59–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–16 

WATER QUALITY INVESTMENT ACT OF 2007 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. OBERSTAR, from the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 569] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 569) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize appropriations for sewer overflow control grants, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 

pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Quality Investment Act of 2007’’. 

SEC. 2. SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS. 

(a) ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS.—Section 221(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301(e)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(e) ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS.—A project that receives assistance under 

this section shall be carried out subject to the same requirements as a project that 

receives assistance from a State water pollution control revolving fund under title 

VI, except to the extent that the Governor of the State in which the project is located determines that a requirement of title VI is insonsistent with the purposes 

of this section’’. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—The first sentence of section 221(f) of 

such Act (33 U.S.C.1301(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘$750,000,000’’ and all follows 

before the period and inserting ‘‘$250,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $300,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2009, $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, 

and $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2012’’. 

(c) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—Section 221(g) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1301(g)) is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(g) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.— 

‘‘(1) FISCAL YEAR 2008.—Subject to subsection (h), the Administrator shall use 

the amounts appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal year 2008 for making grants to municipalities and municipal entities under subsection (a)(2) in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (b). 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
2 

‘‘(2) FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND THEREAFTER.—Subject to subsection (h), the Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal year thereafter for making grants to States under 

subsection (a)(1) in accordance with a formula to be established by the Administrator, after providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, that allocates to each State a proportional share of such amounts based on the total 

needs of the State for municipal combined sewer overflow controls and sanitary 

sewer overflow controls identified in the most recent survey conducted pursuant 

to section 516.’’

(d) REPORTS.—The first sentence of section 221(i) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1301(i)) 

is amended by striking ‘‘2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2007, amends section 221 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (‘‘Clean Water 

Act’’) to reauthorize appropriations for grants to municipalities and 

States to control combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer 

overflows. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Combined sewer systems, which carry both storm water and sanitary (sewage) flows, and separate sanitary sewer systems can overflow with untreated waste during wet weather episodes such as 

rainfall or snow melts. These combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and 

sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) may also occur outside of precipitation events because of insufficient system capacity, poor system 

design, inadequate maintenance, inflow from improper connections 

to the system, and infiltration from groundwater into deteriorated 

pipes, among other factors. 

CSOs and SSOs present significant public health and safety concerns because raw sewage can overflow into rivers, lakes, streets, 

parks, basements, and other areas of potential human exposure, 

adversely impacting public health and the environment. These discharges are among the major sources responsible for beach closures, shellfish restrictions, and exceedances of water quality 

standards. 

According to a December 2001 U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Report to Congress, there are 772 communities 

across the United States that have combined sewer systems. These 

combined sewer systems have 9,471 built-in relief outlets designed 

to prevent wastewater flows in excess of system capacity from damaging the systems’ treatment works, by allowing wastewater discharges (‘‘overflows’’) directly into nearby streams, rivers, lakes, or 

estuaries, instead of going to the treatment works. Combined sewers are found in 31 States across the U.S. and the District of Columbia. The majority of combined sewers are located in communities in the Northeast and the Great Lakes regions, where much 

of the oldest water infrastructure in the nation is found. However, 

combined sewer overflows have also occurred in the West, including 

the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. To eliminate 

combined sewer overflows, communities must redesign their sewer 

systems to separate sewage flows from stormwater flows or provide 

significant additional capacity to eliminate the possibility that combined flows will exceed the limits of the infrastructure. 

EPA has also estimated that more than 40,000 SSOs per year 

occur from the nation’s 19,500 separate sanitary sewer systems. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
3 

SSOs can have a major impact on human health and the environment through discharges into neighborhood streets, parks, individual homeowner basements, and other areas. 

CSOs are point source discharges regulated under the Clean 

Water Act, and are subject to permitting under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) by EPA or authorized 

States. Permits include technology-based standards determined on 

a case-by-case basis (rather than categorical standards) and any 

appropriate water quality standards. Under the CSO Control Policy 

issued by EPA in 1994, communities must adopt nine minimum 

controls and must develop long-term control plans. The CSO Control Policy requires these controls and plans to be incorporated into 

an NPDES permit or other enforceable mechanism that will ensure 

implementation by the CSO community. Section 402(q) of the 

Clean Water Act requires each permit, order, or decree issued after 

December 21, 2000, for a discharge from a municipal combined 

storm and sanitary sewer to conform to the 1994 CSO Control Policy. 

Correcting these problems is expensive. In its 2000 Clean Water 

Needs Survey, EPA estimated the cost to communities of addressing CSOs to be $50.6 billion, and the cost of addressing SSOs to 

be $88.5 billion. 

The vast majority of these costs will be borne by local communities and local ratepayers. Federal assistance has been small relative to the overall needs to address CSOs and SSOs. Through 

June 2006, States have made approximately $5.3 billion in loans 

for CSOs from State Revolving Funds (SRFs) and have made approximately $6 billion in loans to address the infiltration and inflow into sewer pipes that can cause SSOs. 

To provide additional Federal assistance, in 2000, Congress 

amended the Clean Water Act to add section 221 (P.L. 106–554). 

