GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Water Resources and Environment,

Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, House of Representatives

March 2000 WATER QUALITY

Key EPA and State

Decisions Limited by

Inconsistent and

Incomplete Data

GAO/RCED-00-54

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Contents

Letter 3

Executive Summary 4

Chapter 1

Introduction

16

Chapter 2

National Water Quality

Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent

Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

24

Chapter 3

States Have

Insufficient Data for

Several Key Activities

to Manage Water

Quality

43

Appendixes Appendix I: Copy of GAO Questionnaire 58

Appendix II: Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency 69

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 73

Tables Table 1: Monitoring Designs Described in EPA’s Water Quality Reporting

Guidelines 28
Contents

Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Figures Figure 1: States With a Majority of the Data Needed for Activities to Manage

Water Quality 7

Figure 2: Percentage of Waters Monitored, Evaluated, and Not Assessed 9

Figure 3: Examples of Point and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution 17

Figure 4: Steps in Managing Water Quality 19

Figure 5: Percentage of Waters Monitored, Evaluated, and Not Assessed in

the 1996 305(b) Report 26

Figure 6: Monitoring Types and Pollutants or Conditions That They

Measure 31

Figure 7: States With a Majority of the Data Needed for Activities to Manage

Water Quality 44

Figure 8: Number of States With a Rotating Basin Plan in Place or Under

Development 48

Abbreviations

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GAO General Accounting Office

IWI Index of Watershed Indicators

TMDL Total maximum daily load
United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-284241 Letr

March 15, 2000

The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert

Chairman

Subcommittee on Water Resources

and Environment

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As requested, we are reporting on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Water

Quality Inventory and the adequacy of water quality data for key water quality decisions required by

the Clean Water Act.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further

distribution of this report until 7 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to

the appropriate congressional committees; the Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA; and

the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies

available to others upon request.

Please call me at (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this

report are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Peter F. Guerrero

Director, Environmental

Protection Issues
Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Executive Summary

Purpose One of the states’ key responsibilities under the Clean Water Act is to

collect data to monitor the condition of the nation’s waters. The act further

requires states to submit reports on the condition of their waters to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which then compiles the states’

submissions into a report called the National Water Quality Inventory.

These data, and EPA’s report, have become increasingly important as

national attention has focused on the most effective and efficient way to

target the nation’s water pollution problems and, in particular, on the

soundness of the regulatory decisions that will be required to deal with the

nation’s most heavily polluted waters.

Concerned about the adequacy of the data to support water quality policy

and key regulatory decisions, the Chairman, Subcommittee on Water

Resources and Environment, House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, asked GAO to examine several issues relating to EPA’s

report on water quality and water quality management. Specifically, GAO

was asked to (1) determine whether the information in EPA’s National

Water Quality Inventory is reliable and representative of water quality

conditions nationwide and (2) determine if available data are sufficient to

allow state officials to make key decisions about activities required by the

Clean Water Act, such as identifying waters that do not meet water quality

standards and developing strategies to address those waters.

Background The Clean Water Act makes states responsible for developing programs to

manage water quality; the programs are intended to achieve the act’s goals

of supporting aquatic communities, protecting human health, and

sustaining other uses and provides for funding to implement the act. The

programs that manage water quality generally include functions such as

developing water quality standards by which to assess whether waters are

of acceptable quality; monitoring water quality; and issuing permits to, and

conducting inspections of, facilities that discharge pollutants into bodies of

water. The Clean Water Act requires states to report to EPA biennially on

the quality of their waters and directs EPA to compile the states’ reports

and analyze them. EPA’s compilation, called the National Water Quality

Inventory, is the primary report for the public about the condition of the

nation’s waters and is often used to characterize the nation’s progress in

achieving the act’s goals. The report’s data are also used as a basis for

making key management decisions regarding water quality, such as how

certain Clean Water Act funds are to be allocated among the states.
Executive Summary

Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

In addition to providing a basis for satisfying the act’s national reporting

requirements, the states need reliable and complete data to identify water

quality problems and develop cost-effective strategies to address them. Of

particular concern to EPA and the states are “nonpoint” sources of

pollution—diffuse sources that include a variety of land-based activities,

such as timber harvesting, agriculture, and urban development—which are

widely regarded as contributing to the largest share of remaining water

quality problems.

Sound data on water quality are becoming increasingly important as

numerous lawsuits are directing nationwide attention to the accelerated

cleanup of water quality problems through the development of total

maximum daily loads (TMDLs). TMDLs are used to restore water quality

by identifying how much pollution a body of water can receive and still

meet standards and then reducing the amount of pollution entering the

water to that level. The Clean Water Act requires states to develop TMDLs

when other mechanisms to restore water quality have not worked. The

basis for many of the lawsuits is that EPA and the states have not

implemented this requirement of the act and have not thoroughly identified

all waters needing TMDLs. EPA proposed revisions to its regulations on

the management of water quality in August 1999 to strengthen the TMDL

program.

To address this review’s objectives, GAO conducted a data reliability

evaluation of the National Water Quality Inventory by obtaining

information from EPA and state water quality officials on the processes

used to generate the report and by examining the controls in place to

ensure that the information was reliable. GAO also interviewed EPA

officials in headquarters and regions responsible for water quality issues to

discuss the Clean Water Act’s requirements for managing water quality and

the guidance provided to states for implementing them. GAO conducted a

mail survey of the 50 states and the District of Columbia and met with

water quality officials in 4 states to discuss their programs to manage water

quality, the management and regulatory decisions that rely on water quality

data, and the issues that states face in carrying out their programs.

Results in Brief The National Water Quality Inventory does not accurately portray water

quality conditions nationwide. A major reason is that states collectively

assess only a small percentage of waters in the United States. Specifically,

19 percent of the nation’s rivers and streams were assessed for the 1996

Inventory (the latest report), as were 6 percent of ocean and other
Executive Summary

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

shoreline waters—which have been the subject of an increasing number of

beach advisories and closures in recent years. It would be cost-prohibitive

to physically monitor all of the waters in the country, and, therefore, almost

all states monitor a subset of their waters. However, most monitoring is

not done in a way that allows for statistically valid assessments of water

quality conditions in unmonitored waters. In addition, the Inventory is not

reliable because wide variation exists in (1) the way that individual states

select their monitoring sites, (2) the kinds of tests they perform on their

waters and how the results of these tests are interpreted, and (3) the

methods they use to determine the causes and sources of pollution in

waters that do not meet water quality standards. As a result, the

information in the Inventory cannot be meaningfully compared across

states.

EPA uses information from the Inventory as a basis for a number of

important decisions and activities, such as deciding how to allocate federal

funds for Clean Water Act programs to states and measuring and

communicating EPA’s and states’ progress in implementing the act.

However, the dearth of the waters actually monitored, combined with the

wide variation among states’ monitoring and assessment approaches, make

the national statistics unreliable and subject to misinterpretation and,

therefore, of limited usefulness for these purposes. While these limitations

may call into question some of EPA’s decisions that rely on these data, there

is little doubt among experts that the remaining problems are considerable

and that solutions will entail significant expenditures. What is uncertain,

however, is the precise extent of water quality problems, where and what

the most severe problems are, and the location of high-quality waters that

need to be protected.

The limitations of the information in the Inventory extend well beyond the

problems associated with the national uses of the report. State-level

activities, such as identifying water quality problems and setting priorities

among them to obtain the most improvement in water quality for the dollar

spent, are also affected by data limitations. GAO’s survey shows that data

gaps limit states’ abilities to carry out several key management and

regulatory activities on water quality. As figure 1 illustrates, these data

gaps are particularly serious in the case of nonpoint sources, which are

widely accepted as contributing to the majority of the nation’s water quality

problems. Only six states reported that they have a majority of the data

they need to assess whether their waters meet water quality standards.

Moreover, a vast majority of states reported that they have less than half
Executive Summary

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

the data they need to (1) identify nonpoint sources that are causing waters

not to meet standards and (2) develop TMDLs for those waters.

Figure 1: States With a Majority of the Data Needed for Activities to Manage Water

Quality

Fully assess

Place assessed

Identify point

Develop nonpoint

all state waters

waters on 303(d) list

sources

source TMDLs

0

10

20

30

6

18

Identification of

polluted waters

Identification of

pollution sources

TMDL

development

40

3

29

3

40 States

Develop point

source TMDLs

Identify nonpoint

sources
Executive Summary

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Among the recommendations GAO makes in this report are that EPA better

convey the limitations of the Inventory and that the agency reexamine the

implications of using the report for national decisions. GAO also

recommends a number of actions that EPA should take to provide the

tools, information, and assistance that states need to conduct critical water

quality activities.

Principal Findings

Inventory Does Not

Accurately Describe Water

Quality Conditions

Nationwide

As figure 2 illustrates, only a small percentage of U.S. waters are assessed

for the National Water Quality Inventory—19 percent in the case of rivers

and streams. Importantly, however, only about half of these assessments

are based on current, site-specific monitoring information. The states

assess conditions in the other waters by using monitoring data more than 5

years old or by relying on other data, such as land use information or

anecdotal evidence of water quality, that serve as subjective indicators of

whether a body of water is meeting standards. (These assessments are

referred to as evaluated assessments.) Both EPA and state officials

indicated that they are less confident of some of these assessments’

accuracy because they may not reflect changes in water conditions and are

sometimes based on unconfirmed information. However, EPA did not

distinguish between the two types of assessments when presenting

information on the percentage of waters meeting standards in the 1996

Inventory.
Executive Summary

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Figure 2: Percentage of Waters Monitored, Evaluated, and Not Assessed

Source: 1996 National Water Quality Inventory.

EPA encourages states to use statistical monitoring in order to capture a

more comprehensive picture of water quality. GAO’s survey of the 50 states

and the District of Columbia, however, revealed that few states employ

such a sampling design for a majority of their waters. Most states target

their limited monitoring resources on areas with known problems and

areas that are used by the public. The reliability of the data in the Inventory

is limited because there is considerable variation in the analytical methods

that states use to evaluate water quality. For example, states vary in the

extent to which they rely on monitoring the chemical and physical

properties of their waters (i.e., temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, or the

presence of chlorine, mercury, and other chemicals) versus biological

properties (i.e., species diversity and habitat quality). In addition, as

Ocean

shorelines

(mi.)

Rivers &

streams

(mi.)

Lakes

(acres)

Estuaries

(sq. mi.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Types of waters

Waters assesed using monitoring data

Waters evaluated

Waters assessed using unspecified means

Waters not assessed
Executive Summary

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

allowed by the Clean Water Act, states may evaluate water quality against

different standards. As a result, the Inventory does not represent water

quality conditions nationwide, and the data are not reliable for

comparisons across states.

EPA has attempted to address the inconsistencies among states primarily

through a workgroup whose members include EPA and state water quality

staff, and the agency has incorporated several of the workgroup’s

recommendations into reporting guidelines for the Inventory. These are

steps in the right direction, but they will not guarantee improved

consistency because states are not legally required to comply with the

reporting guidelines. In addition, the Inventory does not integrate findings

from other monitoring programs to supplement state-reported information

and help portray water quality conditions nationwide.

