the

United States’ and Joint Memorandum,” 68 Federal Register 1991-1998, Jan. 15, 2003.

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

waters.”) Many legal and other observers hoped that the Court’s ruling in these cases would bring

greater clarity about the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction. 17

The Court’s ruling was issued on June 19 (Rapanos , v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 2208 (2006)). In

a 5-4 decision, a plurality of the Court, led by Justice Scalia, held that the lower court had applied

an incorrect standard to determine whether the wetlands at issue are covered by the CWA. Justice

Kennedy joined this plurality to vacate the lower court decisions and remand the cases for further

consideration, but he took different positions on most of the substantive issues raised by the

cases, as did four other dissenting justices. Early judgments by legal observers suggest that the

implications of the ruling (both short-term and long-term) are far from clear. Because the several

opinions written by the justices did not draw a clear line regarding what wetlands and other

waters are subject to federal jurisdiction, one likely result is more case-by-case determinations

and continuing litigation. There also could be renewed pressure on the Corps and EPA to clarify

the issues through an administrative rulemaking.

Congressional Actions

In September 2002, the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural

Resources, and Regulatory Affairs held a hearing on the government’s response to the SWANCC

decision and to press the government to clarify its interpretation of the Court case. Committee

Members and public witnesses indicated that a lack of guidance has led to inconsistent regulatory

decisions by Corps officials in individual regions of the country, and subsequent judicial

decisions by other federal and state court have been mixed. At the hearing, Corps and EPA

officials testified on their efforts to develop guidance, which subsequently was released in

January 2003. Concern about lingering confusion over the SWANCC decision and its

implementation by the Corps was the topic of an oversight hearing by the Senate Environment

and Public Works Committee in June 2003. Developers and others in the regulated community

criticized the Corps and EPA, saying that the January 2003 guidance document had not clarified

the reach of federal jurisdiction. A House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee also

held a hearing on post-SWANCC issues on March 30, 2004.

Controversies about the SWANCC guidance issued by EPA and the Corps in 2003 persist. In

response, on May 18, 2006, the House adopted an amendment to a bill providing FY2007

appropriations for EPA (H.R. 5386). The amendment (passed by a 222-198 vote) would bar EPA

from spending funds to implement the 2003 policy guidance. Supporters of the amendment said

that the guidance goes beyond what the Supreme Court required in SWANCC, has allowed many

streams and wetlands to be unprotected from development, and has been more confusing than

helpful. Opponents of the amendment predicted that it would make EPA’s and the Corps’

regulatory job more difficult than it already is. Congress adjourned sine die in December without

taking final action on H.R. 5386, thus delaying final action until the beginning of the 110th

Congress.

Legislation to overturn the SWANCC decision by providing a broad definition of “waters of the

United States” was introduced in the 109th Congress (H.R. 1356/S. 912, the Clean Water

Authority Restoration Act of 2005). Other legislation to narrow the definition of “waters of the

For additional information, see CRS Report RL33263, The Wetlands Coverage of the Clean Water Act Is Revisited

by the Supreme Court: Rapanos v. United States, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

United States” also was introduced (H.R. 2658, the Federal Wetlands Jurisdiction Act of 2005).18

No further action occurred on either bill. For now, it is unclear whether the more recent decision

in the Rapanos and Carabell cases will accelerate congressional interest in these or other

proposals to address uncertainties about federal jurisdiction over wetlands and other waters. On

August 1, a Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee held a hearing on the Court’s

June 19 Rapanos decision. While some witnesses urged Congress to clarify the jurisdictional

issues, others urged EPA and the Corps to issue new guidance and/or initiate a rulemaking to

change applicable regulations. Administration witnesses said that EPA and the Corps are working

on new guidance for their regulatory staffs, but have not yet decided whether a rulemaking is

needed.