Section 221 authorized appropriations of $750 million for each of 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for EPA to make grants to States and 

municipalities for controlling CSOs and SSOs. This authorization 

was conditioned upon the receipt of at least $1.35 billion in appropriations for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds. No 

funds were appropriated for sewer overflow control grants in either 

fiscal year 2002 or 2003. Reauthorization of appropriations for section 221 provides an authority to help municipalities and States 

control combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. 

SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Sewer overflow control grants 

Subsection (a) amends section 221(e) of the Clean Water Act to 

require that a project that receives assistance under this section is 

carried out in accordance with the requirements for projects receiving assistance from State Revolving Loan Funds under title VI of 

the Clean Water Act, except to the extent that the Governor of the 

State in which the project is located determines that a requirement 

of title VI is inconsistent with the purposes of this section. This 

section allows States to implement grants under section 221 in conjunction with a State’s Revolving Loan Fund program. 

Subsection (b) amends section 221(f) of the Clean Water Act to 

authorize appropriations of $1.8 billion over five years, providing 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
4 

$250 million in fiscal year 2008, $300 million in fiscal year 2009, 

$350 million in fiscal year 2010, $400 million in fiscal year 2011, 

and $500 million in fiscal year 2012. 

Subsection (c) amends section 221(g) of the Clean Water Act to 

update the provision for allocation of funds to reflect the new dates 

of authorization and reauthorized amounts. Specifically, consistent 

with section 221 as originally enacted, funding in the first year of 

authorization is to be used for direct grants by the Administrator 

to municipalities. For subsequent years, the Administrator will allocate funds to States, in accordance with a needs-based formula to 

be established by the Administrator, and such funds are to be used 

by States to make grants to municipalities. 

Subsection (d) amends section 221(i) of the Clean Water Act to 

change the date that the Administrator is required to transmit to 

Congress a report containing recommended funding levels for 

grants under this section from December 31, 2003, to December 31, 

2010. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has held several 

hearings on the nation’s wastewater infrastructure needs and the 

importance of a renewed commitment to addressing these needs, 

including funds to address CSOs and SSOs. On March 28, 2001, 

the Subcommittee held a hearing, entitled ‘‘Water Infrastructure 

Needs’’. On March 19, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing, entitled ‘‘Meeting the Nation’s Wastewater Infrastructure Needs’’. On 

April 28, 2004, the Subcommittee held a hearing, entitled ‘‘Aging 

Water Supply Infrastructure’’. On June 8 and 14, 2005, the Subcommittee held a series of hearings, entitled ‘‘Financing Water Infrastructure Projects’’. On January 19, 2007, the Subcommittee 

held a hearing, entitled ‘‘The Need for Renewed Investment in 

Clean Water Infrastructure’’. Over the last three Congresses, the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure has approved legislation to reauthorize appropriations for grants to address combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. 

In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 784, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2003, on July 

8, 2004. On July 15, 2004, the Subcommittee adopted by voice vote 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment authorized $250 million for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2010. 

The amendment also made other changes to section 221 to update 

the authority and to ensure that States may administer these 

grants in the same way that they administer loans from the State 

Revolving Loan Funds. The Subcommittee recommended the bill, 

as amended, favorably to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, by voice vote. On July 21, 2004, the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session, and ordered 

the bill, as amended by the Subcommittee, reported to the House 

by voice vote (H. Rept. 108–675). No further action was taken on 

this legislation. 

In the 109th Congress, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met on May 18, 2005, to consider H.R. 624, a bill to 

authorize appropriations for sewer overflow control grants. H.R. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
5 

624 was identical to H.R. 784, the Water Quality Investment Act 

of 2003, as reported by the Committee in the 108th Congress, with 

the exception of updating the authorization years from 2005 

through 2010 to 2006 through 2011. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session and ordered H.R. 624 

reported to the House by voice vote (H. Rept. 109–166). No further 

action was taken on this legislation. 

Representative Pascrell, Representative Camp, and Representative Capuano introduced H.R. 569 on January 18, 2007. This legislation was modeled after H.R. 624, as approved by the Committee 

on May 18, 2005, and authorized appropriations of $3 billion over 

six years for grants to address combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. 

On January 31, 2007, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 

Environment considered H.R. 569 and adopted an amendment in 

the nature of a substitute by voice vote. The amendment authorized appropriations of $1.8 billion over five years, providing $250 

million in fiscal year 2008, $300 million in fiscal year 2009, $350 

million in fiscal year 2010, $400 million in fiscal year 2011, and 

$500 million in fiscal year 2012, and conformed the remainder of 

the bill to the text of H.R. 624 from the 109th Congress. The Subcommittee recommended the bill, as amended, favorably to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, by voice vote. On 

February 7, 2007, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session, and ordered the bill, as amended by the 

Subcommittee, reported to the House by voice vote. 

RECORD VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives requires 

each committee report to include the total number of votes cast for 

and against on each record vote on a motion to report and on any 

amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the names of 

those members voting for and against. There were no recorded 

votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 569 reported. A motion to order H.R. 569, as amended, reported favorably to the 

House was agreed to by voice vote with a quorum present. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(I) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in this report. 