Among the key activities that rely on data from the Inventory is the formula

that EPA uses to allocate funds to states to help them implement their

water quality programs. In the past, such funds were allocated on the basis

of several factors, such as the number of industrial dischargers and power

plants in a state, which were intended as indirect measures of potential

water quality problems. EPA recently revised this formula, in consultation

with the states, and the new formula includes the amount of waters not

meeting standards as reported in the Inventory by the states. Given the

differences in the methods that states use to assess their waters, however,

the resulting allocation may not reflect the relative magnitude of water

quality problems in states but, instead, reflect assessment and reporting

differences across them. While EPA acknowledged limitations with using

the Inventory and therefore decided to phase in the increased weighting of

waters not meeting standards beginning in fiscal year 1999, the agency does

not have a plan to resolve the limitations.

While the lack of reliable information may call into question some of EPA’s

decisions that rely on data from the Inventory, there is widespread

agreement that many waters still do not meet standards and that

addressing these problems will be difficult and will require a considerable

commitment of resources. What is uncertain is the precise extent of the

problems, where and what the most severe problems are, and the location

of high-quality waters that need to be protected.
Executive Summary

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

States Have Little of the

Data They Need for Several

Key Water Quality Activities

The results of GAO’s survey highlight the need for more comprehensive

state monitoring and call into question the extent to which unknown and

potentially serious problems are going undetected. Only six states

reported having a majority of the data needed to fully assess all their

waters, and less than half the states have a majority of the data needed to

determine if their waters that have been assessed should be placed on their

lists of waters that do not meet standards. While state officials believe they

have identified their most serious pollution problems, many acknowledge

that more comprehensive monitoring would reveal additional problems. A

study of toxins in Maine’s lakes, for example, unexpectedly showed

widespread elevated levels of mercury. As a result of this more

comprehensive monitoring effort, Maine and other New England states

issued advisories against the consumption of fish for all their lakes.

In terms of addressing known pollution problems, there is a sharp division

between the adequacy of data for point sources and of that for nonpoint

sources. By and large, states have adequate data for identifying point

sources that cause waters not to meet standards and developing TMDLs for

these sources. Much of the Clean Water Act’s implementation over the last

27 years has focused on addressing point sources. Additionally, it is

relatively easy to determine the point sources that are contributing to water

quality problems because they generally enter the water at a distinct point.

Accordingly, 40 states responding to GAO’s survey reported having a

majority of the data they need to identify point sources that are causing

waters not to meet standards, and more than half reported having a

majority of the data needed to develop TMDLs for those waters.

Yet, while water quality officials responding to GAO’s survey reported

having a majority of the data they need to deal with point sources of

pollution, few respondents reported having a majority of the data needed to

deal with nonpoint sources. Specifically, almost all states reported that

they did not have a majority of the data they need to identify nonpoint

sources of pollution and develop TMDLs for waters polluted primarily by

nonpoint sources. The data on nonpoint sources of water quality problems

are of particular importance because the nation’s remaining water quality

problems are widely viewed as being caused, at least in part, by nonpoint

sources. In 1998, for example, Texas officials reported that nonpoint

sources contributed to almost all of the state’s water quality problems.

States have always needed to obtain comprehensive and reliable water

quality data, but such data have become more important in recent years.

The increased emphasis on statutory and regulatory requirements for
Executive Summary

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

assessing waters and developing TMDLs has heightened the need for states

to have sound information to make these decisions. Of particular concern

are the thousands of TMDLs that states must develop for their most heavily

polluted waters, as required by the Clean Water Act. GAO’s survey

indicated that states will need additional tools, resources, and assistance in

developing TMDLs for their waters—a task that will significantly tax

already limited resources over a sustained period of time.

EPA has a number of initiatives under way that are designed to help states

deal with specific problems, such as guides for developing TMDLs for

specific pollutants that degrade waters and analytical methods for

determining airborne sources of water pollution. However, states

identified other areas in which they need assistance, such as additional

tools for evaluating nonpoint sources of pollution and technical assistance

on using analytical methods. EPA has initiated a strategy for supporting

TMDL development, but this effort has been put on hold because of other

workload demands. Until this strategy is finalized, it is not clear whether

states’ needs will be addressed.

Recommendations GAO makes a number of recommendations to the Administrator, EPA, to

appropriately characterize and improve the usefulness of the National

Water Quality Inventory. GAO also makes recommendations for EPA to

work with the states to finalize its strategy to support TMDL development.

Agency Comments GAO provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment.

EPA’s comments and GAO’s evaluation are discussed at the end of chapters

2 and 3. EPA’s comments are reproduced in appendix II.

EPA generally agreed with the report, noting that it underscores the need to

improve water quality monitoring and assessment across the country. EPA

also offered more specific comments dealing with the report’s discussion of

(1) the sufficiency of state data for key water quality management

activities, (2) the National Water Quality Inventory, and (3) the Inventory’s

use in grant allocation decisions.

First, EPA pointed out that states need not wait until “perfect data” are

collected before taking actions to improve water quality. GAO agrees that

perfect data are not needed before actions can be taken to improve water

quality but continues to believe that data of better quality are needed to
Executive Summary

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

make more informed and defensible decisions. EPA also asked that GAO

acknowledge the agency’s efforts that could help improve water quality

data, such as the modernization of its primary computer system that stores

and retrieves water quality data. GAO recognizes that EPA has many

efforts aimed at improving water quality data overall, but notes that some

of these efforts are limited in their ability to address the types of problems

with water quality data identified. EPA also recommended that GAO add

language to the report on the implications of inadequate data for identifying

waters that do not meet standards. GAO agrees with this suggestion and

has added a discussion of this issue to chapter 3.

Second, EPA made several points about the content and presentation of the

information in the National Water Quality Inventory. The agency states that

GAO’s report should more strongly note that the Inventory is, by law, a

summary of states’ assessments of whether their waters are meeting

standards and “is not intended to be a national water quality report on a

selected, consistent set of water quality parameters.” GAO acknowledges

this point and has stated so in this report. However, the broader question

that the Subcommittee posed to GAO asked how well the report

characterizes water quality conditions nationwide. As such, this report

discusses the utility of the Inventory for characterizing water quality

nationwide.

Moreover, because the Inventory is used to help make national policy and

regulatory decisions, GAO believes it is prudent for EPA to take steps to

ensure that the information presented is as reliable as possible. Where it is

not, EPA should clearly explain the reasons why and assess the possible

implications on national decision-making. EPA points out that past

Inventory reports have clearly explained that its information does not

consistently characterize nationwide water quality and that it has

continued to highlight this point in its draft 1998 report. GAO

acknowledges the caution noted by EPA in how the Inventory’s data should

be interpreted. However, by aggregating data across states, EPA is

implicitly suggesting that these data can, in fact, be compared and in doing

so is increasing the likelihood that the data will be misused or

misinterpreted. GAO believes that aggregating data in different ways and

adding language to characterize the potential implications of similarities

and differences among state programs would present a clearer picture of

how the state-reported information can be used.

In response to GAO’s recommendation that the agency supplement the

current information in the Inventory by including findings from other
Executive Summary

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

programs (e.g., the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Quality

Assessment Program), EPA pointed out that it already includes

descriptions of this information in the Inventory. GAO believes, however,

that EPA can improve the presentation and usefulness of the report if it

takes this descriptive approach a step further by integrating the findings of

these studies with the report’s own presentation of state data, where

appropriate.

Third, EPA commented that it appears that GAO did not obtain a complete

description of the process used to develop and evaluate the agency’s new

formula for allocating grant funds to states under section 106 of the Clean

Water Act. The agency stated that it conducted extensive data searches

and data source evaluations before selecting the Inventory as a source of

information on the extent of water pollution in each state. In addition, EPA

said that it evaluated numerous data scenarios to determine whether

certain data components unduly influenced distributions of grant funds to

states. GAO has incorporated a number of technical clarifications that EPA

provided, as appropriate. However, according to an EPA official, the data

scenarios referred to assessed the impact of using different data elements

in the formula—not how differences among state monitoring and

assessment methods may affect formula results, as GAO recommends.
Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Chapter 1

Introduction Chapte1r

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the

Clean Water Act, was enacted in 1972.1 One of its primary goals is to

achieve and maintain water quality for the protection and propagation of

fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreation in and on the water. At the

time the act was passed, water quality in the United States had deteriorated

to the point where some rivers had severe pollution problems due to

discharges of raw sewage and others were severely contaminated by

industrial chemicals.

The Clean Water Act has been credited with greatly improving the

condition of waters in the United States. Much of this improvement has

been attributed to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, a

program that controls pollutant discharges from industrial facilities and

wastewater treatment plants, which are often referred to as “point sources”

of pollution. The program sets up a process for issuing permits to facilities

that discharge pollutants and imposes requirements for the pollution

control mechanisms they must use to reduce the amount and toxicity of the

pollutants they discharge. The Congress added provisions to the act in 1987

that called attention to another source of pollution that was believed to be

largely responsible for continued water quality problems—nonpoint source

pollution.

Nonpoint sources of pollution include many different types of activities

such as agriculture, timber harvesting, and urban development. Nonpoint

sources contribute pollution as rainwater, snowmelt, or irrigation water

moves over or through land surfaces. This causes pollutants, either

dissolved or solid, to be transported and eventually deposited into surface

waters. Airborne pollutants, sometimes carried through the air over long

distances and then deposited into bodies of water, are also considered

nonpoint pollution. The types of pollutants vary with the activity involved

and include sediment, nutrients, pesticides, pathogens (such as bacteria

and viruses), salts, oil, grease, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals. Figure 3

provides examples of point and nonpoint sources of pollutants.

1

33 U.S.C. sections 1251-1387.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Figure 3: Examples of Point and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution

Today, much attention is being focused on dealing with nonpoint sources of

pollution. States and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are

facing increased pressure to address pollution problems as a result of

Town

Tributaries

Boating

Crop

agriculture

Roads

Forestry

Power plant

Factory

Wastewater

treatment plant

Airborne

pollution

River

Examples of nonpoint source 

pollution are indicated on the 

right side of the river.

Examples of point source 

pollution are indicated on

the left side of the river.

Animal

agriculture
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

numerous lawsuits charging that they are violating the Clean Water Act by

not doing so. In 1998, the administration introduced the Clean Water Action

Plan, which is intended to strengthen federal and state actions to address

pollution problems; addressing nonpoint source pollution is a major

component. As part of this action plan, for example, funding for grants to

states to deal with nonpoint source pollution almost doubled from $105

million in fiscal year 1998 to $200 million in fiscal year 1999. This level of

funding was maintained for fiscal year 2000. In addition, EPA and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture jointly developed a national strategy for

minimizing environmental and public health impacts from nonpoint source

pollution coming from animal feeding operations. Furthermore, the plan

includes actions to ensure beaches—which have been subject to an

increasing number of advisories and closures in recent years—are safe for

swimming.

States Implement the

Clean Water Act

Through Programs to

Manage Water Quality

While EPA is responsible for developing regulations and guidance for

implementing the Clean Water Act and ensuring that it is properly

implemented, states have primary responsibility for implementing

programs to manage water quality. States are provided with federal funds

through EPA to develop and implement these programs. In addition to the

program that regulates point sources of pollution, other activities to

manage water quality include developing water quality standards to protect

public health and aquatic life, monitoring water quality to assess whether

standards are attained, and implementing strategies to address pollution

problems.

Water Quality Standards The Clean Water Act requires states to establish water quality standards as

a way to ensure that the goals of the act will be met. These goals include

the achievement and maintenance of water quality for the protection and

propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the

water. To develop water quality standards, states classify waters according

to how they will be used and adopt water quality criteria to protect those

uses. Criteria—which can be numeric or narrative—indicate the acceptable

levels of chemicals allowed, or physical or biological characteristics

required, in a water in order for it to meet its designated use. Waters that do

not meet standards are often referred to as “impaired.” Without standards,

a state has no basis to assert whether waters are of acceptable quality. By

law, states are allowed to set their own water quality standards; as a result,

standards differ across states.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Water Quality Monitoring

and Assessment

Monitoring water quality is the linchpin for many management activities

regarding water quality. Figure 4 depicts this relationship, showing that

monitoring water quality is essential to identifying water quality problems

and determining whether actions taken to restore water quality have been

successful.

Figure 4: Steps in Managing Water Quality

States either monitor water quality, use data collected by other entities to

assess water quality, or rely on a combination of the two. Monitoring data

include information such as the presence of chemicals, physical

characteristics such as temperature, and biological characteristics such as

the health and abundance of fish and other aquatic species. As shown in

figure 4, states compare monitoring data with water quality criteria to

determine if waters meet standards. If a state’s assessment of a body of

Monitor water quality

Compare water quality

monitoring data with 

standards to assess 

whether a body of water

is of acceptable quality 

Establish

water quality standards

Prioritize actions needed

on the basis of 

the seriousness of

water quality problems

Develop and implement

strategies for restoring

water quality and attaining

water quality standards

Does not

meet standards

Meets

standards
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

water indicates that it does not meet the criteria—for example, if it has

levels of chlorine that are too high to support aquatic life—then the water is

considered not to be supporting its intended use of aquatic life. This

indicates that the body of water needs pollution reduction strategies to

correct the problem.

The Clean Water Act sets forth a procedure for states to follow in

addressing waters that do not meet standards. This requires states to

submit to EPA a list of all of their waters that do not or are not expected to

meet applicable water quality standards.2 For the lists developed in 1998,

states identified about 21,000 waters that did not or were not expected to

meet standards. The Clean Water Act further requires that states take steps

to ensure that waters that do not meet standards are improved sufficiently

to support their designated uses. This is done through developing total

maximum daily loads (TMDLs), which refers to the maximum amount of a

pollutant a body of water can receive on a periodic basis and still support

its designated uses. Generally, TMDLs are developed by (1) analyzing the

pollutants and sources of those pollutants causing a water quality problem

and (2) determining how much the pollutants need to be reduced in order

to enable the body of water to meet standards. A key part of the TMDL is

assigning the pollutant reductions necessary among the various sources

contributing to the water quality problem.

Data used in the development of TMDLs are becoming increasingly

important. For example, legal actions have been taken in more than 30

states asserting that the states and EPA have not adequately implemented

water quality standards. Most of these lawsuits have been filed in the last 5

years and largely focus on the adequacy of states’ lists identifying water

quality problems or on the lack of state and EPA action in developing

TMDLs. In August 1999, EPA proposed changes to water quality

management regulations in order to strengthen the TMDL program.

2

This list is commonly referred to as the 303(d) list.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

State and EPA Water Quality

Reporting

Another requirement of states under the Clean Water Act that relies on

monitoring and assessment information is found in section 305(b), which

requires states to report biennially to EPA on the quality of their waters and

EPA to produce a report analyzing the states’ information. A further

requirement that the report be transmitted to Congress was recently

repealed.3 The information that states submit to EPA for this report, called

the National Water Quality Inventory but generally referred to as the 305(b)

report, includes (1) the amount of waters the state assessed; (2) whether

those waters meet water quality standards; (3) the pollutants, such as toxic

chemicals or bacteria, that cause waters to not meet standards; (4) the

sources, such as industrial facilities or wastewater treatment plants, that

contribute those pollutants; and (5) a description of the state’s water

quality program.

The 305(b) report is the primary report for informing the public about the

conditions of the nation’s waters. Therefore, it is often relied on to make

statements regarding water quality conditions nationwide and to support

national-level decisions. For example, the 1996 report’s summary statistic

that forty percent of the waters assessed by states are unsafe for swimming

and fishing was a leading factor in the Administration’s argument for the

need for the Clean Water Action Plan and associated requests for budget

increases. In addition, the report’s summary information on causes and

sources of water quality impairments contributed to EPA’s decision to

develop new regulations for animal feeding operations and criteria for

evaluating a group of pollutants referred to as nutrients.

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

As agreed with the Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and

Environment, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the

objectives of this review were to (1) determine whether the information in

EPA’s National Water Quality Inventory is reliable and representative of

water quality conditions nationwide and (2) determine if available data are

sufficient to allow state officials to make key decisions about activities

3

The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-66, 109 Stat. 707

(Dec. 21, 1995), provides that most statutory requirements for annual reports by federal

agencies to the Congress are eliminated as of December 21, 1999. However, according to

EPA, the states are still required to submit reports on their waters every 2 years.

Accordingly, EPA officials told us they intend to continue to produce, in some form, an

analysis of the state reports and to use it to measure states’ progress and communicate to

the public.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

required by the Clean Water Act, such as identifying waters that do not

meet water quality standards and developing strategies to address those

waters.

To determine the reliability and representativeness of EPA’s National Water

Quality Inventory (the 305(b) report), we followed generally accepted data

reliability and information systems audit methodologies. We reviewed

EPA’s guidelines for preparing the 305(b) report and other EPA guidance

documents regarding monitoring and assessment techniques. We reviewed

the last two 305(b) reports, issued for 1994 and 1996. We interviewed EPA

headquarters staff and contractor personnel responsible for compiling

state reports into a national summary. We also interviewed EPA regional

officials involved in helping states to administer their monitoring programs

and prepare their reports on water quality.

We also conducted a mail survey of the agencies that administer water

quality management programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Our survey asked state officials to identify the primary monitoring design

and analytical methods used, the sources of data relied on, and their

opinions on the 305(b) assessment and reporting process and EPA’s

information systems. We pretested our questionnaire with officials in

Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina and also obtained comments from

officials in EPA’s offices of Water and Inspector General. We received

survey responses from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, we met with water quality management officials in Illinois,

Maine, North Carolina, and Texas to discuss the processes they use to

assess water quality and provide EPA with information for reporting

purposes. We judgmentally selected these states to represent diversity

among (1) water quality monitoring designs, (2) the percentage of waters

assessed, (3) geographical settings, (4) EPA regions, and (4) the type of

information systems used to store data. We spoke with EPA regional

officials in each of the regions responsible for the states we visited. We also

obtained reports issued by EPA’s Office of Inspector General pertaining to

water quality management programs in five states and discussed their

findings with staff involved with those reviews.

We also used the survey and site visits to address our second objective. Our

survey included questions regarding the adequacy of data to conduct

various water quality management activities. We asked states to comment

on issues that help or hinder them in carrying out their water quality

management responsibilities. We used our site visits to the four states to
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

obtain a more detailed understanding of the primary water quality

management and regulatory decisions that rely on water quality data, the

way in which states obtain the data needed to carry out these activities, and

the data limitations that states face.

We met with several officials representing the monitoring and TMDL

programs in EPA’s Office of Water to discuss guidance that states are

provided with in these areas and the activities under way that may address

states’ needs. We also spoke with officials in the offices of Wastewater

Management and General Counsel to discuss EPA’s authority under the

Clean Water Act regarding state programs for monitoring, assessing, and

reporting on water quality.

We conducted our work from April 1999 through February 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 24 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide Chapte2r

The 305(b) report is not a reliable representation of nationwide water

quality conditions.1 The assessments of water quality that states report

generally do not represent conditions in all the waters in their state but,

instead, represent only the subset of waters that the states assessed.2 An

underlying reason for the differences among state programs is that the

Clean Water Act allows states to have different standards by which to

assess the level of quality of their waters. In addition, there is considerable

variation among states in many aspects of monitoring and assessing water

quality. EPA uses information from the 305(b) report for many important

national decisions, such as deciding how to allocate federal funds for water

quality activities to states, measuring the progress that states and EPA are

making toward implementing the Clean Water Act, communicating water

quality issues to the public, and making major regulatory decisions. Given

the lack of the representativeness of the data in the report and their

inconsistency, they are of limited usefulness for these purposes.

EPA has taken steps to address problems with the 305(b) report, such as

modifying reporting guidelines. However, because states are not required

to follow the guidelines, their implementation is not guaranteed. In

addition, integrating information from other sources with state-reported

information in the 305(b) report may help provide a more accurate picture

of water quality conditions nationwide.

Data in the 305(b)

Report Are Incomplete

and Are Not Consistent

Across States

Assessment data in the 305(b) report are not complete because they do not

represent all of the states’ waters, either through a census (i.e., the

monitoring of all waters in a state) or through statistical sampling that

would yield data that are projectable to all state waters. In addition, there is

substantial variation among states in virtually every aspect of monitoring

and assessment. Variations are found in (1) the standards states use to

assess water quality, (2) the way that states select their monitoring sites,

(3) the kinds of monitoring tests that states perform and how they interpret

the results, and (4) the methods that states use to determine the causes and

sources of pollution.

1

As defined in GAO’s Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data, data reliability

exists when data are sufficiently complete and error free to be convincing for their purpose

and context.

2

For the purpose of this report, “states” refers to the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 25 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

The 305(b) Report Does Not

Provide Complete

Information on Water

Quality Conditions

Nationwide

A major reason why the 305(b) report does not accurately portray

nationwide water quality conditions is that only a small percentage of

waters are actually assessed. This small percentage would not necessarily

be a problem for nationwide reporting if the waters were selected for

monitoring in a statistically projectable manner. However, the waters that

are monitored are not generally selected in a way that would allow for

projecting water quality conditions in other waters. In addition, the

conditions in many of the waters reported on in the 305(b) report are not

based on current water quality monitoring but, instead, are assessed on the

basis of dated information or subjective determinations.

A Small Percentage of U.S.

Waters Are Assessed

Given that there are over 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams and 42

million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs in the United States, it is cost

prohibitive for states to assess all of their waters. As a practical matter,

therefore, states almost always limit their assessments to a subset of total

waters; the result is that a majority of U.S. waters remain unassessed. For

example, the percentage of waters assessed in the 1996 report was 6

percent for ocean shoreline waters; 19 percent for rivers and streams; 40

percent for lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; and 72 percent for estuaries.

For many years, EPA has encouraged states, through 305(b) reporting

guidelines, to improve the coverage of state waters in their monitoring

efforts. The guidelines for the 1998 305(b) report suggest that states should

develop a strategy for achieving the goal of comprehensively assessing all

state waters. The monitoring techniques suggested by the guidance include

a combination of monitoring known problem waters, as well as monitoring

randomly selected sites, which would allow inferences to be made about

entire categories of waters. The guidelines also suggest that states include

information from federal agencies and other relevant organizations in their

305(b) reports to increase the breadth or extent of assessments. State

responses to our survey indicate that many states currently consider

information from various sources in their assessments of water quality.

EPA requests that states describe their progress toward the goal of

comprehensive coverage in their 305(b) reports.

Many Assessed Waters Are

Not Actually Monitored

Of the waters that are assessed, only a portion are done so in a fashion that

meets EPA’s definition of a “monitored” assessment—that which is based

on water quality monitoring data that are less than 5 years old. As figure 5

illustrates, of the 19 percent of river and stream miles that were assessed

for the 1996 report, half were assessed using these types of data.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 26 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Figure 5: Percentage of Waters Monitored, Evaluated, and Not Assessed in the 1996

305(b) Report

Source: 1996 National Water Quality Inventory.

Ocean

shorelines

(mi.)

Rivers &

streams

(mi.)

Lakes

(acres)

Estuaries

(sq. mi.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Types of waters

Waters assesed using monitoring data

Waters evaluated

Waters assessed using unspecified means

Waters not assessed
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 27 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

The remaining assessments were based on data that are either older than

data used for monitored assessments, data calculated using water quality

models, or qualitative information, including sources such as land use data,

the location of pollution sources, or evaluations made by fish and game

biologists of water quality or wildlife conditions. This type of information is

used as an indicator of potential water quality in waters that are not

actually monitored. Assessments based on such information are called

evaluated assessments and can vary in quality and reliability. EPA officials

said that while some types of evaluated assessments can be used with a

relatively high degree of confidence, others are more open to question

because they may not reflect changes in water conditions or may be based

on unconfirmed information. Thirty-nine states used evaluated data for

their assessments of rivers and streams in the 1996 report, and 19 of them

used such data for half or more of their assessments.3 In the 1996 report,

EPA identified the percentage of evaluated and monitored assessments.

However, it did not distinguish between the two types when presenting

information on the percentage of waters not meeting water quality

standards.

In addition to using older and potentially subjective information as a basis

for water quality assessments, some states also assess waters by

“extrapolating” assessments from one monitoring site to other

unmonitored waters. EPA’s 305(b) report guidelines state that this practice

is acceptable if the monitored site is representative of other parts of the

body of water and specify conditions present in the water that might

change water quality or habitat and therefore preclude extrapolation.

Officials in several states we visited said they use extrapolated assessments

in preparing their 305(b) report. Additionally, a few states make presumed

assessments, which are assumptions that water quality is of a certain level

in the absence of any quantitative data to make a determination of quality.

EPA’s guidelines for the 305(b) report advise against using such

assessments.

States’ Selection of Monitoring

Sites Does Not Yield

Representative Data

The methods that states use to select monitoring sites affect how the

resulting data can be used. Monitoring sites that are chosen on the basis of

a random or statistical sample will result in data that are representative of

the condition of all waters in a population, such as all streams of a certain

size or type. EPA encourages states to include this type of design in their

3 Two states did not specify whether their assessments were evaluated or monitored, and

three states did not report any assessments at all.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 28 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

monitoring programs in order to capture a more comprehensive picture of

water quality. Conversely, monitoring sites that are targeted toward waters

with specific characteristics, such as known pollution problems or high

levels of public use, result in data that can provide information only on

those particular waters that were monitored. Additional information on

monitoring designs is provided in table 1.

Table 1: Monitoring Designs Described in EPA’s Water Quality Reporting Guidelines

Source for EPA’s description Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water Quality

Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates (Sept. 1997).

By and large, states use a targeted approach to select monitoring sites and

focus monitoring efforts in problem areas or publicly used waters; very few

states use a statistical approach. According to our survey, only nine states

reported using a statistical approach for a majority of their water quality

monitoring of biological conditions, and five states reported doing so for

the monitoring of chemical conditions. As a result of the limited use of

statistical sampling by states, most of the data they gather are not suitable

for representing statewide conditions. State officials told us that

Design EPA’s description GAO’s comments

Targeted

(problem-based)

This method allows questions to be addressed that are focused on

site-specific problems. The aggregation of these site-specific

results to make comprehensive assessments is open to question

regarding the representativeness of those sites to the resource as a

whole.

This design is intended to represent only the

site itself—not other bodies of water.

Sample survey or

probabilistic

This method is intended to produce snapshots of the condition of

an entire resource when that resource cannot be subject to a

census. Sample surveys rely on the selection of monitoring sites

that are representative of the resource. Randomization in the site

selection process is one way to ensure that the sites represent the

resource of interest.

Randomization is the only method that allows

statistically valid inferences to be drawn to a

population as a whole.

Judgmental This design is based on some criterion other than randomness.

Judgmental selection of sites is based on the judgment that the

sites are representative of the target resource. Such judgmentally

based sample surveys require strong defense regarding the

representativeness of the sites selected, and it may not be possible

to estimate the uncertainty with which inferences are made as it is

when using probability-based sample surveys. This method is a

nonrandom selection of sampling sites with the intent of using

assessment results for drawing inferences on a population as a

whole. [Emphasis added.]

We put EPA’s assertion in italics because, in

general, using nonrandom judgmental

samples to project results beyond the actual

sites surveyed is questionable. If strong,

compelling evidence demonstrates that the

sites selected to sample are like the nonselected sites in the area, perhaps—and with

clearly stated, strong caveats—limited

inferences could be made beyond just the

sample sites. No clear, statistically defensible

statement is possible under this method.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 29 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

information on the condition of specific waters is more essential to state

programs for managing water quality than the kind of general information

provided by statistical designs. Because states have limited resources for

monitoring and assessment activities, they tend to use statistical

monitoring in limited cases or relegate it to a lower priority.

The 305(b) Report Does Not

Provide Data That Are

Consistent Across States

There are significant differences among states in virtually all aspects of the

305(b) assessment and reporting process. An underlying difference is that

states can have different standards by which to assess the level of quality of

their waters. In addition, states vary in how they select their monitoring

sites, the kinds of monitoring tests they perform and how the results of

these tests are interpreted, and the methods they use to determine the

causes and sources of pollution.

States Vary in the Standards

They Use to Assess Water Quality

The Clean Water Act allows states to set their own water quality standards.

Specifically, states can designate waters to support multiple uses, such as

for public water supplies, the propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational

purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and navigational purposes. States

can also set their own criteria (i.e., acceptable levels of pollutants or

conditions required in a water in order for it to support its intended uses)

as long as they are at least as restrictive as EPA’s. As a result, standards

vary across the states. 4

According to EPA, some differences in water quality standards are based

on sound science. For example, criteria to protect aquatic life should

reflect the different natural ranges of biological communities. Similarly,

acceptable physical conditions can vary depending on geographic and

other factors. For example, natural fluctuations in the temperature and

clarity of lakes are different in states in the northeast from those in states

such as Florida and therefore, state standards may vary to accommodate

these differences. Even criteria set to prevent concentrations of metals

from causing toxic effects can be different from state to state because the

way that metals affect a body of water varies, depending on the water’s

natural mineral content and acidity. Because of differences such as these,

4

In 1998 and 1999, EPA’s Office of Inspector General issued reports on five states’ water

quality programs that, among other things, identified weaknesses in state water quality

standards and the regional review of state standards. For example, some states had less

restrictive criteria than EPA’s and some did not adopt all applicable uses. In addition, EPA

regions were not always reviewing state standards in the required time frames. In 1998, EPA

issued a plan to strengthen water quality standards programs for both EPA and the states.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 30 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

EPA believes it is appropriate for water quality standards to vary from state

to state.

What is not appropriate, according to EPA, is the uneven development and

implementation of standards among states. Some states assess water

quality using a range of measures, such as physical, chemical, and

biological measures, while other states may base their assessments on only

one or two chemical measures. The rigor of state programs for water

quality standards, both in terms of the types of different measures that are

included and the monitoring programs used, should be consistent from

state to state so that the findings of water quality assessments are

comparable.

Currently, however, most states’ water quality standards and monitoring

programs are not comparable, yet in the 305(b) report, EPA does not

provide details on these differences, nor does it discuss their potential

implications on resulting national information. While one state may appear

to have many more water quality problems than another state, it could

actually be the result of more restrictive or more thorough standards.

Likewise, if one state monitors a high percentage of its waters, it may

identify more problems than a state that monitors fewer waters.

States Vary in the Types of

Monitoring Tests That They

Perform

The Clean Water Act outlines goals for attaining water quality in terms of

the biological, chemical, and physical conditions of waters. EPA’s 305(b)

reporting guidelines discuss the different types of monitoring tests in each

of these areas—each of which yields data about particular aspects of

bodies of water. Physical monitoring tests the physical characteristics of

bodies of water such as temperature and the amount of suspended solids in

the water. Chemical monitoring tests for chemicals that may be present,

such as chlorine or ammonia, and metals, such as mercury. Biological

monitoring measures the health of aquatic communities and includes a

variety of techniques, such as assessing species’ health and abundance.

These monitoring types and the additional pollutants or conditions that

they measure are described in figure 6.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 31 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Figure 6: Monitoring Types and Pollutants or Conditions That They Measure

States compare water quality monitoring data—chemical, physical,

biological, or a combination—with water quality criteria in order to

determine whether waters are meeting the standards. Officials in the states

we visited said that they tend to rely more heavily on one type of

monitoring test to make these assessments. For example, Illinois and

Maine rely primarily on biological monitoring to determine if rivers and

streams meet water quality standards, while Texas relies on chemical and

physical monitoring. This may cause differences in reporting on water

quality because as a study conducted by Ohio showed, different monitoring

tests may yield different results as to whether waters are of acceptable

quality. The study’s assessment of 645 waters revealed that 50 percent of

the waters met chemical but not biological criteria.

Assessment results can also vary within a single type of monitoring. Many

different pollutants or conditions can be monitored within a type of

monitoring, but states generally do not monitor for all of them. Different

assessments of water quality in a single body of water can result if different

pollutants or conditions are monitored. An example given in EPA’s 305(b)

guidelines shows that in one body of water, toxicity levels were within the

standards, but the levels of certain metals exceeded the standards. This is

also the case for biological monitoring. Officials in North Carolina told us

that because the types of biological tests performed vary from state to

state, the resulting assessments should be compared with caution. Maine

and Illinois both use biological tests to assess rivers and streams, for

example, but their methods measure different aspects of the biological

health.

Chemical

Tests for levels of:

• Pesticides

• Organics

• Metals (cadmium, 

arsenic, etc.)

• Nutrients 

(phosphorous, 

nitrogen)

• Toxic materials in

fish tissue

Physical

Measures:

• Temperature

• Conductivity

• Transparency

• Total suspended

 solids

Biological

Assesses:

• Structure and function of

aquatic communities 

• Habitat, such as condition 

of riparian vegetation

• Health and abundance 

of aquatic species or 

fish populations
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 32 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

States Do Not Use Consistent

Data Analysis Methods

States vary in how they use information on water quality to make use

assessments for individual waters, particularly the extent to which they use

monitored or evaluated data. For the 1996 305(b) report, 39 states used

evaluated data for assessing their rivers and streams, and 19 of these used

such data for half or more of their assessments. Seven states reported that

they did not use any evaluated assessments. Texas officials, for example,

told us they assess only those waters for which they have current, sitespecific data. Even though a majority of states do use evaluated

assessments when preparing their 305(b) reports, some of the same states

do not use these assessments as a basis for other decisions, such as

whether to place waters on their list of waters that do not meet standards,

because they consider the soundness of evaluated assessments to be

questionable. For example, officials in Illinois said that when evaluated

assessments show that a body of water does not meet standards, they first

carry out additional monitoring at that site to determine with greater

certainty whether the body of water is, in fact, below standards.

Further differences among states may arise as a result of whether and how

they use assessments from one section of a body of water to represent

conditions in other unassessed waters—a practice called extrapolation.

EPA’s 305(b) reporting guidelines state that this practice is acceptable as

long as certain, similar conditions exist in the affected waters. Among the

states we visited, we found variations in how states extrapolate water

quality assessments. Officials in Texas do not use this practice at all, while

officials in Illinois, Maine, and North Carolina do. However, North Carolina

extrapolates only when assessments indicate that waters meet standards,

while Illinois extrapolates all assessments, whether they indicate that

waters meet standards or not.

States Use Inconsistent Methods

to Determine Causes and

Sources of Pollution

EPA’s 305(b) reporting guidelines ask states to identify the causes—

pollutants or stressors, such as sediment, nutrients, and chemical

contaminants—that prevent a body of water from meeting standards. They

also are to identify the sources—specific activities or entities such as

agriculture, wastewater treatment plants, and industrial facilities—that

contribute pollutants to waters. EPA’s guidelines provide general

definitions and list some of the types of information useful in determining

the sources of water quality impairment, including categories of pollution

sources, such as agriculture, storm sewers, and industrial point sources.

However, the guidelines lack specific instructions on the methods for

determining causes and sources.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 33 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

The identification of causes and sources is an area in which officials in

several of the states we visited said there is considerable subjectivity. An

official in one state, for example, said that determining causes and sources

for lakes is generally based on the best professional judgment of the

monitoring staff members, and that while it may be a “reasonable guess,” it

is nonetheless a subjective process. Officials in another state told us they

identify sources only if there are sufficient data to provide reasonable

assurance that the source identification is accurate. One state official said

that the reason for subjectivity in the identification of causes and sources is

because EPA has provided little guidance in this area.

In the 1996 305(b) report, EPA acknowledged that states do not assign

sources to all water quality problems identified. Despite this, EPA also

states in the report that it rates the significance of sources of pollution by

the amount of waters that states report is affected by each source. As a

result, when comparing one state with another, or when aggregating statereported causes and sources, some sources may appear to be less

significant than others, when these differences might actually be a result of

inconsistent or incomplete reporting.

Uses of the National

Water Quality

Inventory Are

Undermined by Data

Weaknesses

The flaws in the 305(b) report—incomplete data and differences in how

states monitor and assess their waters—greatly limit its utility for national

decisions and activities. Nevertheless, EPA uses the 305(b) report for

several national-level activities because it is the only source of national

information on whether waters are meeting water quality standards. There

is widespread agreement that many waters are still not meeting standards

and that addressing these problems will be challenging. What is not clear is

the full extent of these problems, where and what the most severe

problems are, and the location of high-quality waters that need to be

protected.

Allocation of Clean Water

Act Grant Funds

The Clean Water Act authorizes funds for grants to states to assist them in

administering programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of

pollution. These grants are the chief source of federal funding to states for

water quality management activities and are used to support the

monitoring and assessment of water quality and the regulation of pollution

dischargers, among other things.

The Clean Water Act indicates that these funds should be allocated to the

states on the basis of the extent of water pollution in each state. Prior to
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 34 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

1999, EPA used a formula that included point source factors, such as the

number of industrial dischargers and power plants in a state, as well as

other factors, such as population and land area. EPA revised this formula,

effective fiscal year 1999, to be more in line with the act’s intent to allocate

grant funds on the basis of the extent of pollution and to improve the

quality and consistency of the data used for the allocation of funds.

One of the components in the new formula is the number of waters

identified in the 305(b) report as not meeting standards.5 To account for the

fact that not all of the formula components contribute equally to the extent

of the pollution problem within the states and to address concerns

regarding the current consistency of the 305(b) information, each

component is weighted individually. Component weights are being phased

in over the course of 5 years, and final component weights are to be phased

in by fiscal year 2004. The 305(b) information was given a weight of 13

percent in fiscal year 1999 and will reach its maximum weight of 35 percent

in fiscal year 2004. Also, as a part of the new formula, EPA instituted

mechanisms to routinely update the data used.

Yet given the differences in the methods that states use to assess their

waters, the information from the 305(b) report may not reflect the relative

magnitude of water quality problems in states but, rather, assessment and

reporting differences across them. Moreover, EPA has no plans to ensure

that there will be greater consistency in the 305(b) reporting process by the

time that the formula component reaches its maximum weighting in 2004,

beyond encouraging states to adopt practices that would lead to more

comparable data. In response to our survey, half of the states reported that

they oppose using 305(b) data as a factor in allocating Clean Water Act

funds. A few states wrote specific comments stating that they oppose EPA’s

use of 305(b) data in the formula because states’ monitoring and

assessment methods are not comparable.

EPA Internal Performance

Measure

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires EPA and

other agencies to clearly define their missions, establish long-term strategic

goals (and annual goals linked to them) against which to measure their

performance, and report this information to the Congress. Importantly, the

5 The other components are surface water area, ground water use, point sources, nonpoint

sources, and the population of urbanized areas.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 35 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

statute emphasizes the need for agencies to focus on and achieve

measurable program results.

Some of EPA’s performance measures are tied to the percentage of waters

meeting standards as identified in the 305(b) report. In EPA’s fiscal year

2000 annual performance plan, a key strategic objective is for 75 percent of

the nation’s waters to support healthy aquatic communities by 2005.6

However, the problems with the completeness and consistency of the data

in the 305(b) report undermine its usefulness in tracking progress toward

this goal. In fact, the agency acknowledged the problem in its fiscal year

2000 budget proposal, stating that “differing processes and methods among

states can result in varying depictions of the nation’s water quality” and

concluding that “due to the manner by which data are currently collected,

305(b) data cannot be used to establish trends.”

EPA Public Information

Tool

Information from the 305(b) report is often used to characterize conditions

in the nation’s waters in statements asserting, for example, that a specific

percentage of the nation’s waters do not meet standards. Given the

problems with the underlying data, however, the report does not provide a

complete or reliable estimate of the extent of water quality problems, the

types of these problems, and the identification of the primary causes and

sources nationwide. An EPA official acknowledged that EPA and other

users of the report do not always communicate that the 305(b) report is

based on assessments of a subset of the nation’s waters.

Many states question EPA’s use of the 305(b) report to represent water

quality conditions nationwide. Fourteen states responded that they oppose

the use of the report in this manner. While 30 states responded that they

support the use of 305(b), nearly half of these qualified their support,

commenting that consistency in state reporting needs to be improved and

that data should be held to higher standards.

EPA also uses information from the 305(b) report, among other

information, in its Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI), as presented

through EPA’s “Surf Your Watershed” application, a map-based tool

available on the Internet. EPA designed the IWI to be used by individuals

interested in learning about the overall quality of the watersheds in which

6

In this context, “waters” refers to rivers and streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, coastal

areas, oceans, and ground waters.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 36 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

they live. The IWI is also intended to provide a national baseline of the

condition and vulnerability of aquatic resources that, over time, could be

used to measure progress toward the goal that all watersheds be healthy

and productive places.

The 305(b) water quality assessment information is 1 of 15 different

“layers” of information in the IWI, but it is weighted more heavily than

other layers in calculating an overall indicator of water quality for each

watershed. An indicator of water quality (such as good water quality and

low potential for problems) is provided for watersheds, which gives the

impression that conditions can be compared across watersheds. However,

given the considerable differences in the methods used to generate the

underlying data, such comparisons are not well founded. The IWI could be

particularly misleading, considering that most users are likely to be

unaware that these inconsistencies exist.

Nineteen states reported that they do not support EPA’s use of 305(b) data

in the IWI. Several of them noted in particular that the IWI extrapolates

water quality assessments far beyond a level for which they were ever

intended. Officials in one state told us that when they reviewed the IWI

data for their watersheds, they found many errors, such as dams that were

located in the wrong watershed. In addition, several of the other 14 layers

in the IWI are also data sources for states’ assessments of whether waters

meet standards. For example, physical-chemical data and fish consumption

advisories are often used by states to make their 305(b) assessments of

water quality. These data sources are also separate layers within the IWI, so

they are essentially double counted, as some states observed.

EPA Recognizes

Problems With the

305(b) Report and Has

Taken Steps to Address

Them

EPA recognizes that inconsistencies exist in how states monitor and assess

their waters and that these inconsistencies impair the 305(b) report’s utility

for making comparisons across states. The agency has been working

toward a long-term goal of improving the accuracy and consistency of the

report. A key activity in this area is EPA’s 305(b) consistency workgroup,

whose members include representatives from states, tribes, federal

agencies, and EPA regions and headquarters. EPA has incorporated several

of the workgroup’s recommendations for improving the accuracy and

consistency of reporting into its guidelines for the 1998 report.7 The

7

According to EPA officials, the 1998 305(b) report is scheduled to be issued in early 2000.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 37 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

guidelines include the goals of documenting and improving the quality of

states’ assessments and the states achieving comprehensive assessment

coverage of their waters. However, because states are not legally required

to adhere to EPA’s guidelines, there is no assurance that the states will

carry out the tasks necessary to meet these long-term goals.

To encourage consistency in states’ 305(b) reporting, EPA developed an

information system called the Assessment Database for states to store and

transmit their water quality assessment data. This database is a relatively

new system that replaced EPA’s prior data storage system. Although EPA

encourages states to use this database, it is not mandatory, and states are

free to use another system. One of EPA’s goals for using an automated

system to store 305(b) data was for the agency to improve the quality and

consistency of 305(b) reporting. While there appear to be adequate controls

over the entry of data into the system, the considerable differences in the

methods that states use to generate the data going into the database

severely constrain the system’s utility in improving the quality and

consistency of the data presented in the 305(b) report.

Using Other

Information Sources

May Help Provide More

Meaningful Water

Quality Information in

the National 305(b)

Report

Providing information that is representative of water quality conditions

nationwide would require the use of statistical monitoring designs and

consistent assessment and reporting methods. Such an approach would

require changes to state and federal monitoring programs, and additional

resources would be needed to preserve states’ water quality management

programs while also conducting more comprehensive monitoring.

Although the availability of additional funding is uncertain, other sources

of water quality information could be useful to EPA in compiling the 305(b)

report. According to EPA, 18 federal agencies—including the U.S.

Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

and EPA itself—conduct 141 monitoring programs on regional or national

scales. None of these programs provide information that is representative

of water quality conditions across the nation. Instead, they focus on a

particular geographic area, a certain type of body of water, or specific

pollutants; studies may also have other discrete purposes. They differ from

states’ assessments of water quality in that the states focus on water quality

in relation to state-specific water quality standards, whereas these

programs focus on broader program objectives. The individual programs

generally have monitoring and assessment standards and procedures to

ensure that consistent and comparable data are collected within a

particular program.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 38 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, for example, is

a research program that develops the tools necessary to monitor and assess

the status and trends of national ecological resources. This program has

undertaken statistically based monitoring projects to report on ecological

conditions in several regions around the country. The Geological Survey’s

National Stream Quality Accounting Network currently focuses on water

quality in four of the nation’s largest river basins. The National Water

Quality Assessment Program, also administered by the Survey, is a more

comprehensive program, investigating water quality in major river basins

that cover about one-half of the land area of the conterminous United

States. This program seeks not only to determine water quality status and

trends but also to identify and explain the major causes of observed

conditions and changes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s National Status and Trends Program is an effort to

determine the extent and impact of contaminants on coastal and estuarine

areas throughout the nation through monitoring conducted jointly by

federal and state partners.

EPA included information on some of these programs in the 1996 305(b)

report, such as responsible agency, program objectives, scope of coverage,

and, in some cases, program findings. However, it did not aggregate the

findings into a national assessment of water quality because of

inconsistencies in the methods used across the programs, nor did it

integrate the findings into the 305(b) report to support or explain statereported information. If this information were assembled and

comprehensively analyzed, however, it could provide useful insights into

water quality conditions across the country and complement individual

state reports.

Conclusions EPA considers the 305(b) report to be an essential tool for reporting on the

condition of the nation’s waters and on the states’ progress in meeting the

goals of the Clean Water Act. The agency also uses information from the

report to support certain national-level decisions. However, for a variety of

reasons, the report does not portray nationwide water quality conditions.

Of particular concern is that the report’s results are based on more limited

monitoring data than is implied by its presentation, and the report

aggregates data from states that have different water quality standards and

use widely different monitoring and assessment methods. We believe these

weaknesses seriously limit the report’s utility for the activities and

decisions for which it is presently used.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 39 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

EPA has acknowledged some of the report’s flaws and has taken steps to

improve it, including the establishment of a working group to promote

greater consistency of states’ reporting and the issuing of revised reporting

guidelines. However, the prospects for significantly improving the report

are limited in the near term by a number of practical barriers, including the

limited resources among states to monitor a greater percentage of their

waters. In the long run, it will be up to the Congress and the administration

to determine whether the public’s interest is better served by devoting

higher priority to monitoring activities. In the meantime, however, we

believe EPA should undertake a more holistic approach in addressing the

report’s current deficiencies.

Recommendations We recommend that the Administrator of EPA take actions to more

appropriately characterize state-reported information and more effectively

use other available water quality data in the National Water Quality

Inventory. Specifically, the Administrator should do the following:

• Identify other ways of aggregating state-reported information that take

into consideration the inconsistencies between states’ programs in

order to minimize the potential for misuse and misinterpretation.

• Better convey the report’s limitations in characterizing the nation’s

water quality by more clearly identifying (1) the percentage of waters

that are actually monitored and the resulting assessments of quality and

(2) the similarities and differences among states’ water quality

standards and monitoring and assessment methods, and the

implications of these differences on nationally aggregated information.

• Supplement the current information in the Inventory by integrating,

where appropriate, the findings from other programs to support or

explain state-reported information. These programs include EPA’s

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, the U.S.

Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Assessment Program, and

others.

• Reexamine the implications of relying on the report’s data for use in

national decisions and communications to the public. Specifically, the

Administrator should do the following:

• Evaluate the potential impacts of inconsistent data on the extent of

pollution in states on the allocation of the Clean Water Act’s section

106 grant funds to states, determine what data are needed to reliably

support allocations, and develop a plan for ensuring that such data

will be developed and used.
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 40 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

• Identify the information that EPA will use for establishing a baseline

of water quality conditions and measuring progress toward the goal

of having 75 percent of U.S. waters supporting healthy aquatic

communities and develop a plan to ensure that reliable information

will be obtained and used.

• Evaluate the implications of using these data to generate an indicator

of the quality of watersheds in the Index of Watershed Indicators and

take any corrective actions needed to reliably represent water quality

conditions.

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation

EPA shares our concern that a majority of the nation’s waters have not

been monitored. The agency notes, however, that states can be taking

actions stemming from the data they have and that it would be

inappropriate to wait until “perfect data” are collected on all waters before

initiating actions on waters with known problems. We do not intend for the

report to convey the message that actions cannot be taken to address

known pollution problems in the absence of complete data. In fact, we

address this issue by discussing states’ opinions that they can take steps to

improve water quality without complete data, for example, by

implementing pollution control strategies for nonpoint sources. While

states needn’t be inactive with the data they have, we continue to believe

that it is important to pursue the collection of more complete data in order

to make more informed and defensible decisions.

EPA recognizes the need for more complete and reliable data to ensure that

decision-making and resource allocations are better supported and states

that it is working hard to achieve that goal. EPA suggested that we

acknowledge additional activities that the agency feels will help improve

water quality data—the modernization of its primary system for storing

water data and work done through the National Water Quality Monitoring

Council. In addition, EPA states that although we presented concerns

regarding the Index of Watershed Indicators, the agency believes it is a very

useful tool because, for the first time, multiple data layers are integrated to

characterize water quality. We recognize that EPA has many efforts under

way to improve water quality monitoring and associated activities. Some of

these efforts, however, do not specifically address the problems we

identified regarding the completeness and consistency of state data but

instead are focused on broader issues. For example, while modernization

of EPA’s primary system for storing water data should help states store,

access, and maintain water data, only one state commented that data

storage and retrieval is a limiting factor in its ability to conduct more
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 41 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

comprehensive assessments or carry out other related activities. In

addition, while we agree that the Index of Watershed Indicators provides a

powerful presentation of water quality information, given the many

concerns with the underlying data, we believe it is important for EPA to

investigate the potential implications of data limitations on the information

presented. Simply providing information in an easy-to-use format is just

half the game; the information should be reliable as well.

EPA states that our report should more strongly note that the national

305(b) report is, by law, a summary of states’ assessments of whether their

waters are meeting standards and “is not intended to be a national water

quality report on a selected, consistent set of water quality parameters.” We

recognize that section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act specifically provides

that the 305(b) report include states’ assessments of water quality in terms

of state standards and EPA’s analysis of them, as well as other information,

and have stated this in our report. However, the broader question that the

Subcommittee posed to us asked how well the 305(b) report characterizes

water quality conditions nationwide. As such, our report discusses the

utility of the Inventory for characterizing water quality nationwide.

Moreover, because the 305(b) report is used to help make national policy

and regulatory decisions, we believe it is prudent for EPA to take steps to

ensure that the information presented is as reliable as possible. Where it is

not, EPA should clearly explain the reasons why and assess the possible

implications on national decision-making. For example, as EPA points out

in its letter, a major use of the 305(b) report is the allocation of grant funds

to states, which is to be based on the extent of pollution in states. However,

given the lack of complete information on water quality conditions and

differences among state programs, EPA cannot be certain that the extent of

pollution across states is accurately reflected in the report.

EPA points out that past 305(b) reports have clearly explained that its

information does not consistently characterize nationwide water quality,

and that it has continued to highlight this point in its draft 1998 305(b)

report. We recognize that EPA has included statements in past reports to

advise readers that the data should be used with caution because of

differences in state water quality standards and monitoring and assessment

methods. However, by aggregating the data across states, EPA is implicitly

suggesting that these data can, in fact, be compared and in doing so is

increasing the likelihood that the data will be misused or misinterpreted.

For example, the statistic in the 1996 305(b) report that agriculture

contributes pollution to 25 percent of the assessed river miles that do not
Chapter 2

National Water Quality Inventory Does Not

Accurately Represent Water Quality

Conditions Nationwide

Page 42 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

meet standards represents an aggregation of data from states using

different assessment methods. While EPA states that this information

should be used with caution because of differences across states’

programs, users have no context from which to interpret the information

because the common baseline is river miles−not states, where the

differences occur.

Regarding our recommendation that EPA make greater use of water quality

information from other sources, EPA states that it has included information

from other studies in past 305(b) reports and plans to do so for the 1998

report. We acknowledge that EPA has included information from other

programs in past reports. However, for the most part, this has been limited

to a discussion about a specific program and its findings. We intended our

recommendation to take this a step a further and correlate findings, where

appropriate, with state data. Including other sources of information in the

305(b) report to support and/or explain state-reported information may be

helpful because the report is often criticized for being of questionable

quality. We have clarified our recommendation to indicate that EPA should

integrate findings from other studies, where appropriate, to supplement

state-reported information. EPA also pointed out that it has encouraged

states to use data from other sources for their assessments for the 305(b)

report. We recognize this and have added information from our survey on

states’ use of data from other sources.

Finally, EPA commented that apparently, we did not obtain a complete

description of the process used to develop and evaluate the agency’s new

formula for allocating grant funds to states under section 106 of the Clean

Water Act. The agency stated that it conducted extensive data searches and

data source evaluations before selecting the Inventory as a source of

information on the extent of water pollution in each state. In addition, EPA

said that it evaluated numerous data scenarios to determine whether

certain data components unduly influenced the distributions of grant funds

to states. We incorporated a number of technical clarifications that EPA

provided, as appropriate. However, according to an EPA program official,

these scenarios only assessed the impact of using different data elements in

the formula and did not assess how differences among state monitoring

and assessment methods may affect formula results, as we recommend.
Page 43 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality Chapte3r

Data limitations extend well beyond the problems associated with the

National Water Quality Inventory and that report’s ability to characterize

water quality on a nationwide basis. States need water quality data to make

critical regulatory decisions, as well as decisions on where to focus limited

resources to obtain the most water quality improvement for the dollar.

States’ responses to our survey show that data gaps limit states’ abilities to

carry out several key activities to manage water quality.

As figure 7 illustrates, few states have sufficient data to assess all their

waters for pollution problems. Even for the waters that have been

assessed, most states reported that they did not have the data they need to

determine if the waters meet standards. Where water quality problems

have been identified, many states reported that they have a majority of the

data they need to deal with those caused by point sources because much of

the last 27 years of the Clean Water Act’s implementation has focused on

such sources. The picture is bleaker, however, for states’ abilities to deal

with nonpoint sources. Very few states have sufficient data to identify

nonpoint sources of pollution and to develop total maximum daily loads for

waters that do not meet standards due to such sources.
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 44 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Figure 7: States With a Majority of the Data Needed for Activities to Manage Water

Quality

States Have

Insufficient Data to

Identify Waters That

Do Not Meet Standards

States report that they lack the data needed for two activities essential to

the process of managing water quality: comprehensively assessing all state

waters and compiling a list of waters that do not meet standards. EPA

recognizes that these data limitations may prevent states from fully

addressing their polluted waters and is encouraging states to take steps

toward more comprehensive monitoring.

States Do Not Fully Assess

Their Waters

Only six states responded to our survey that they have a majority of the

data they need to fully assess all their waters. This response is consistent

with the relatively low percentage of waters that states reported assessing

for the 1996 305(b) report. For that report, for example, states assessed 19

percent of the nation’s rivers and streams and 40 percent of the lakes and

Fully assess

Place assessed

Identify point

Develop nonpoint

all state waters

waters on 303(d) list

sources

source TMDLs

0

10

20

30

6

18

Identification of

polluted waters

Identification of

pollution sources

TMDL

development

40

3

29

3

40 States

Develop point

source TMDLs

Identify nonpoint

sources
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 45 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

reservoirs. The thorough assessment of state waters is essential because it

enables states to identify polluted waters and prioritize them for

remediation through the development of TMDLs or other means.

