# Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL33800

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** November 25, 2008
- **Citation:** RL33800

## Text

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress:
Oversight and Implementation
-name redactedSpecialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
November 25, 2008

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL33800

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

Summary
Although much progress has been made in achieving the ambitious goals that Congress
established more than 35 years ago in the Clean Water Act (CWA) to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, long-standing problems persist,
and new problems have emerged. Water quality problems are diverse, ranging from pollution
runoff from farms and ranches, city streets, and other diffuse or “nonpoint” sources, to toxic
substances discharged from factories and sewage treatment plants.
There is little agreement among stakeholders about what solutions are needed and whether new
legislation is required to address the nation’s remaining water pollution problems. 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, ensuring that progress made to date is not lost through diminished attention to
water quality needs, 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
CWA have stalled as interests have debated whether and exactly how to change the law. Congress
has instead focused legislative attention on enacting narrow bills to extend or modify selected
CWA programs, but not any comprehensive proposals.
For several years, the most prominent legislative water quality issue has concerned financial
assistance for municipal wastewater treatment projects, and it has been in focus in the 110th
Congress, as well: the House passed three bills dealing with wastewater infrastructure financing
(H.R. 720, H.R. 700, and H.R. 569), and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
approved another, S. 3500. 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.
Also of interest have been programs that regulate activities in wetlands, especially CWA Section
404, which has 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, and they are concerned about court rulings that
narrowed regulatory protection of wetlands and about related administrative actions. Many
stakeholders desire clarification of the act’s regulatory jurisdiction, but they differ on what
solutions are appropriate. In the 110th Congress, committees held hearings on legislation that
seeks to provide that clarification (H.R. 2421, S. 1870).
Other issues discussed in this report that also have been of interest in Congress include
implementation of current programs to manage stormwater discharges and nonpoint sources of
pollution, as these are major contributors to water quality impairments across the country;
implementation of rules governing discharges of wastes from large animal feeding operations;
and implications of court rulings for the scope of the act’s discharge permit requirements.

Congressional Research Service

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Congressional Activity after P.L. 100-4 .................................................................................2
Legislative Issues in the 110th Congress.......................................................................................3
Authorization of Water Infrastructure Funding ......................................................................4
Legislative Responses .....................................................................................................8
110th Congress ................................................................................................................9
Regulatory Protection of Wetlands ...................................................................................... 11
Regulating Discharges from Vessels .................................................................................... 14
Extension of the Great Lakes Legacy Act ............................................................................ 15
Other Clean Water Act Issues .............................................................................................. 16
Implementation of the BEACH Act ............................................................................... 16
Stormwater Discharges.................................................................................................. 17
Combined and Separate Sewer Overflows ..................................................................... 18
Wastewater Security...................................................................................................... 19
Nonpoint Pollution Management ................................................................................... 20
Strategy Concerning Animal Feeding Operations........................................................... 21
Other Implementation Issues ......................................................................................... 22
Continuing Issue: Appropriations .............................................................................................. 23
FY2008......................................................................................................................... 23
FY2009......................................................................................................................... 24

Tables
Table 1. Wastewater Treatment Funding ......................................................................................6

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 24

Congressional Research Service

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

Introduction
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, long-standing problems persist, and new problems have emerged.
Water quality problems are diverse, ranging from pollution runoff from farms and ranches, city
streets, and other diffuse or “nonpoint” sources, to “point” source discharges of metals and
organic and inorganic toxic substances 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. 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 water quality restoration objective declared in the 1972 act 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. Although 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 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 very small 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
emphasis on “point source” pollution (discharges from industrial and municipal wastewater
treatment plants). Overall, data reported by EPA and states indicate that 45% of river and stream
miles assessed by states and 47% of assessed lake acres do not meet applicable water quality
standards and are impaired for one or more desired uses.2 In 2006 EPA issued an assessment of
streams and small rivers and reported that 67% of U.S. stream miles are in poor or fair condition
and that nutrients and streambed sediments have the largest adverse impact on the biological
condition of these waters.3 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 onethird of shellfishing beds are closed or restricted, due to toxic pollutant contamination. Mercury is
1

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

2

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress, 2002 Reporting
Cycle,” EPA-841-R-07-001, October 2007, 39 p.
3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Wadeable Streams Assessment, A Collaborative Survey of the Nation’s
Streams,” EPA 841-B-06-002, May 2006, 1 vol.

Congressional Research Service

1

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

a contaminant of growing concern—as of 2003, 45 states had issued partial or statewide fish or
shellfish consumption advisories because of elevated mercury levels.
The last major amendments to the law were the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4). These
amendments culminated six years of congressional efforts to extend and revise the act and were
the most comprehensive amendments since 1972. Authorizations of appropriations for some
programs provided in P.L. 100-4, 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 them. EPA, states, industry, and
other citizens continue to implement the 1987 legislation, including meeting the numerous
requirements and deadlines in it.
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 many have opposed CWA measures that they
fear might impose new unfunded mandates. Many environmental groups believe that further finetuning is needed to maintain progress achieved to date and to address remaining water quality
problems.

Congressional Activity after 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. H.R. 961 would have
amended many of the regulatory and standards provisions of the law, required EPA to use
extensive new risk assessment and cost-benefit procedures, and increased flexibility with
regulatory relief from current clean water programs. 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; thus, no legislation was enacted.
Since the 104th Congress, no comprehensive reauthorization legislation has been introduced, but
beginning in the 106th Congress, a number of bills dealing with specific water quality issues and
programs in the law have been enacted. Congress first 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).
The 107th Congress enacted the Great Lakes Legacy Act (P.L. 107-303). It amended existing
Great Lakes provisions (CWA Section 118) to authorize $50 million annually for FY2004FY2008 for EPA to carry out projects to remediate sediment contamination in the Great Lakes.

Congressional Research Service

2

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

The bill also reauthorized CWA provisions concerning the Lake Champlain Basin program
(Section 120).
The 108th Congress enacted legislation amending the act to extend the National Estuary Program
(NEP, CWA Section 320) through FY2010 (P.L. 108-399). The NEP, authorized by the 1987 CWA
amendments, is directed at improving the quality of estuaries of national importance.
The 109th Congress enacted two CWA measures. 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,
2005 (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).
Since the 107th Congress, the dominant CWA issue has been water infrastructure financing—i.e.,
extension and modification of provisions of the act authorizing financial assistance for municipal
wastewater treatment projects. House and Senate committees have approved bills, but none has
been enacted, because of varied controversies (see “Authorization of Wastewater Infrastructure
Funding,” below). In addition to the enacted legislation described here, throughout this period
since the 1987 amendments, a number of bills dealing with other specific CWA programs have
been reported by House and Senate committees; some of these were passed by one house of the
Congress, but were not enacted.
The remainder of this report discusses key CWA issues that were of particular interesting during
the 110th Congress, including legislation that was introduced in several of the areas. It first
discusses issues that were most prominent on the CWA agenda in Congress, including water
infrastructure funding, regulatory protection of wetlands, regulating wastewater discharges from
vessels, and extension of the Great Lakes Legacy Act. It then discusses several other issues of
interest: stormwater discharges, management of sewer overflows, wastewater security,
management of nonpoint sources of pollution, and regulation of waste discharges from animal
feeding operations. The report concludes with a brief discussion of appropriations for water
quality programs.

Legislative Issues in the 110th Congress
The year 2007 marked the 35th anniversary of passage of the Clean Water Act and 20 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, ensuring that progress made to
date is not lost through diminished attention to water quality needs, 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.

Congressional Research Service

3

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

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.
As a result of the 2006 mid-term elections and changed congressional leadership, many observers
anticipated that the 110th Congress would pursue oversight of clean water and other
environmental programs. A particular legislative focus is water infrastructure financing
legislation, specifically reauthorization of the act’s financial aid program. Also on the
congressional agenda was consideration of the geographic reach of the Clean Water Act over the
nation’s waters and wetlands, in light of court rulings—including two Supreme Court decisions—
that have narrowed the law’s regulatory jurisdiction, but in ways that are somewhat unclear. A
number of other issues of interest included implementation of current programs to manage
stormwater discharges and nonpoint sources of pollution, as these are major contributors to water
quality impairments across the country; implementation of rules governing discharges of wastes
from large animal feeding operations; and implications of a number of court rulings concerning
the scope of the act’s discharge permit requirements.

Authorization of Water Infrastructure Funding
Meeting the nation’s needs to build, upgrade, rebuild, and repair wastewater infrastructure is a
significant element in achieving the Clean Water Act’s water quality objectives. The act’s
program of financial aid for municipal wastewater treatment plant construction is a key
contributor to that effort. Since 1972 Congress has provided more than $78 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. State and local governments have spent more than $25 billion of
their own funds for construction, as well.
Still, funding needs remain very high: an additional $202.5 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, released in January 2008, an 8.6% increase above the estimate reported four
years ago. 4 EPA reported several reasons for increased needs: problems due to aging
infrastructure, treatment plant improvements needed to meet more protective water quality
standards, and additional capacity required to handle wet weather flows. This current estimate
includes $134.4 billion for wastewater treatment and collection systems ($10.5 billion more than
the previous report), $54.8 billion for combined sewer overflow corrections ($1.5 billion less than
the previous estimate), $9 billion for stormwater management ($2.8 billion more than the
previous estimate), and $4.3 billion to build systems to distribute recycled water (a new category
in this report). The estimate does not explicitly include funding needed to address security issues
(discussed below), needs related to growth and expansion in regions that are experiencing
4

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004, Report to Congress, Washington,
January 2008, 1 vol. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/2004rtc/toc.htm.

Congressional Research Service

4

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

population growth, or funding possibly needed for treatment works to adapt to climate change
impacts.
In September 2002, EPA released a study called the Gap Analysis that assesses the difference
between current spending for wastewater infrastructure and total funding needs (both capital and
operation and maintenance).5 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. Funding needs for operation and maintenance (not eligible for
Clean Water Act funding) are an additional $148 billion, the agency estimated. 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 of approximately $19 billion. The study also estimated that, if wastewater
spending increases by 3% annually (essentially meaning a doubling of rates), the gap would
shrink by nearly 90% (to about $1 billion annually). At issue has been what the federal role
should be in assisting states and cities, especially in view of such high projected funding needs.
Debate over the nature of the nation’s efforts regarding wastewater infrastructure was a central
and controversial part of the 1987 amendments to the act. The amendments extended through
FY1990 the traditional Title II program of grants for sewage treatment project construction, under
which the federal share was 55% of project costs. The 1987 law initiated a program of grants to
capitalize State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds (SRFs), which are loan programs, in a
new Title VI. States are required to deposit an amount equal to at least 20% of the federal
capitalization grant in the Fund established under Title VI. Under the revolving fund concept,
monies used for wastewater treatment construction would be repaid by loan recipients to the
states (repayment was not required for grants under the Title II program), to be recycled for future
construction in other communities, thus providing an ongoing source of financing. The
expectation in 1987 was that the federal contributions to SRFs would assist in making a transition
to full state and local financing by FY1995. Although most states believe that the SRF is working
well, early funding and administrative problems and continuing large funding needs have delayed
the anticipated shift to full state responsibility. Thus, SRF issues have been prominent on the
Clean Water Act reauthorization agenda in recent Congresses.6
SRF monies may be used for specified activities, including making loans for as much as 100% of
project costs (at or below market interest rates, including interest-free loans), to buy or refinance
cities’ debt obligation, or as a source of revenue or security for payment of principal and interest
on a state-issued bond. SRF monies also may be used to provide loan guarantees or credit
enhancement for localities. Loans made by a state from its SRF are to be used first to assure
progress towards the goals of the act and, in particular, on projects to meet the standards and
enforceable requirements of the act. After states achieve those requirements of the act, SRF
monies also may be used to implement nonpoint pollution management and national estuary
programs. Since the SRF program began, states have used $2.6 billion to assist more than 8,650
nonpoint management projects; none has gone to estuary management activities.

5

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis,
September 2002, EPA 816-R-02-020, 50 p.
6
For further information, see CRS Report 98-323, Wastewater Treatment: Overview and Background, by (name re
dacted).

