```

[Senate Report 106-485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 934
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-485

======================================================================

 
            WATER POLLUTION PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS ACT OF 2000

                                _______
                                

October 4 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, from the Committee on Environment and 
                 Public Works, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [to accompany S. 2417]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 
referred a bill (S. 2417) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act to increase funding for State nonpoint source 
pollution control programs, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                    General Statement and Background

    The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (``Clean 
Water Act'') was enacted ``to restore and maintain the 
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's 
waters.'' To accomplish this objective, the Clean Water Act 
depends upon cooperative efforts by Federal, state, tribal and 
local governments to implement the pollution control programs 
established under the Act. The success of the Clean Water Act 
depends greatly on adequate funding of grant and loan programs, 
sufficient personnel, and accurate scientific data. While there 
is broad consensus that up to this point, the Act has been 
largely successful, there is clear need for additional funding 
and scientific data, particularly with respect to nonpoint 
source pollution. S. 2417 addresses these needs.
    The Clean Water Act divides the sources of pollution into 
two categories: point sources and nonpoint sources. Point 
sources are discrete conveyances, such as pipes or other man 
made conveyances. The Clean Water Act requires each point 
source discharging pollutants into the waters of the United 
States to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permit. The purpose of the NPDES program is to 
protect human health and the environment. To accomplish this 
goal, NPDES permits contain limitations on discharges in order 
to meet the State water quality standards. The Clean Water Act 
requires states to set standards for the levels of quality that 
are needed for bodies of water in order to support their 
intended use.
    In general, States are responsible for issuing NPDES 
permits. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues 
permits in only seven States which have not received delegated 
authority for the permit program. Currently, there is a 
substantial backlog of expired NPDES permits issued by both the 
States and EPA, that have not been reissued. The States use 
grants authorized by Section 106 of the Clean Water Act for 
administering state water quality programs to establish and 
implement their permit program. States identify a lack of 
economic resources and staff as a significant reason for their 
inability to keep up with the requirements and duties under the 
permit program.
    Nonpoint source pollution, unlike pollutants from point 
sources, comes from diffuse sources. It is caused by rainfall 
or snow melt moving over and through the ground. States 
currently address nonpoint source pollution under the Clean 
Water Act and other Federal and state laws. Unlike point 
sources, the impacts of nonpoint source programs are difficult 
to measure because of their diffuse characteristics. Nonpoint 
sources of pollution are also controlled by a number of 
programs. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grants to 
States to support a wide variety of activities including 
technical assistance, financial assistance education, 
technology transfer, demonstration projects and monitoring for 
specific nonpoint source implementation projects. The United 
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs, such as the 
Buffer Initiative, Wetlands Reserve Program and the 
Environmental Quality Incentive Program also address nonpoint 
source problems. In many situations, the USDA and EPA programs 
work together in an attempt to control nonpoint source 
pollution. However, a comprehensive examination of the programs 
and practices currently being used to control nonpoint sources, 
and their success or failure, is needed. While great strides 
have been made under all these programs, there is still a need 
for increased funding, more data, and experienced staff to 
implement the programs.
    State regulators have multiple ways to examine the waters 
in their state to determine the success, or failure, of 
environmental programs. States are required to monitor and 
assess the status of all waters every 2 years under section 
305(b) of the Clean Water Act, and report to Congress a summary 
of their findings as part of this process. States compare 
monitoring data, or other information, with water quality 
standards to determine if their waters are meeting the 
standards. The States have not assessed all their waters. In 
fact, in the 1998 305(b) Report to Congress, States reported to 
have assessed only 23 percent of rivers, 42 percent of lakes 
and 32 percent of the estuaries in the United States. States 
have been increasing the amount of assessed waters since the 
enactment of this section, however, progress has been limited 
due to insufficient funding and staff.
    The Clean Water Act requires States to establish a separate 
list of waters not meeting the State water quality standards 
under section 303(d). The list prioritizes waters taking into 
account the severity of the pollution and the uses of the 
waters. The Clean Water Act then requires states to develop 
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for those waters on the 
303(d) list. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a 
pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water 
quality standards. From that total amount, States then allocate 
specific pollutant limitations or ``budgets'' to each source of 
the pollutant on an impaired water. The TMDL program has not 
been implemented consistently from State to State.
    States ability to access their waters under section 305(b) 
and to list impaired waters under section 303(d) is dependent 
upon comprehensive and accurate monitoring data, economic 
resources, and staff. Unfortunately, States currently do not 
have comprehensive monitoring data for their waters. A 
significant cause for this is lack of sufficient funding.

                     Objectives of This Legislation

    The Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000 will 
make several significant changes to improve the success of the 
Clean Water Act.
    First, S. 2417 will increase the funding to the Clean Water 
Act nonpoint source grant program, section 319. This will 
provide States with a much needed increase in economic 
resources. These grants will be provided to States to assist 
landowners in developing and implementing nonpoint source 
pollution control projects. This should have an immediate 
impact on state nonpoint source programs.
    Second, S. 2417 will increase the funding to the Clean 
Water Act point source grant program, section 106. These funds 
will be used for water quality monitoring, preparing TMDLs and 
developing watershed strategies. The increase in data that 
results from this monitoring will greatly benefit all of the 
Clean Water Act programs.
    Finally, S. 2417 will require two studies to be provided to 
the Congress. These studies will provide a comprehensive 
analysis of the wide range of programs being used to protect 
water quality and their costs and benefits. The studies will 
examine programs under the Clean Water Act and other state and 
Federal water quality related programs.
    S. 2417 will have an immediate and long lasting impact on 
the success of the Clean Water Act. It will greatly benefit 
both policymakers and those regulators currently implementing 
water quality programs.

                      Section-By-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short Title
    Section 1 designates the bill as the ``Water Pollution 
Program Enhancement Act of 2000.''
Sec. 2. Definitions
    Section 2 definines ``Administrator,'' ``NAPA Study,'' and 
``NAS Study.''
Sec. 3. Funding For Water Pollution Control Measures
    Section 3 amends section 106(a) of the Clean Water Act to 
increase the authorization from the existing level of 
$75,000,000 to $250,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001 
through 2007. Of that amount, $50,000,000 shall be made 
available for monitoring, improving the listing process under 
303(d), preparing of TMDLs and developing watershed management 
strategies.
    This increase, if funded, would have an immediate impact on 
States' water quality programs. It would greatly improve the 
States' ability to implement the NPDES permit program, collect 
reliable data, improve the listing process under section 
303(d), and develop TMDLs.
    Section 319(j) is amended to from the eauthorize 
$500,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 
The current authorized level for section 319 is $130,000,000. 
Of the amount authorized under Section 319(j), not more than 
$7,500,000 may be made available to carry out groundwater 
quality projects under 319(i). Section 319(j)(3) requires 
$200,000,000 of the $500,000,000 authorized under this section, 
to be made available to the States for grants to landowners to 
develop and implement nonpoint source pollution control 
activities and projects to accomplish the goals of the Clean 
Water Act. The State will prioritize the use of these funds. 
The Federal share of the costs of these projects shall not 
exceed 90 percent. These funds cannot be used to accomplish 
activities required under Federal or State law. This 
restriction is intended only to ensure that recipients cannot 
use these funds to comply with permit requirements or other 
legal restrictions, such as those imposed under section 9 of 
the Endangered Species Act. Grant recipients may use other 
Federal programs and eligible in-kind contributions to satisfy 
the non- Federal share.
    The State nonpoint source programs will greatly benefit by 
these additional funds. Additional resources will allow States 
to fund a broad range of projects to control nonpoint source 
pollution, resulting in real, on the ground improvements. It 
will also substantially increase states ability to gather 
complete and accurate scientific data in order to make accurate 
conclusions about their water quality.
Sec. 4. Reports to Congress
    Section 4 requires the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, no later than 18 months after enactment of 
this Act, to submit two reports to the Congress.
    The first report is to be conducted by the National Academy 
of Sciences (NAS) to study the scientific basis underlying the 
development and implementation of the total maximum daily loads 
under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d). The study should also 
examine the availability and effectiveness of alternative 
programs or mechanisms in producing quantafiable reductions of 
pollution from point and nonpoint sources. The Congress 
authorizes $2,000,000 to carry out this study.