Despite not having assessed some of their waters, the state officials we

interviewed said they feel confident that they have identified most of their

serious water quality problems. States tend to focus their monitoring on

waters with suspected pollution problems and areas used by the public in

order to direct scarce resources to areas that could pose the greatest risk.

However, studies that have more thoroughly monitored water quality

conditions—either through monitoring previously untested waters or

conducting different types of monitoring tests—have identified additional

pollution problems. For example, a 1993 EPA-funded study of toxins

showed widespread elevated levels of mercury in Maine’s lakes. This

finding ran counter to the expectations of Maine’s water quality officials,

who had assumed that these waters were likely meeting standards because

they are in areas with little or no human activity. As a result of these

findings, Maine issued advisories against the consumption of fish for all the

state’s lakes. Several New England states with presumably clean lakes

considered their waters’ vulnerability to mercury and also posted fish

consumption warnings. In addition, a study conducted by Ohio’s

environmental protection agency found that using additional types of

monitoring tests identified a significant number of pollution problems in

waters that had been shown by other monitoring efforts to be meeting

standards.

Even though the state officials we interviewed are confident that they have

identified their most serious pollution problems, they nonetheless

acknowledge that more thorough monitoring would likely reveal additional

waters that do not meet standards. Likewise, 41 states reported in our

survey that increasing the percentage of state waters that are monitored

would be very helpful in carrying out their responsibilities for managing

water quality.

Additional Data Needed to

Complete States’ Lists of

Polluted Waters

Data limitations also affect states’ abilities to accurately compile for

submission to EPA a list of the waters that do not or are not expected to

meet standards. States must develop TMDLs for waters on this list. Less

than half the states reported that they have a majority of the data they need

to determine whether they should list waters they have assessed. State

officials said that their inability to make a listing decision stems, in part,

from the fact that they are less confident of the accuracy of some of their
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 46 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

assessments because they are based on evaluated data. Evaluated data

include site-specific monitoring data more than 5 years old and information

that serves as an indicator of potential water quality conditions, such as

land use or reports on wildlife or habitat conditions. EPA and state officials

acknowledge that some of these data sources are less reliable than current,

site-specific monitoring data. Several state officials told us that while they

may use this information to make an assessment of water quality

conditions for the 305(b) report, they prefer not to use it for making

decisions about whether to list these waters because of the requirement to

develop a TMDL once a water is listed. State officials said that they prefer

to conduct additional monitoring of these waters to determine whether

they are meeting standards.

While state officials allow that they may not have identified some waters

that need TMDLs, they also told us that some waters that have been listed

do not need TMDLs. The reasons for this varied widely among states. For

example, officials in one state said that they mistakenly assessed some

waters against higher standards than necessary; consequently, these waters

were placed on their list of polluted waters. In another state, officials told

us that about half of the waters on their list were placed there on the basis

of evaluated data. Upon additional monitoring of these waters, the state

found that many meet standards and, therefore, do not need TMDLs.

EPA Urges States to

Comprehensively Assess

their Waters

EPA officials are also concerned by the states’ lack of comprehensive

monitoring. Officials told us that data limitations may cause some water

quality problems to go undetected and existing high-quality waters to be

degraded because actions were not taken to protect them (the Clean Water

Act requires states to protect existing good water quality). One regional

official believes that states would identify many more waters that do not

meet standards if more comprehensive monitoring were done.

EPA has been encouraging states in its guidelines for developing the 305(b)

report to move toward more comprehensive assessments of their waters.

EPA discusses the use of targeted monitoring as well as statistically based

monitoring, which would allow inferences to be made about entire

categories of waters, to achieve this goal. The guidelines also suggest that

states use a rotating basin approach to help achieve more comprehensive

assessments. A rotating basin approach essentially divides a state into

major river basins and provides for data collection in selected basins each

year. The monitoring rotates among the basins so that waters in all basins

will be monitored on a periodic basis, such as every 5 years.
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 47 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

While many states are incorporating a rotating basin approach into their

water quality management programs (see fig. 8), simply using this approach

does not ensure that comprehensive data for statewide water quality

conditions will result. The comprehensiveness of the data depends on the

type of monitoring conducted within the rotating plan. An EPA regional

official said, for example, that many states focus on the same monitoring

locations within their rotating basin plans because of resource constraints

and, therefore, do not significantly increase their monitoring coverage.

Several states are, however, incorporating some statistical monitoring in

order to capture a picture of water quality for waters that have not typically

been monitored in the past.
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 48 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Figure 8: Number of States With a Rotating Basin Plan in Place or Under

Development

States Report Having

Much of the Data They

Need to Carry Out

Point Source-Related

Activities

In the waters that states have identified as not meeting standards, many

states reported that they have a majority of the data they need to carry out

management activities for problems that are caused primarily by point

sources. States generally have better data for point source problems

because much of the last 27 years of Clean Water Act implementation has

focused on addressing point sources of pollution through pollution control

programs. In addition, much of EPA’s guidance on developing TMDLs,

which dates back to the 1980s, has focused on point sources.

Forty states reported having a majority of the data they need to identify

point sources of pollution. Point sources are easy to identify because they

generally discharge pollutants into bodies of water from some discrete

Rivers &

streams

Lakes

Estuaries

0

10

20

30

40

States

In place

Under development
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 49 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

conveyance, such as a pipe. Accordingly, it is relatively easy to determine

the point sources that are contributing to water quality impairments.

In order to develop a TMDL for a pollution problem caused by point

sources, states must identify how much of a particular pollutant the

sources contribute to a body of water. This information is either already

collected as a condition of a discharge permit or is directly measurable at

the facilities’ discharge point(s). Therefore, it is also relatively easy to

identify how much pollution the individual sources are contributing.

Twenty-nine states reported having a majority of the data they need to

develop TMDLs for water quality problems caused primarily by point

sources. In fact, officials in the states we visited told us that they have been

following the TMDL process for point sources for many years as a way of

achieving water quality standards and developing appropriate discharge

limits. These officials said, however, that EPA’s review and approval of

TMDLs was not a priority until the recent onset of TMDL lawsuits.

States Report Having

Little of the Data They

Need to Carry Out

Nonpoint SourceRelated Activities

While water quality officials responding to our survey reported having a

majority of the data they need to deal with point sources of pollution, few

respondents reported having a majority of the data needed to deal with

nonpoint sources. Specifically, almost all states reported that they did not

have a majority of the data they needed to identify nonpoint sources of

pollution and develop TMDLs for waters polluted primarily by nonpoint

sources.

States Have Difficulty in

Identifying Nonpoint

Sources

Forty-seven states reported that they have half or less of the data they need

to identify nonpoint sources of water quality problems, and 29 of those

states reported having much less than half or almost none of the data

needed. Information on nonpoint sources is particularly important because

there is general agreement that most remaining water quality problems are

caused, at least in part, by nonpoint sources. For example, 35 percent of the

waters that Texas officials identified as not meeting standards in 1998 were

polluted solely by nonpoint sources, as compared with 5 percent that were

polluted solely by point sources. Slightly more than half of Texas’s reported

water quality problems were caused by a combination of point and

nonpoint sources. Similarly, in Maine, nonpoint sources contributed

pollution to about half of the state’s rivers and streams that were identified

as not meeting standards.
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 50 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Because of the diffuse nature of nonpoint sources, it is difficult to identify

specific sources contributing to a particular water quality problem. Unlike

point sources, where pollutant contributions can be directly measured as

they come out of a pipe, nonpoint source pollution may come from many

disparate sources. For example, rainwater may carry fertilizer, manure,

pesticides, and soil with it as it runs off of farm fields into bodies of water.

Urban sources may contribute oil and grease, animal waste, fertilizer, and

pesticides as rainwater runs off of literally thousands of individual

residences, businesses, and roads into nearby streams, or storm drains that

discharge into streams or rivers.

Data Gaps Complicate the

Development of TMDLs

Beyond the problems with simply identifying the nonpoint sources causing

waters not to meet standards, it is difficult to directly measure pollutant

contributions from individual nonpoint sources and, therefore, assign

specific loadings to sources in order to develop TMDLs. Accordingly, only

three states reported having a majority of the data they need to develop

TMDLs for water quality problems that are caused primarily by nonpoint

sources. Dealing with water quality problems that are caused by a

combination of point and nonpoint sources is difficult because progress

can be impeded by the weakest link—the inability to identify and quantify

nonpoint source contributions.

Developing TMDLs generally involves data collection and analysis beyond

what is done by routine water quality monitoring, especially for nonpoint

source problems. An EPA study of 14 TMDL development efforts—all but

one of which included nonpoint sources of pollution—found that each

entailed additional data collection that averaged about 40 percent of the

total cost of developing the TMDL.1 Officials in one state said that it takes

about 3 to 4 years to do the data collection, analysis, and other activities

needed to prepare a TMDL for EPA’s review. Officials in another state told

us that because they lack the data for certain TMDL projects and they are

uncertain of what level of data EPA will accept for a TMDL, they are

focusing on TMDLs that are relatively easy to develop rather than those

that are the highest priority. These officials said this is due to the pressure

they feel to show that they are making progress on TMDL development.

1

See TMDL Development Cost Estimates: Case Studies of 14 TMDLs, USEPA (1996). One of

the TMDL projects did not provide separate cost data on additional data collection.
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 51 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Several state officials told us that because most of the TMDLs they must

develop are for pollution caused by nonpoint sources, they prefer to use

methods that require less initial data collection prior to the implementation

of pollution control strategies. Two-thirds of the state officials responded in

our survey that using a phased TMDL approach—a process recognized in

EPA’s current guidance—is very helpful for addressing pollution problems.

The state officials whom we spoke with said that a phased approach

enables them to apply best management practices to nonpoint source

activities identified as contributing to a problem, while at the same time,

gathering additional monitoring data to better understand the relative

contributions of sources.2 Several state officials said they see this as a way

to more quickly address water quality problems, rather than studying the

problem extensively before taking any remediation actions.

As states develop more TMDLs, the need for additional water quality

monitoring will increase accordingly. Current EPA guidance and proposed

TMDL regulations require that states conduct monitoring after pollutant

controls or other activities are implemented to determine if the TMDL is

working and the body of water is attaining water quality standards. This

means that significant new monitoring efforts will be needed, particularly

for TMDLs addressing nonpoint sources of pollution. Nonpoint sources are

largely addressed through the use of best management practices, which are

generally changes in the behaviors of how individuals use land. The

effectiveness of best management practices on improving water quality

varies on the basis of site-specific conditions, such as soil type and climate.

Therefore, additional monitoring is needed to see if the practices are

having the desired effect of improving water quality.

Several Factors Limit

States’ Abilities to

Obtain Needed Data

and Carry Out Key

Activities

Several factors were repeatedly identified by states as limitations to their

ability to conduct monitoring and analyses to fully address their water

quality management needs. Almost all states identified a need for

additional resources, such as funding and staff, to carry out their duties.