Congressional Research Service

5

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

All states have established the mechanisms to administer the new loan programs and have been
receiving SRF capitalization funds under Title VI. 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. Although there has been some criticism of the SRF
program, and debate continues over specific concerns, the basic approach is well supported.
Congress used the clean water SRF as the model when it established a drinking water SRF in
1996 (P.L. 104-182).7
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, but that amount has been declining since FY2005. Table 1 summarizes
wastewater treatment funding under Title II (traditional grants program) and Title VI
(capitalization grants for revolving loan programs) since the 1987 amendments.8
Table 1. Wastewater Treatment Funding
(billions of dollars)
Authorizations

Appropriations

Fiscal Year

Title II

Title VI

Title II

Title VI

1986

$2.4

—

$1.800

—

1987

2.4

—

2.360

—

1988

2.4

—

2.300

—

1989

1.2

1.2

0.941

0.941

1990

1.2

1.2

0.967

0.967

1991

—

2.4

—

2.100

1992

—

1.8

—

1.950

1993

—

1.2

—

1.930

1994

—

0.6

—

1.220

1995

—

—

—

1.240

1996

—

—

—

2.070

1997

—

—

—

0.625

1998

—

—

—

1.350

1999

—

—

—

1.350

2000

—

—

—

1.345

7
For further information, see CRS Report RS22037, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): Program
Overview and Issues, by (name redacted).
8
Note: Table 1 does not include appropriations for special project grants in individual cities. Issues associated with
special project grants are discussed in CRS Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Projects Designated in EPA
Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

6

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

Authorizations
Fiscal Year

Appropriations

Title II

Title VI

Title II

Title VI

2001

—

—

—

1.350

2002

—

—

—

1.350

2003

—

—

—

1.341

2004

—

—

—

1.342

2005

—

—

—

1.091

2006

—

—

—

0.887

2007

—

—

—

1.084

2008

—

—

—

0.689

One issue of continuing interest is impacts on small communities. These entities in particular
have found it difficult to participate in the SRF loan program, since many are characterized by
narrow or weak tax bases, limited or no access to capital markets, lower relative household
incomes, and higher per capita needs. They often find it harder to borrow to meet their capital
needs and pay relatively high premiums to do so. Meeting the special needs of small towns,
through a reestablished grant program, other funding source, or loan program with special rules,
has been an issue of interest to Congress.
Because remaining clean water funding needs are still so large nationally, 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. Additionally, there is concern about the
adequacy of SRF or other funding specifically for high-cost 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, and
manage stormwater runoff, is nearly $64 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. 9
Bush Administration officials have said that infrastructure funding needs go beyond what the
federal government can do on its own, and the President’s budget for several years has advanced
the concept that federal funding would cease after 2011 and that state and local self-financing
would occur thereafter. While saying that federal and state funding can help water utilities meet
future needs, EPA’s principal water infrastructure initiative has been to support other types of
responses to help ensure that investment needs are met in an efficient, timely, and equitable
manner. In particular, since 2003 EPA has promoted strategies that it terms the Four Pillars of
Sustainable Infrastructure, based on concepts of better management, full-cost pricing, efficient
water use, and watershed approaches to protection.10 EPA is pursuing a Sustainable Infrastructure
Leadership Initiative in partnership with water utilities to promote the Four Pillars. The purpose
9

For additional information on many of these issues, see CRS Report RL31116, Water Infrastructure Needs and
Investment: Review and Analysis of Key Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Water Infrastructure for the 21st Century. See
http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure.

Congressional Research Service

7

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

of the initiative is to identify new and better ways of doing business in the water and wastewater
industries and promote them widely, and thus ensure sustainability of water systems. For
example, EPA is working to encourage rate structures that lead to full cost pricing and will
support water metering and other conservation measures. EPA also is encouraging consumers to
use water-efficient products (e.g., residential bathroom products), with the intent of reducing
national water and wastewater infrastructure needs by reducing projected water demand and
wastewater flow, thus allowing deferral or downsizing of capital projects.

Legislative Responses
Congress has considered water infrastructure funding issues several times since the 107th
Congress. In that Congress, House and Senate committees approved bills to extend the act’s SRF
program 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.
The issue of the applicability 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. Under the original SRF program authorization enacted in 1987, the DavisBacon Act applied to so-called “first use” monies provided by a state from its SRF (that is, loans
made from initial federal capitalization grants, but not subsequent monies provided from
repayments to the SRF). When that authorization expired at the end of FY1994, Davis-Bacon
requirements also expired. Thus, the recent issue has been whether to restore the applicability of
those requirements.
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), but no further action
occurred. 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
these 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

Congressional Research Service

8

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

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 the CWA formula for state-by-state
allocation of SRF monies and also specified that the prevailing wage requirements of the DavisBacon 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 the 109th Congress, 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.

110th Congress
Wastewater infrastructure financing again received attention in the 110th Congress. In March 2007
the House approved three bills addressing the following issues; however, the Senate did not act
on any of them.
•

H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007, was passed by the House on
March 9, 2007. It is substantially similar to legislation that the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee approved in the 108th Congress (H.R. 1560).11 It would authorize
$14 billion for the clean water SRF program for FY2008-FY2011.12 It includes
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 includes
provisions to require communities to plan for capital replacement needs and to

11

For background information on this earlier legislation, see CRS Report RL32503, Water Infrastructure Financing
Legislation: Comparison of S. 2550 and H.R. 1560, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
12
The original version of H.R. 720, approved by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on February 7,
authorized $20 billion over FY2008-FY2012 for the SRF program. In order to comply with budget compliance rules of
the House, the committee approved a substitute version of the bill on March 1 with a lower authorization level over a
four-year period. The substitute also includes a provision restoring vessel tonnage duties that were in effect from 1990
to 2002 on certain cargo-carrying vessels that enter or depart from U.S. ports; the additional tonnage duties are intended
to offset the cost of H.R. 720.

Congressional Research Service

9

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

develop and implement an asset management plan for the repair and maintenance
of infrastructure that is being financed. One key difference between this bill and
the earlier legislation is the specification in H.R. 720 that the Davis-Bacon Act
prevailing wage requirement shall apply to all projects financed in whole or in
part through an SRF. This issue was extensively debated during subcommittee
and full committee markups of the bill, and amendments to delete the
requirement and to request a GAO study of impacts of the Davis-Bacon Act were
defeated. H.R. 720 includes provisions requesting that GAO prepare a report for
Congress on alternative public and private mechanisms to fund water
infrastructure, and a report on potential funding mechanisms for a clean water
trust fund. During debate on the bill, the House rejected an amendment that
would have deleted the Davis-Bacon requirements in the bill and adopted several
other amendments, including one directing EPA to study U.S. and Canadian
wastewater discharges to the Great Lakes and another directing states to give
funding priority to existing needs before investing in projects for additional
wastewater treatment capacity.
•

H.R. 569 would reauthorize CWA Section 221 to authorize for projects to correct
municipal sewer overflows (H.Rept. 110-16). It is similar to legislation approved
by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the 109th Congress (H.R.
624). The House passed this bill on March 7, 2007. As passed, the bill would
provide $1.7 billion over five years.