COST OF LEGISLATION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely 

submitted prior to the filing of the report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included in this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 308(a) of the 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
6 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee references the 

report of the Congressional Budget Office included in the report. 

2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals 

and objective of this legislation are to control combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows through additional planning, 

design, and construction of treatment works to intercept, transport, 

control, or treat CSOs and SSOs. 

3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the 

enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 569 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, February 12, 2007. 

Hon. JAMES L. OBERSTAR, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 569, the Water Quality 

Investment Act of 2007. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Susanne S. Mehlman 

(for federal costs), and Lisa Ramirez-Branum (for the state and 

local impact). 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 569—Water Quality Investment Act of 2007 

Summary: H.R. 569 would authorize the appropriation of $1.80 

billion over the 2008–2012 period for the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to provide grants to municipalities and states to control overflows of untreated wastewater that can occur during episodes of wet weather. Such overflows of sewage can pose a health 

and safety risk if they flow into rivers, lakes, and streets. This legislation also would permit states and municipalities to use the 

grant money to provide loans for eligible projects. CBO estimates 

that implementing this legislation would cost about $1.45 billion 

over the next five years and an additional $0.35 billion after 2012, 

assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. Enacting the 

bill would not affect direct spending or receipts. 

H.R. 569 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Enacting this bill would benefit states and municipalities receiving 

grant funding to control sewer overflow; any costs that they might 

incur would result from complying with conditions of federal assistance. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For this estimate, 

CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted in fiscal year 2007 and 

that the amounts authorized will be appropriated for each fiscal 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
7 

year. Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns 

of similar grant programs. The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 

569 is shown in the following table. The cost of this legislation falls 

within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ........................................................................................ 250 300 350 400 500 

Estimated Outlays ......................................................................................... 125 225 300 360 440 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 569 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Enacting this bill would benefit states and municipalities 

receiving grant funding to control sewer overflow; any costs that 

they might incur would result from complying with conditions of 

federal assistance. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa RamirezBranum; and Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XXI 

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act of 

2007, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 

benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 

9(f) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character shall include a statement citing the specific 

powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the 

measure. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

finds that Congress has the authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(Public Law 104–4). 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the 

report of any Committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a 

statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, or tribal law. The Committee states 

that H.R. 569 does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
8 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 221 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION 

CONTROL ACT 

SEC. 221. SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(e) ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—If a project receives grant assistance under subsection (a) and loan assistance 

from a State water pollution control revolving fund and the loan 

assistance is for 15 percent or more of the cost of the project, the 

project may be administered in accordance with State water pollution control revolving fund administrative reporting requirements 

for the purposes of streamlining such requirements.¿ 

(e) ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS.—A project that receives assistance under this section shall be carried out subject to the same 

requirements as a project that receives assistance from a State water 

pollution control revolving fund under title VI, except to the extent 

that the Governor of the State in which the project is located determines that a requirement of title VI is inconsistent with the purposes of this section. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this section ø$750,000,000 for each of 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003¿ $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, 

$400,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, and $500,000,000 for fiscal year 

2012. Such sums shall remain available until expended. 

ø(g) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.— ø(1) FISCAL YEAR 2002.—Subject to subsection (h), the Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to carry out this 

section for fiscal year 2002 for making grants to municipalities 

and municipal entities under subsection (a)(2), in accordance 

with the criteria set forth in subsection (b). 

ø[(2) FISCAL YEAR 2003.—Subject to subsection (h), the Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to carry out 

this section for fiscal year 2003 as follows: 

ø(A) Not to exceed $250,000,000 for making grants to 

municipalities and municipal entities under subsection 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
9 

(a)(2), in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (b). 

ø(B) All remaining amounts for making grants to States 

under subsection (a)(l), in accordance with a formula to be 

established by the Administrator, after providing notice 

and an opportunity for public comment, that allocates to 

each State a proportional share of such amounts based on 

the total needs of the State for municipal combined sewer 

overflow controls and sanitary sewer overflow controls 

identified in the most recent survey conducted pursuant to 

section 516(b)(1).¿ 

(g) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—

(1) FISCAL YEAR 2008.—Subject to subsection (h), the Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal year 2008 for making grants to municipalities 

and municipal entities under subsection (a)(2) in accordance 

with the criteria set forth in subsection (b). 

(2) FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND THEREAFTER.—Subject to subsection 

(h), the Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to 

carry out this section for fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal year 

thereafter for making grants to States under subsection (a)(l) in 

accordance with a formula to be established by the Administrator, after providing notice and an opportunity for public 

comment, that allocates to each State a proportional share of 

such amounts based on the total needs of the State for municipal combined sewer overflow controls and sanitary sewer overflow controls identified in the most recent survey conducted pursuant to section 516. 

* * * * * * * 

(i) REPORTS.—Not later than December 31, ø2003¿ 2010, and periodically thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress 

a report containing recommended funding levels for grants under 

this section. The recommended funding levels shall be sufficient to 

ensure the continued expeditious implementation of municipal combined sewer overflow and sanitary sewer overflow controls nationwide. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT