39–006

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 109–166

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SEWER 

OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS 

JULY 13, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 624] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 624) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize appropriations for sewer overflow control grants, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 624 amends section 221 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the 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, 

2

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. CSOs are found 

in 31 States and the District of Columbia, typically in older communities. EPA also has estimated that more than 40,000 SSOs per 

year occur from the Nation’s 19,500 separate sanitary sewer systems. SSOs can occur in streets, parks, 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 

2004, States have made approximately $4.2 billion in loans for 

CSOs from State Revolving Loan Funds (SRFs) and have made approximately $1.59 billion in loans to address the infiltration and inflow into sewer pipes that can cause SSOs. In addition, Congress 

earmarked over $700 million in EPA grants for CSO communities 

between 1992 and 2004. 

To provide additional Federal assistance, in 2000, in P.L. 106–

554, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to add section 221. 

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 and this authorization has expired. Reauthorization of section 221 of the Clean Water Act provides an auVerDate jul 14 2003 22:57 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR166.XXX HR166
3

thority 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 

to be 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 $1.5 billion in authority over six years, providing $250 

million for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011. 

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 is to 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. This amendment also 

eliminates the set-aside of $250 million for the Administrator to 

make direct grants in the second year of authorization, because, as 

amended, $250 million is the total amount authorized in each fiscal 

year. 

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

change the date the Administrator is required to transmit to Congress an initial report containing recommended funding levels for 

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

2008. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

H.R. 624 is identical to H.R. 784, the ‘‘Water Quality Investment 

Act of 2003,’’ as reported by the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure on September 13, 2004 (H. Rept. 108–675). The 

Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing 

on H.R. 784 and other pending legislation on July 8, 2004. The 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered H.R. 784, 

as amended by the Subcommittee, reported to the House on July 

21, 2004. H.R. 784 was not considered by the full House. 

Representative Camp, Representative Pascrell, and 19 other 

original co-sponsors introduced H.R. 624 on February 8, 2005. H.R. 

624 was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

met in open session on May 18, 2005 to consider H.R. 624 and 

other legislation. The Committee ordered the bill reported to the 

House by voice vote. 

4

ROLLCALL 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 rollcall 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. 624 reported. A motion to order H.R. 624 reported to the House was agreed to by voice 

vote. 

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 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee references the 

report of the Congressional Budget Office included below. 

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 

following cost estimate for H.R. 624 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 23, 2005. 

Hon. DON YOUNG,

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. 624, a bill to amend the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize appropriations for 

sewer overflow control grants. 

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

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

5

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

local impact). 

Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH M. ROBINSON

(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director). 

Enclosure.

H.R. 624—A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

to authorize appropriations for sewer overflow control grants 

Summary: H.R. 624 would authorize appropriations of $250 million annually over the 2006–2011 period for the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to provide grants to municipalities and 

states to control overflows of untreated waste 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 $1.1 billion over the next five years, and an additional $0.4 billion after 

2010, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts Enacting 

the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts. 

H.R. 624 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 near the end of fiscal 

year 2005 and that the amounts authorized will be appropriated for 

each fiscal year. Estimated outlays are based on historical spending 

patterns of similar grant programs. The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 624 is shown in the following table. The costs of this 

legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and 

environment).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization Level .............................................................................. 250 250 250 250 250

Estimated Outlays ............................................................................... 125 200 238 250 250

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 624 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 Ramirez-Branum; 

Impact on the private sector: Selena Caldera. 

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

6

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. 624 does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 

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 italic, 

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 polluVerDate jul 14 2003 22:57 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR166.XXX HR166
7

tion 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 each of fiscal years 

2006 through 2011. 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 

(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)(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(b)(1).¿

(g) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—

(1) FISCAL YEAR 2006.—Subject to subsection (h), the Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal year 2006 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 2007 AND THEREAFTER.—Subject to subsection 

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

carry out this section for fiscal year 2007 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.

* * * * * * *

8

(i) REPORTS.—Not later than December 31, ø2003¿ 2008, 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