•

H.R. 700 would reauthorize CWA Section 220 to extend a pilot program to
develop alternative water source projects (H.Rept. 110-15). It would authorize a
total of $125 million for Section 220. The House passed this bill on March 9,
2007.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held an oversight hearing on wastewater
infrastructure needs in September 2007 and later took up a specific legislative proposal dealing
with financing issues. In September 2008, the committee approved the Water Infrastructure
Financing Act (S. 3617), a bill that is similar to a measure that the committee approved in the
109th Congress (S. 1400). S. 3617 authorizes $20 billion for grants to capitalize the Clean Water
Act SRF program and $15 billion for Safe Drinking Water Act SRF capitalization grants through
FY2012.13 The bill expands eligibility for clean water SRF assistance including, for example,
projects that implement stormwater management, water conservation or efficiency projects, and
water and wastewater reuse and recycling projects. The measure includes a number of provisions
to make the clean water and drinking water SRF programs more parallel, such as allowing SRF
assistance to be used by private as well as public wastewater treatment systems. It also includes
several provisions to benefit small or economically disadvantaged communities, such as through
new technical assistance and more generous loan terms. The committee approved an amendment
adding Davis-Bacon Act language similar to that in House-passed H.R. 720, specifying that
prevailing wage requirement shall apply to all projects financed in whole or in part through an
SRF.

13

These amounts do not reflect an amendment approved during committee markup to reduce all authorizations in the
bill by 2%.

Congressional Research Service

10

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

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—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
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
14

For additional information, see CRS Report RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of Issues, by (name redacted).
For additional information, see CRS Report RL30849, The Supreme Court Addresses Corps of Engineers
Jurisdiction Over “Isolated Waters”: The SWANCC Decision, by (name redacted).
15

Congressional Research Service

11

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

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 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 remained under review, 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 SWANCC. In December 2003, EPA and the Corps announced that the
Administration would not pursue rule changes on 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
waters.”) Many legal and other observers hoped that the Court’s ruling in these cases would bring
greater clarity about the scope of federal jurisdiction.
The Court’s ruling was issued on June 19, 2006 (Rapanos , v. United States, 547 U.S. 715
(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
16
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, January 15, 2003.

Congressional Research Service

12

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

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.17 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 which 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.
On June 5, 2007—nearly one year after the Rapanos ruling—EPA and the Corps issued guidance
to enable their field staffs to make CWA jurisdictional determinations in light of the decision. 18
According to the guidance, the agencies will assert regulatory jurisdiction over certain waters,
such as traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands. Jurisdiction over others, such as nonnavigable tributaries that do not typically flow year-round and wetlands adjacent to such
tributaries, will be determined on a case-by-case basis, to determine if the waters in question have
a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water. The guidance details how the agencies
should evaluate whether there is a significant nexus. The guidance is not intended to increase or
decrease CWA jurisdiction, and it does not supersede or nullify the 2003 guidance, discussed
above, which addressed jurisdiction over isolated wetlands in light of SWANCC.
In accompanying documents, EPA and the Corps said that the Administration was considering a
rulemaking in response to the Rapanos decision, but they noted that developing new rules to
interpret the decision would take more time than issuing the guidance. They also noted that, while
the 2007 guidance provides more clarity for how jurisdictional determinations will be made
concerning non-navigable tributaries and their adjacent wetlands, legal challenges to the scope of
CWA jurisdiction are likely to continue. The guidance took effect immediately, but the agencies
also solicited public comments for a six-month period. The agencies could make changes to the
guidance based on those public comments, but they have not done so yet.

Congressional Actions
In September 2002, a House Government Reform subcommittee held a hearing on the
government’s response to the SWANCC decision. Committee Members and public witnesses
indicated that a lack of guidance from the government clarifying its interpretation of the case had
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
Corps implementation 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 in March 2004.

17

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).
18
The guidance and related documents are available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/
CWAwaters.html.

Congressional Research Service

13

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

Controversies persist about the 2003 SWANCC guidance. 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 have barred 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 2006 without taking final action on H.R. 5386.
Legislation to overturn the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions by providing a broad definition of
“waters of the United States” was introduced in the 110th Congress (H.R. 2421 and S. 1870, the
Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2007).19 Similar legislation was introduced in the 107th,
108th, and 109th Congresses. Other legislation to narrow the definition of “waters of the United
States” also was introduced in the 109th Congress (H.R. 2658). On August 1, 2006, a Senate
Environment and Public Works subcommittee held a hearing on the Court’s Rapanos decision.
For now, it is unclear whether the decision in the Rapanos and Carabell cases will accelerate
congressional action on legislative proposals to address uncertainties about federal jurisdiction
over wetlands and other waters, but both the SWANCC and Rapanos rulings remain highly
controversial.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held hearings on H.R. 2421 and related
jurisdictional issues on July 17 and July 19, 2007. Another hearing was held April 16, 2008. The
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on issues related to the Rapanos
ruling on December 13, 2007, and held a legislative hearing on S. 1870 on April 9, 2008.
Proponents contend that Congress must clarify the important issues left unsettled by the Supreme
Court’s 2001 and 2006 rulings and by the 2007 Corps/EPA guidance. Bill sponsors argue that the
legislation would “reaffirm” what Congress intended when the CWA was enacted in 1972 and
what EPA and the Corps have subsequently been practicing until recently, in terms of CWA
jurisdiction. But critics question the constitutionality of the legislation and assert that it would
expand federal authority, thus likely increasing confusion, rather than settling it. Prospects for the
legislation are uncertain, given the divided views on how it might be interpreted by federal
agencies and the courts.