TMDLs and State Water Quality Standards

The CWA requires states to identify pollution-impaired water segments and develop “total

maximum daily loads” (TMDL) that set the maximum amount of pollution that a water body can

receive without violating water quality standards. A TMDL is essentially a plan to allocate

responsibility for implementing pollution control measures within an area or watershed in order

to remedy water quality impairments. Until recently, there had been little implementation of the

TMDL provision (Section 303(d)), which Congress enacted in 1972. Since the early 1990s,

environmental groups have filed lawsuits in 38 states to pressure EPA and states to meet the law’s

requirements. Of the suits tried or settled to date, more than half have resulted in court orders

requiring expeditious development of TMDLs, thus driving the program that had previously

received little attention. At issue today are controversies over implementation of the existing

TMDL program and regulatory revisions that EPA issued in July 2000; the 2000 revisions were

issued partly in response to the lawsuits and were intended to strengthen the program. That rule

was highly controversial (and never went into effect) because of issues such as potential burdens

on states, industries, cities, and others to implement a revised TMDL program and potential

impacts on some agriculture and forestry sources, which are not now directly subject to CWA

regulations. Because of those controversies, the Clinton Administration delayed the effective date

of the 2000 rule until October 2001.

In the FY2001 appropriations act funding EPA, P.L. 106-377, Congress requested a study by the

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the scientific basis of the TMDL program. The NAS

report was issued in June 2001.19 It did not specifically analyze the July 2000 revised regulations.

The NAS panel concluded that scientific knowledge exists to move forward with the TMDL

program and recommended that EPA and states use adaptive implementation for TMDL

development. In many cases, the report said, water quality problems and solutions are obvious

and should proceed without complex analysis. In other cases, solutions are more complex and

require a different level of understanding and something like phased implementation. In addition,

the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) concluded in a

report that inconsistent monitoring, data collection, and listing procedures used by states to

identify impaired waters have hindered efforts to develop effective TMDL programs.20

For additional information and discussion of similar legislation in the 108th Congress, see CRS Report RL33483,

Wetlands: An Overview of Issues, by (name redacted).

National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality

Management. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, June 2001, 82 p.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate Nation’s Efforts

to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters, GAO-02-186,January 2002, 41 p.

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

In October 2001, the Bush Administration announced that it would delay the rule for 18 months

(until May 2003) to allow EPA officials time to review the rule and the NAS report. This action

came after a federal court approved the Administration’s request for a similar suspension of

litigation that is challenging the regulation (nearly a dozen interest groups have sued EPA over

various parts of the TMDL rule). In the interim and continuing for the present time, existing rules

and requirements and court-sanctioned TMDL schedules (affecting approximately 22 states)

remain in place. 21

On March 19, 2003, EPA withdrew the July 2000 TMDL rule. EPA officials said that

implementation of the existing TMDL program will continue in the meantime, but that additional

time is needed to decide whether and how to revise the current program. EPA is considering

initiating an entirely new rule or other options, but no further timeframe or proposal has been

announced. Recent congressional attention to these issues has been limited to oversight hearings

held by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources in June

and November 2001. Implementation of existing TMDL requirements and possible regulatory

changes, if issued, could be of interest to Congress in view of continuing disagreement among

states, cities, industry, and environmental advocates about program effectiveness and efficiency.

“Good Samaritan” Legislation

In the 109th Congress, bills were introduced to address the legacy of pollution from inactive and

abandoned hardrock mines (IAMs) that degrades the environment throughout the United States,

particularly in the West. EPA has estimated that 40% of headwaters in the West have been

adversely impacted by acidic and other types of drainage from abandoned sites where gold, silver,

copper, lead, and iron ore were mined. The core concept underlying the bills is that, in order to

address the problem of pollution from IAM sites, it is appropriate to encourage cleanup by socalled “Good Samaritan” entities. To do so, the bills (H.R. 1266, S. 1848, and an Administration

proposal, H.R. 5404 and S. 2780) proposed to establish a process for issuing permits to Good

Samaritans and to provide incentives in the form of reduced liability from environmental laws

and less stringent environmental cleanup standards. Proponents, who include mining companies

and industry associations, maintain that any degree of cleanup is better than inaction or the status

quo, and they argue that, if not addressed in this legislation, the issues of liability exposure under

environmental law and strict regulatory standards could stymie voluntary cleanups. Opponents,

especially many environmental and conservation advocates, acknowledge that cleanup would

benefit the environment, but they expressed concern that exemptions and relief such as these bills

proposed might be the first step in dismantling key environmental legislation, because the bills

were vague about standards that would apply to a Good Samaritan cleanup. 22

In the 109th Congress, three House and Senate committees held hearings on issues raised by the