There was also strong evidence of the need for additional analytical

methods and technical assistance to help states analyze complex pollution

problems and develop TMDLs.

2

Examples of best management practices are (1) leaving strips of farmland next to bodies of

water uncultivated to minimize erosion and (2) using manmade ponds or basins to detain

storm-water runoff from roads to minimize the velocity of water reaching bodies of water

during storms and to allow sediment and other pollutants to settle.
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 52 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

States Cite Shortages in

Funding and Staff as Key

Limiting Factors

The limitation most often cited by states was that the amount of

resources—in terms of funding and staff—devoted to monitoring,

assessment, and TMDL development is far short of the task at hand. Fortyfive states reported that the lack of resources was a key limitation to

making more progress on water quality issues. In addition, several states

pointed out that they are operating under a state-imposed staffing level

ceiling, and other states said they are limited in how many samples they

can analyze because of shortages in lab funding.

EPA water officials told us that overall, less resources are being devoted to

monitoring and assessment at the state level than ever before. In addition,

EPA and state officials told us that more requirements have been placed on

state programs for managing water quality, such as issuing permits to

implement new storm-water and sludge regulations. Of particular note,

officials in two states said that the increased focus on addressing waters

that do not meet standards is constraining their abilities to carry out

monitoring and assessment activities.

EPA is conducting a study of funding shortfalls in states’ water quality

management programs and plans to identify alternative approaches for

addressing the anticipated gap. The agency plans to finalize its

methodology for estimating these shortfalls in the spring of 2000. On the

basis of a preliminary analysis of 10 state programs, EPA found that states

have shortfalls in most areas of water quality management, including water

quality monitoring and TMDL development programs.

States Cite a Need for

Additional Analytical

Methods and Technical

Assistance to Help Develop

TMDLs

To assist with the development of TMDLs, EPA has issued multiple

guidance documents since 1984. These, however, have largely focused on

point source TMDLs. EPA has also been developing a watershed model and

analysis tool called BASINS, which is intended for use in the development

of TMDLs, particularly for the analysis of nonpoint sources.3 The model

was released about 3 years ago, although its capabilities have been evolving

over that time. EPA is working on simplifying the model in order to make it

easier to use. EPA has also provided a compendium of models—including

those developed by other agencies and organizations—that are available

for states to use in analyzing pollution problems.

3

Watershed models are often used to analyze nonpoint source pollution impairments

because they can take into account many of the factors that influence such pollution, such

as land use, climate, and geographic features.
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 53 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

In response to our survey, however, a majority of states indicated that they

need additional assistance for TMDL development. Specifically, 31 states

reported that additional technical tools, such as models and analytical

methods, would be very or extremely helpful for TMDL development; 28

states reported that additional technical assistance in these areas would

also be helpful. According to our survey, states are most concerned about

their abilities to develop TMDLs for nonpoint sources. Analyzing these

sources is much more complex than the analysis of point source

impairments and often relies on watershed models. However, several states

pointed out that they are on the front end of the learning curve when it

comes to using watershed models such as BASINS and developing TMDLs

for nonpoint sources of pollution. While state officials told us they have inhouse expertise with models used for analyzing point sources, they need

assistance in selecting and using appropriate watershed models for

nonpoint sources.

Some state officials told us that they are unsure of where to go for technical

assistance or that experts they called on in the past were no longer

available. For example, officials in two states told us that they previously

obtained model development, troubleshooting, and refinement assistance

from experts in EPA’s modeling lab in Athens, Georgia. This assistance,

however, is no longer available because of reductions in funding, according

to an official in EPA’s TMDL office. Moreover, this official told us that there

is no systematic process for providing assistance to states on the

development of TMDLs. He said that assistance is provided largely in an adhoc fashion by EPA staff in headquarters, regions, and labs. EPA regional

officials identified several areas where they have provided states with

assistance on TMDL issues. However, EPA does not keep a national

inventory of state requests for assistance and what is done to address those

requests.

Some states suggested that EPA should develop sample or standardized

approaches, such as templates that states could use to guide them through

certain types of TMDLs. In addition, several states pointed out the need for

efficiency in developing TMDLs. For example, one state noted that states

should be benefiting from others’ experiences in developing TMDLs, rather

than “reinventing the wheel.”
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 54 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

EPA Activities Currently

Under Way Could Address

Some State Needs

Activities currently under way at EPA could help states in some of the areas

identified above. Perhaps most directly relevant to states’ needs are EPA’s

efforts to develop protocols for some of the more common pollutants

causing waters not to meet standards—sediment, nutrients, and pathogens.

(According to EPA, these pollutants were selected because the states

report that they are the leading causes of water quality impairments.) The

protocols are intended to provide states with an organizational framework

for completing the technical and programmatic steps in the development of

TMDLs for specific pollutants. EPA issued the sediment and nutrient

protocols in October and November 1999, respectively. These documents

appear to provide some of the information and specific guidance that states

identified as needed, such as the suggestions for the kinds of data and

analyses necessary to develop specific TMDLs. How helpful the protocols

are will become clearer after they have been used in several TMDL

development efforts.

In addition, EPA is conducting two pilot studies to investigate the

relationship between air emissions of mercury and water quality impacts.

The goal of the pilots is to examine the methods for taking air sources into

account when determining TMDLs. In each of the two study areas—one is

in a small lake in Wisconsin and the other covers a 700-square-mile area of

the Florida Everglades—techniques will be evaluated for determining (1)

the amount of mercury reductions needed to meet water quality standards,

(2) the relative contributions of mercury from various sources, and (3) the

geographic extent of sources contributing mercury. A legal analysis of

federal and state programs to address airborne sources of mercury

deposited in bodies of water is also being conducted. EPA plans to issue a

“lessons learned” report on the findings of the pilots in the spring of 2000 to

assist states in the development of TMDLs involving mercury from air

sources.

EPA officials told us that they have also started a library of approved

TMDLs to help facilitate information sharing among states. Currently, the

library consists of a manual file of approved TMDLs and is maintained in

headquarters. EPA regions receive a list of the TMDLs in the library and are

to use it for referring states to specific TMDLs when they are working on

similar water quality problems. In addition, EPA regions are in the process

of assessing states’ TMDL programs to help develop regional strategies for

deciding how best to allocate available resources to support them. These

assessments will include examining states’ programs for water quality

monitoring, prioritizing water quality problems, and developing and

implementing TMDLs to identify areas needing additional resources.
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 55 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

EPA recognizes, however, that overall, its research and tools are not as

fully developed as they need to be to support TMDL development.

Therefore, the agency initiated the development of a strategy in the

summer of 1999 to identify the critical needs for developing scientifically

credible TMDLs and the actions necessary to address these needs.

According to EPA, states and other stakeholder groups have provided input

into the strategy. EPA has tentatively identified three broad areas in which

it will address needs—the capacity to develop TMDLs, tools to support

TMDL decisions, and the management of TMDL-related information.

However, EPA staff working on the strategy have been diverted to work on

other issues. The official in charge of developing the strategy told us that he

hopes work can resume on the strategy in order to release a draft for public

comment in the summer of 2000.

While it is encouraging that EPA has initiated the development of an overall

strategy to support TMDL development, until complete, it is uncertain

whether states’ needs for additional assistance will be addressed. The

regional assessments of states’ programs, as well as states’ requests for

assistance from EPA headquarters, regions, and labs, could both provide

valuable insight into the states’ needs as EPA finalizes its strategy.

Conclusions While states have always needed to obtain comprehensive and reliable

water quality data, such data have become more important in recent years.

An increased emphasis on regulatory requirements for assessing waters

and developing TMDLs has heightened the need for states to have sound

information to make these decisions. Of particular concern, states will be

required to develop thousands of TMDLs for their most heavily polluted

waters.

Our survey results show that states are missing much of the information

they need to comprehensively assess their waters and develop TMDLs for

some of the waters they have already identified as not meeting standards.

They have said they need additional resources, tools and assistance in

developing TMDLs for thousands of their waters—a task that will

significantly tax already limited resources over a sustained period of time.

EPA’s analysis of funding gaps in states’ programs should shed light on the

resources needed to conduct these and other activities. It will then be up to

the administration and the Congress to determine whether and how these

needs will be met.
Chapter 3

States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key

Activities to Manage Water Quality

Page 56 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

EPA has a number of targeted initiatives under way that are designed to

help states deal with specific problems, such as providing protocols for

pollutants that frequently cause water quality problems and developing

information on airborne pollutants. In addition, EPA has initiated work on a

strategy for supporting TMDL development, although it is not certain when

this strategy will be finalized and what kind of support will be provided. As

states face long-term challenges in carrying out important regulatory

decisions, it is critical that EPA finalize its strategy and take actions to

provide the support necessary to develop scientifically defensible TMDLs

as efficiently as possible.

Recommendations We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, finalize the agency’s strategy

for supporting TMDL development. As a part of this process, EPA should

continue working with states and other stakeholder groups, as well as

gather information on states’ requests for technical assistance from

headquarters, regions, and labs to obtain the most complete picture of

states’ needs as possible. We also recommend that as a part of its overall

strategy, EPA establish a process for systematically tracking states’

requests for technical tools and assistance and how these requests are

addressed, on a routine basis, to ensure that it is addressing needs

efficiently and to stay abreast of changing needs.

To facilitate more efficient information sharing regarding TMDL

development, we recommend that the Administrator, EPA, expand the

dissemination of its TMDL library. A first step should be for EPA to

routinely send the list of TMDLs in the library to states, as well as to

regions and to consider automating the library to facilitate more efficient

access to the information.

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation

EPA commented that our draft report did not discuss states’ lists of waters

that do not meet standards, which serves as the link between the 305(b)

report and the TMDL program, and the adequacy of state data for the list

development process. We agree that this is an important issue and have

added a discussion of this to our report. EPA also provided several

clarifications on the TMDL program that we have incorporated, as

appropriate.
Page 57 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Page 58 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Appendix I

Copy of GAO Questionnaire ApApenednxidexiIs
Appendix I

Copy of GAO Questionnaire

Page 59 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Appendix I

Copy of GAO Questionnaire

Page 60 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Appendix I

Copy of GAO Questionnaire

Page 61 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Appendix I

Copy of GAO Questionnaire

Page 62 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Appendix I

Copy of GAO Questionnaire

Page 63 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Appendix I

Copy of GAO Questionnaire

Page 64 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Appendix I

Copy of GAO Questionnaire

Page 65 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Appendix I

Copy of GAO Questionnaire

Page 66 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Appendix I

Copy of GAO Questionnaire

Page 67 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Appendix I

Copy of GAO Questionnaire

Page 68 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Page 69 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Appendix II

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 70 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Appendix II

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 71 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Appendix II

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 72 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality
Page 73 GAO/RCED-00-54 Water Quality

Appendix III

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contacts Steve Elstein, Assistant Director, (202) 512-6111

Acknowledgments Gillian Friedrichs, Heather Halliwell, Barbara Johnson, Karen Keegan,

Trish McClure, Luann Moy, Dena Owens, and Judy Pagano made significant

contributions to this report.

(160480) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00