Regulating Discharges from Vessels
Concerns have been expressed about a court ruling on regulation of ballast water, which is used
by tankers, bulk cargo carriers, and cruise ships to stabilize vessels during transport. Ballast water
is often taken on in the coastal waters of one region and discharged at the next port of call, as
cargo is off-loaded or added. Clean Water Act rules currently exempt ballast water and other
discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels from CWA permit requirements. 20
Because of the growing problem of the introduction of invasive species into U.S. waters via
ballast waters, environmental groups sued EPA to force the agency to rescind the regulatory
exemption. In March 2005, a federal district court ruled in favor of the groups, and, subsequently,
the court remanded the matter to EPA with an order that the challenged regulation be set aside by
19

For additional information and discussion of legislation, see CRS Report RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of
Issues, by (name redacted).
20
This regulatory exemption does not include sewage discharges from vessels, which are regulated under CWA
Section 312.

Congressional Research Service

14

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

September 30, 2008, requiring the EPA to issue CWA permits after that date (Northwest
Environmental Advocates v. EPA, No. C 03-05760 SI (N.D.Cal, September 18, 2006)). The
district court’s ruling was upheld on July 23, but on August 31, the district court approved EPA’s
request to delay the court’s order until Dec. 19, 2008.
Although the government appealed the district court’s ruling, EPA initiated efforts to respond to
the court’s mandate, in case the appeal is unsuccessful. Significantly, the court’s ruling applies
fully to all types of vessel discharges that are covered by the regulatory exemption, including gray
water (wastewater from sinks and laundries), ballast water, and bilge water. Some observers
argued that legislative clarification of this issue was needed, because an appeal might not be
resolved before the deadline mandated by the district court.
EPA estimated that as many as 13 million recreational boats and 98,000 commercial vessels could
be affected by a permitting program. Concern over this possibility led to the introduction of
several bills in the 110th Congress to statutorily exempt vessels from CWA permit requirements
that EPA might adopt in response to the federal court’s order. In July, Congress passed two of
these bills, and President Bush signed both. One is P.L. 110-288 (S. 2766); it exempts recreational
boats from CWA permit requirements and requires EPA to develop management practices for
discharges other than sewage that are incidental to the normal operation of such vessels. The
second is P.L. 110-299 (S. 3298); it provides a two-year permit moratorium for fishing vessels
and other vessels less than 79 feet in length and requires EPA to evaluate the impact of discharges
other than sewage and ballast water that are incidental to the normal operation of vessels.
On June 17, while waiting for the court of appeals or Congress to provide relief from the district
court’s order, EPA proposed two CWA general permits. One permit covers recreational vessels
less than 79 feet in length, and the second covers commercial and large recreational vessels.
Enactment of S. 2766 and S. 3298 relieved recreational boats from permit requirements, but as
many as 50,000 large commercial vessels still must comply when permits are finalized by EPA in
December 2008.21
Related to this issue, the 110th Congress also considered legislation to provide a uniform national
approach for addressing aquatic nuisance species from ballast water under a program
administered by the Coast Guard (S. 1578, ordered reported by the Senate Commerce Committee
on September 27, and House-passed H.R. 2830). Some groups oppose these bills, because they
would preempt states from enacting ballast water management programs more stringent than
Coast Guard requirements under the legislation, which the CWA allows.22

Extension of the Great Lakes Legacy Act
Significant portions of Great Lakes waters are impaired due to years of discharges of toxic
chemicals that have accumulated in the sediments of the lakes. Toxic chemicals in sediment can
enter the food chain and threaten the health of fish, wildlife, and humans. Together, the U.S. and
Canadian governments have identified 42 specific areas of contaminated sediments throughout
the lakes as Areas of Concern and have initiated a variety of remedial actions. However, concern
21

For additional information, see CRS Report RS22878, Clean Water Act: 110th Congress Legislation on Discharges
from Recreational Boats, by (name redacted).
22
For additional information see CRS Report RL34640, Regulating Ballast Water Discharges: Legislative Issues in the
110th Congress, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

15

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

over the slow pace and limited funding for such projects led to enactment of the Great Lakes
Legacy Act on 2002 (P.L. 107-303). It amended the Great Lakes provision of the CWA (section
118) to authorize funds for monitoring, evaluating, and remediating contaminated sediments in
areas of concern in the lakes.
Authorizations under the original legislation expired at the end of FY2008. Thus, the 110th
Congress enacted legislation (H.R. 6460) to extend authorizations for two years (through
FY2010) at existing funding levels of $50 million per year. In response to comments from
stakeholders, the new legislation makes several procedural changes to the cleanup program to
speed up the ranking, prioritization, and remediation of contaminated sites; gives EPA greater
flexibility to manage funds; and allows use of cleanup funds to include habitat restoration.
President Bush signed the bill on October 8, 2008 (P.L. 110-365).

Other Clean Water Act Issues
Several other issues affecting efforts to achieve the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act
also were of interest during the 110th Congress through oversight and legislation.

Implementation of the BEACH Act
In 2000 Congress enacted the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (the
BEACH Act) in order to augment federal and state efforts to prevent human exposure to polluted
coastal recreation waters, including the Great Lakes. This act directed coastal states to adopt
updated water quality standards and EPA to develop new protective criteria and standards. It also
authorized grants to coastal states to support monitoring and notification programs. In May 2007
the GAO issued a report on federal and state implementation, finding that EPA has implemented
most provisions of the act, but has not yet published new or revised water quality criteria, which
the law required by 2005.23 Several bills to extend authorization of appropriations for the BEACH
grants were introduced in the 110th Congress (H.R. 723, H.R. 909, H.R. 2537/S. 1506, S. 2844),
and hearings on the status of implementation were held by Senate and House committees. On
April 16, 2008, the House approved H.R. 2537 with several amendments (H.Rept. 110-491). The
bill would allow states to use BEACH Act funds to track sources of pollution and would require
states to use rapid testing methods of beach water, in order to improve public notification. It
would increase grant funds to the states from $30 million annually to $40 million. It also directs
EPA to publish revised water quality criteria for pathogens, a key pollutant of concern at beaches,
as well as a list of all pathogens and pathogen indicators it has studied and observed in the course
of developing those criteria.
On May 21, 2008, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ordered reported
companion legislation, S. 2844 (S.Rept. 110-414). The Senate version would increase authorized
grant funds to $60 million per year. No further action occurred.

23

U.S. Government Accountability Office, EPA and States Have Made Progress in Implementing the BEACH Act, but
Additional Actions Could Improve Public Health Protection, (GAO-07-591), May 2007, 61 p.