Good Samaritan legislation. Testimony was heard from witnesses representing EPA, states,

hardrock mining industry companies and associations, and environmental groups. On September

13, 2006, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved S. 1848 (S.Rept. 109351), a bill that would have allowed Good Samaritans to apply for an EPA permit that relieves the

cleanup party of liability and regulatory requirements under several environmental laws,

For additional information, see CRS Report 97-831, Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of

Pollutants, by (name redacted).

For additional information, see CRS Report RL33575, Cleanup at Abandoned Hardrock Mines: Issues Raised by

“Good Samaritan” Legislation in the 109th Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

including the Clean Water Act, Superfund, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Solid Waste

Disposal Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. It was a free-standing bill and would

not have amended any of these laws. The legislation would have relieved a potential Good

Samaritan of the need to obtain CWA permits and of any requirement that discharges from the

cleanup site must attain water quality standards. No further action occurred on the Good

Samaritan legislation.

Other Implementation Issues

Also of legislative interest were the impacts of recent court rulings in several cases concerning

implementation of existing provisions of the law and involving questions of whether certain

activities require a Clean Water Act discharge permit. A fundamental element of the act is the

requirement that the “discharge of a pollutant” from a point source shall be carried out pursuant to

a permit authorized by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program

under Section 402 of the law. In 2004, the Supreme Court held that the transfer of polluted water

from one waterbody to another requires a permit, notwithstanding that no new pollutant is added

in the process of transfer (South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of

Indians, 124 S. Ct. 1537 (2004)).23 The decision raised concerns in agricultural areas where such

transfers often occur in supplying irrigation water, presently without a permit. Congress did not

hold oversight hearings on impacts of the Court’s decision, and legislation that might have

addressed the ruling was not introduced.

Decisions of federal courts in two cases have held that aerial application of a pesticide over and

into U.S. waters requires a CWA permit, even when the pesticide use meets other requirements of

federal law, including the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). These

and related decisions drew the attention of many pesticide applicators, including public health

entities such as mosquito control districts, concerned with how the rulings might affect their need

to control pests associated with diseases such as the West Nile virus. In November 2006, EPA

finalized a rulemaking seeking to resolve the conflict over the regulatory scope of the CWA and

FIFRA related to pesticide use, in light of the recent litigation, by promulgating regulations to

clarify circumstances under which a CWA permit is or is not required for activities carried out

pursuant to FIFRA. Congress examined these issues in oversight hearings, one by a House

Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee in October 2002 and another by a House

Government Reform subcommittee in October 2004. Legislation intended to affirm that a CWA

permit is not required for use of FIFRA-approved pesticides was introduced in the 109th

Congress, the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act (H.R. 1749, S. 1269). A

House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1749 on September

29, 2005, but no further action occurred. 24

For information, see CRS Report RL32569, The Supreme Court Revisits the Environment: Seven Cases Decided or

Accepted in the 2003-2004 Term, by (name redacted).

For background, see CRS Report RL32884, Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in

Conflict?, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress

For Additional Reading

National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. Assessing the TMDL Approach to

Water Quality Management. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. June 2001. 82 p.

U.S. Congressional Budget Office. Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater

Infrastructure. Washington, November 2002. 58 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report.

Washington, September 2002. “EPA-841-R-2-001.” 207 p.

——. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. Washington, September

2002. “EPA-816-R-02-020.” 50 p.

——. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000, Report to Congress. Washington, August 2003.

“EPA-832-R-03-001.” 1 vol.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent

and Incomplete Data. (GAO/RCED-00-54) March 2000. 73 p.

——. Water Infrastructure: Information on Financing, Capital Planning, and Privatization.

(GAO-02-764) August 2002. 79 p.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

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 permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

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' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.