Congressional Research Service

16

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

Stormwater Discharges
EPA has struggled since the 1970s to regulate industrial and municipal stormwater discharges in a
workable yet comprehensive manner. For many years, it was generally believed that stormwater
was largely clean, or uncontaminated. However, studies have shown that this type of discharge
carries with it large amounts of organic and toxic pollutants that can harm water quality, including
oil and grease, heavy metals, pesticides, soil, and sediment. In P.L. 100-4, Congress established
firm deadlines and priorities for EPA to require permits for discharges of stormwater that are not
mixed or contaminated with household or industrial waste. EPA issued rules in November 1990
that addressed Phase I of the program, detailing the process of applying for stormwater permits
for industries, medium and large municipalities, and construction sites larger than 5 acres. The
agency worked with an advisory committee of stakeholders beginning in 1994 to develop rules
for regulating smaller stormwater dischargers, which were not covered by the 1990 rules. Rules
for smaller dischargers (unregulated industries, small construction sites, and small cities), Phase
II of the program, were issued in October 1999. The burden of complying with the rules continues
to be an issue with many industries and municipalities, especially small cities, which faced
compliance deadlines beginning in March 2003.24
A May 2007 GAO report examined municipalities’ implementation of the Phase I and Phase II
stormwater rules and burdens of the regulatory program on communities. GAO reported that
issuance of some permits was delayed for years after the application deadlines: almost 11% of all
communities were not permitted as of fall 2006. As a result, almost all Phase II and some Phase I
communities are still in the early stages of implementation. Thus, GAO concluded that it is too
early to assess the program or determine its overall burden. GAO attempted to analyze EPA’s
estimates of program costs, but found methodological and data problems serious enough that
GAO could not use the estimates as indicators of actual program costs. Further, GAO found that
municipalities’ annual reports to EPA were too limited and inconsistent to permit assessing the
costs of the stormwater program.25
Stormwater issues were addressed in one provision of omnibus energy legislation in the 109th
Congress. As the March 2003 compliance deadline approached for Phase II small construction
sites to comply with stormwater permit rules, EPA proposed a two-year extension of those rules
for small oil and gas construction sites to allow the agency to assess the economic impact on that
particular industry. In March 2005, EPA again extended the deadline, until June 2006. During this
time, Congress considered a legislative solution which it enacted in Section 323 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). It provides a permanent exemption from stormwater runoff
rules for the construction of exploration and production facilities by oil and gas companies or the
roads that service those sites.
Industry officials said that EPA’s original stormwater rule created costly permitting requirements,
even though the short construction period for drilling sites carries little potential for stormwater
runoff pollution. The enacted provision makes EPA’s temporary delay permanent and makes it
applicable to construction activities at all oil and gas development and production sites, regardless
of size, including those covered by an earlier Phase I of the stormwater program. Opponents
24

For further information, see CRS Report 97-290, Stormwater Permits: Status of EPA’s Regulatory Program, by
(name redacted).
25
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Further Implementation and Better Costs Data Needed to Determine
Impact of EPA’s Storm Water Program on Communities, GAO-07-749, May 2007, 110 pp.

Congressional Research Service

17

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

argued that the provision did not belong in the energy legislation and that there was no evidence
that construction at oil and gas sites causes less pollution than other construction activities.
Congress passed the conference report on the legislation, with the oil and gas stormwater
provision, in July 2005. President Bush signed it into law on August 8, 2005.
In June 2006, EPA promulgated a rule to conform the CWA to these provisions of P.L. 109-58.26
The rule exempts oil and gas construction activities from CWA permits, including sediment-laden
stormwater discharges, even if such discharges contribute to a violation of water quality
standards. Environmental groups challenged the rule, saying that, because sediment is a pollutant,
EPA exceeded its authority by including uncontaminated sediment in the permit exemption. In
May 2008, a federal court agreed with the challengers, ruling that the regulation “constituted an
impermissible construction” of the CWA, and vacated the regulation (Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, CA 9, No. 06-73217, May 23, 2008). The government’s request for a rehearing of
this ruling was denied in November; EPA has not indicated how it will respond to vacatur of the
rule.

Combined and Separate Sewer Overflows
A total of 772 municipalities have combined sewers where domestic sanitary sewage, industrial
wastes, infiltration from groundwater, and stormwater runoff are collected. These systems serve
approximately 40 million persons, mainly in older urban and coastal cities. Normally (under dryweather conditions), the combined wastes are conveyed to a municipal sewage treatment plant.
Properly designed, sized, and maintained combined sewers can be an acceptable part of a city’s
water pollution control infrastructure. However, combined sewer overflow (CSO) occurs when
the capacity of the collection and treatment system is exceeded due to high volumes of rainwater
or snowmelt, and the excess volume is diverted and discharged directly into receiving waters,
bypassing the sewage treatment plants. Often the excess flow that contains raw sewage, industrial
wastes, and stormwater is discharged untreated. Many combined sewer systems are found in
coastal areas where recreational areas, fish habitat and shellfish beds may be contaminated by the
discharges.
In 1994, following negotiations with key stakeholder groups, EPA issued a CSO permitting
strategy. Cities were to implement nine minimum controls by January 1, 1997 (e.g., proper
operation and maintenance programs for sewer systems and pollution prevention programs).
Controls generally are based on combinations of management techniques (such as temporary
retention of excess flow during storm events) and structural measures (ranging from screens that
capture solids to construction of separate sewer systems). EPA officials stated in 1998 that only
about one-half of the cities with combined sewers implemented the minimum measures called for
in the 1994 strategy. EPA has been working with states to remind cities of their obligations to
address CSO problems. However, a formal enforcement strategy is not contemplated.
One issue concerning some cities is the problem of overflows from municipal separate sanitary
sewers (SSOs) that are not CSOs because they transport only sanitary wastes. Discharges of
untreated sewage from these sewers can occur from manholes, broken pipes and deteriorated
26
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Amendments to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Regulations for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration, Production, Processing,
or Treatment Operations, or Transmission Facilities,” 71 Federal Register 33628, June 12, 2006.

Congressional Research Service

18

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

infrastructure, and undersized pipes, and can occur in wet or dry weather. EPA estimates that
there are about 18,000 municipalities with separate sanitary sewers, all of which can, under
certain circumstances, experience overflows. No explicit EPA or statutory control policy currently
exists. In 1995, EPA convened a stakeholders’ group to discuss how to address those overflows
that pose the highest environmental and public health risk first. On January 5, 2001, the Clinton
Administration proposed regulations to improve the operation of municipal sanitary sewer
collection systems, reduce the frequency and occurrence of overflows, clarify the existing CWA
prohibition on SSO discharges, and clarify circumstances appropriate for enforcement action. The
Clinton proposal was not finalized by the Bush Administration, which reportedly is continuing to
consider SSO policy issues.
Funding for CSO and SSO projects is a major concern of states and cities. The most recent clean
water needs survey found that the largest needs category, totaling $55 billion and representing
27% of total needs, is to address CSOs. In December 2000, Congress passed legislation, the Wet
Weather Water Quality Act, authorizing a two-year $1.5 billion grants program to reduce wet
weather flows from municipal sewer systems, both CSOs and SSOs. This bill was included in the
FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations bill (Section 112 of Division B, P.L. 106-554), which
codified EPA’s CSO policy on sewer overflows (discussed above). Congress provided no
appropriations for these wet weather grants during the two years of authorization (FY2002FY2003). As described above, in March 2007, the House passed legislation to reauthorize this
grant program (H.R. 569).
The 110th Congress also addressed a related issue, that of notification to the public when a sewer
overflow event occurs. On June 23 the House passed H.R. 2452, a bill intended to ensure that
sewage treatment plants monitor for and report discharges of raw sewage from combined or
separate sewers. The bill would require EPA to issue criteria to guide plant operators in assessing
whether a sewer overflow has the potential to affect human health or imminently and
substantially endanger human health. On September 17, the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee approved S. 2080 with an amendment providing the text of House-passed H.R.
2452. No further action occurred.

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 is
protection of the nation’s water infrastructure facilities (both drinking water and wastewater) from
possible physical damage, biological/chemical attacks, and cyber disruption.27
Policymakers have examined a number of legislative options in this area, including enhanced
physical security, communication and coordination, and research. In the 107th Congress, the
House passed legislation to authorize $200 million in grants for security activities at wastewater
treatment plants (H.R. 5169). Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate (S. 3037), but no
further action occurred. Congress did enact legislation directing medium and large drinking water
utilities to assess their vulnerabilities to terrorist attack and authorizing $160 million in grants for
these utilities to conduct assessments (P.L. 107-188).

27

For information, see CRS Report RL32189, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector,
by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

19

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

Following on those new requirements affecting drinking water utilities, in the 108th Congress, the
House passed legislation that 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 (H.R. 866). The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
approved a similar bill (S. 1039). 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 have encouraged wastewater utilities to
conduct vulnerability assessments and would have authorized $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 wastewater 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. 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 occurred on this bill. A bill in the 110th
Congress, S. 1968, would authorize grants for vulnerability assessments and security
enhancements at wastewater treatment and drinking water treatment plants and also would
authorize research activities. There was no action on this bill.

Nonpoint Pollution Management
Prior to the 1987 CWA amendments, the act’s requirements focused primarily on controlling
pollution from “point” sources, that is, discharges from wastewater treatment plants and industrial
facilities. Yet, as industrial and municipal sources have abated pollution, uncontrolled nonpoint
sources have become a relatively larger portion of remaining water quality problems—perhaps
contributing as much as 50% of the nation’s water pollution. Nonpoint pollution is rainfall or
snowmelt runoff from farm and urban areas, as well as construction, forestry, and mining sites. In
1987 Congress added a new Section 319 to the act to strengthen the law regarding this major
contributor to water pollution by requiring states to develop and implement programs to control
nonpoint sources of pollution. States were required to identify waters not expected to meet water
quality standards because of nonpoint source pollution and to implement plans for managing
pollution from runoff. Federal grants totaling $400 million were authorized to cover as much as
60% of the costs of implementing a state’s management plan.
At issue today is what progress is being made to manage nonpoint source pollution and what
additional efforts may be needed involving Section 319 or other public and private activities.
Several concerns have been raised about the program, such as whether state plans have
comprehensively addressed their nonpoint pollution problems. Some observers are critical of the
largely voluntary nature of the Section 319 program, consisting of “all carrot but no stick,” while
others argue that the types of individual land management decisions that are needed to manage
nonpoint source pollution cannot be regulated in the same ways that industrial sources are
controlled.

Congressional Research Service

20

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

Funding has become an important issue as states moved from assessment and plan development
to management, since Congress intended that Section 319 funds be used primarily to implement
nonpoint pollution controls on the ground. Precise estimates of management costs are not
available, because so much depends on the site-specific nature of problems and solutions.
However, in 1994 EPA estimated that current and planned spending by private sources, states, and
cities under provisions of current law is between $750 million and $1.1 billion per year. Without
adequate funding to implement state management plans, it is doubtful that much will be achieved
under Section 319 to control nonpoint source pollution.
Because agricultural activities are known to be a significant source of nonpoint pollution
nationwide, the adequacy of efforts to address these sources has received much attention.
Questions have been raised about the 319 grant program’s efficacy and overlap with farm bill
conservation funding. In particular, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
found that EPA had not demonstrated results under the program and has urged the agency to shift
its focus away from implementing projects in agricultural areas and toward implementing plans in
impaired waters. State officials have been concerned that OMB is not fully aware of the extent to
which Section 319 funds address a range of nonpoint pollution control needs beyond the
agricultural sector.

Strategy Concerning Animal Feeding Operations
As noted previously, EPA’s water quality reports identify agricultural activities as the leading
contributor to water quality impairments nationwide. Animal feeding operations (AFOs) are only
a subset of the agriculture category, but because more than one-half of the states specifically
identify AFOs as contributing to impairments, public and policy attention has increased on how to
minimize public health and environmental impacts of runoff from them. AFOs are agricultural
facilities that confine livestock and their feeding activities, thus concentrating animal populations
and waste. Animal waste is frequently applied to land for disposal and to utilize the nutrient value
of manure to benefit crops. If not managed properly, however, it can pose risks to water quality
and public health, contributing pollutants such as nutrients, sediment, pathogens, and ammonia to
the environment.
Clean water regulations issued in the 1970s required discharge permits for the largest AFOs,
termed confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). However, EPA acknowledged that
compliance and enforcement of these permit rules was poor (less than one-third of covered
facilities actually have permits) and that the regulations themselves were outdated. In December
2002, EPA issued revised rules to regulate waste discharges from CAFOs. Among the key
elements, the rules include requirements for development of nutrient management plans to better
manage land application of manure. EPA estimated that 15,500 CAFOs would be regulated by the
rule, at an annual compliance cost of $335 million. Farm groups said that the regulations are
generally workable and consistent with environmental initiatives in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107171), but environmental groups criticized the rule for inadequately addressing animal waste
runoff problems.28 A January 2003 GAO report concluded that the rules will be ineffective unless

28

For additional information, see CRS Report RL31851, Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA Regulation of
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

21

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

EPA increases its oversight of state regulatory programs, which have primary responsibility for
ensuring compliance by feedlot operators.29
In February 2005, a federal court issued a ruling in a set of challenges to the CAFO rule
(Waterkeeper Alliance, American Farm Bureau, et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005)). The
litigation involved challenges to the permitting scheme of the rule, the type of discharges subject
to regulation, and the effluent limitations established in the rules. The court upheld major parts of
the EPA rule, held in favor of some of industry’s challenges, held in favor of several of
environmentalists’ challenges, and in some cases directed EPA to explain more fully why it did or
did not do certain things with regard to specific provisions of the rule. In October 2008, EPA
issued final revisions to the 2003 CAFO rule in response to the court’s decision. 30

Other Implementation Issues
Also of legislative interest are the impacts of 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)).31 The decision raised concerns in agricultural areas where such
transfers often occur in supplying irrigation water, presently without a permit. Congress has not
held oversight hearings on impacts of the Court’s decision, and legislation that might address the
ruling has not been introduced. In response to the Court’s ruling, in June 2008, EPA promulgated
a rule defining categories or types of water transfers that the agency believes do not require
NPDES permits. The rule, which supports EPA’s long-standing legal interpretation of the CWA, is
controversial and was quickly challenged in federal courts by the Miccosukee Indian Tribe of
Florida and environmental advocates.
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 a regulation to
clarify circumstances under which a CWA permit is or is not required for activities carried out
pursuant to FIFRA. Legal challenges to this rule are pending in federal court. Congress examined
these issues in oversight hearings, one by a House Transportation and Infrastructure
29

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Increased EPA Oversight Will Improve Environmental Program for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, GAO-03-285, January 2003, 42 p.
30
For additional information, see CRS Report RL33656, Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA’s Response to the
Waterkeeper Alliance Court Decision on Regulation of CAFOs, by (name redacted).
31
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).

Congressional Research Service

22

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

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 FIFRAapproved pesticides and to broaden EPA’s 2006 regulatory policy 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. No further action occurred.32

Continuing Issue: Appropriations
Clean water funding questions continue to arise and be addressed by Congress in the context of
appropriations.33

FY2008
The President’s FY2008 budget request was presented to Congress on February 5, 2007. The
budget requested $687.6 million for clean water SRF grants, the same amount requested for
FY2007. The budget sought reduced funding for several other water quality programs below
levels enacted for FY2007 in P.L. 110-5, including nonpoint pollution management grants
(proposed 5% cut), grant funding for states for watershed protection (proposed to be eliminated),
and funds for the National Estuary Program (proposed 28% cut). Other water quality programs
would receive increased funding under the proposal, including cleanup of contaminated
sediments in the Great Lakes (proposed 21% increase), funds for the Chesapeake Bay program
(30% increase), and grants to states for water quality monitoring (3% increase).
On June 27 the House passed H.R. 2643, providing FY2008 appropriations for EPA. This bill
included $1.125 billion for clean water SRF grants, plus $175.5 million for 143 congressionally
designated water infrastructure project grants. It also included increases above the
Administration’s request for nonpoint pollution management grants, targeted watershed
protection grants, and the National Estuary Program, as well as Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay
programs. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved companion legislation (S. 1696) that
similarly included higher funding levels for several water quality programs. The Senate
committee’s bill provided less funding for clean water SRF grants than the House bill ($887
million), but slightly more for congressionally designated water infrastructure project grants
($180 million). The Senate did not take up S. 1696.
By October 1, the start of the fiscal year, Congress had not enacted any FY2008 appropriations
bills. Congress enacted several short-term continuing appropriations resolutions to temporarily
fund EPA and other government agencies until final agreement, which occurred in December
2007. Full-year funding for EPA’s water infrastructure programs was included in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2008 (Division F, Title II), signed by the President December 26, 2007
(P.L. 110-161). The final bill included $689 million for clean water SRF grants ($1.5 million
more than requested, but $395 million less than in FY2007), plus $177 million for 282 earmarked
grants in listed communities, Alaska Native villages, and U.S.-Mexico border projects.
32

For background, see CRS Report RL32884, Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in
Conflict?, by (name redacted).
33
For additional information, see CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations,
by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

23

Water Quality Issues in the 110th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

FY2009
The President’s FY2009 budget was presented on February 5, 2008. Overall, the budget sought
$7.1 billion for EPA programs and activities, 5% less than Congress appropriated for FY2008.
The request included a number of reductions for water quality programs. It sought $555 million
for the clean water SRF program (20% below the FY2008 level) and, as in previous budgets,
requested no funding for congressionally earmarked water infrastructure grants. In addition, the
budget asked for 8% less for nonpoint pollution management grants ($184.5 million, compared
with $200.8 million in FY2008) and sought no funding for the targeted watershed grants program,
a competitive grant program that provides funding for community-driven watershed restoration
projects; it received $10 million in FY2008 appropriations.
On June 11, a House Appropriations subcommittee approved a bill with FY2009 funds for EPA.
The bill included $850 million for clean water SRF capitalization grants (which is $295 million
above the Administration’s request and $161 million above the FY2008 level) and $150 million
for congressionally earmarked water infrastructure grants.
No further action occurred before the start of the new fiscal year. However, at the end of
September Congress and the President agreed to legislation providing partial-year funding for
EPA and most other agencies and departments. This bill, the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Resolution Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329) provides funding through March
6, 2009, at FY2008-enacted levels. Final action on FY2009 appropriations is expected to occur
early in 2009.

Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

24

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
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL33800. Public record. Not legal advice.