    The NAS study will provide the Congress with a 
comprehensive examination of the current status of the TMDL 
program from a scientific perspective. States are using various 
programs and methods to accomplish the goals of the Clean Water 
Act, and this study should provide an analysis of those 
programs. This will not only greatly benefit the Congress, but 
other States that may learn of more effective programs to 
control pollution.
    The second report is to be conducted by the National 
Academy of Public Administrators (NAPA) to examine the 
effectiveness of existing voluntary and other programs being 
implemented in producing quantifiable reductions in pollution 
from point and nonpoint sources in order to attain water 
quality standards. The study will also analyze the costs and 
benefits associated with these programs. The Congress 
authorizes $3,000,000 to carry out this study.
    There is a great need to have information not only on the 
universe of programs that exist to reduce pollution from point 
and nonpoint sources, but also on the costs and benefits 
associated with those programs. This data will be extremely 
beneficial for both State and Federal policymakers as they 
evaluate the most cost effective ways to reduce pollution.

                           Regulatory Impact

    Section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires publication in the report the committee's 
estimate of the regulatory impact made by the bill as reported. 
No regulatory impact is expected by the passage of this bill.
    The bill will not affect the personal privacy of 
individuals.

                          Mandates Assessment

    In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(P.L. 104-4), the committee makes the following evaluation of 
the Federal mandates contained in the reported bill: S. 2417 
imposes no Federal intergovernmental mandates on State, local 
or tribal governments.

                          Legislative History

    On April 13, 2000, Senator Michael D. Crapo introduced S. 
2417, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
to increase funding for State nonpoint source pollution control 
programs, and for other purposes. On May 18, 2000, the 
Committee on the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on 
Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water held a hearing on the 
``Water Pollution Program Enhancement Act of 2000.'' On July 
26, 2000, the Committee on the Environment and Public Works 
held a business meeting to consider S. 2417 and it was 
favorably reported by the committee by voice vote.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the 
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be 
included in the report. That statement follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, August 14, 2000.

Hon. Robert C. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared 
the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2417, the Water Pollution 
Program Enhancements Act of 2000.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. 
Mehlman, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                            Dan L. Crippen.
                              ----------                              

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

S. 2417, Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000, as ordered 
        reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
        Works on July 26, 2000
Summary
    S. 2417 would authorize the appropriation of $750 million 
for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2007 for the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue activities 
associated with the prevention, reduction, and elimination of 
water pollutants and nonpoint source water pollution. The bill 
also would authorize a one-time appropriation of $3 million for 
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the total 
maximum daily load program, and a one-time appropriation of $2 
million for the National Academy of Public Administrators 
(NAPA) to study State and local government programs for 
reducing water pollution.
    CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would cost 
almost $2 billion over the next 5 years, assuming appropriation 
of the authorized amounts. The bill would not affect direct 
spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
not apply.
    S.2417 contains no intergovernmental or private sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no other costs on State, local, or tribal 
governments.
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
    The estimated budgetary impact of S.2417 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 300 (natural resources and the environment). 
For the purpose of this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 2417 will 
be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2001 and that the full 
amounts authorized by the bill will be appropriated for each 
fiscal year. Outlay estimates are based on historical spending 
patterns for this program.

                                     By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority a..........................................     316       0       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................     205     230     220     142      47       0

Proposed Changes................................................     205     230     220     142      47       0
    Water Pollution Programs:
        Authorization Level.....................................       0     750     750     750     750     750
        Estimated Outlays.......................................       0      38     150     375     600     713

    NAS and NAPA Studies:
        Authorization Level.....................................       0       5       0       0       0       0
        Estimated Outlays.......................................       0       3       2       0       0       0
Spending Under S. 2417:
    Authorization Levela........................................     316     755     750     750     750     750
    Estimated Outlays...........................................     205     271     372     517     647     713
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The 2000 level includes the amount appropriated for that year for the water pollution control programs that S.
  2417 would reauthorize.

Pay-As-You-Go Considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact
    S. 2417 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no other costs on 
State, local, or tribal governments. The bill would authorize 
$750 million annually from 2001 through 2007 for grants to 
States and interstate agencies to implement programs to control 
water pollution, including managing nonpoint sources of 
pollution.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman (226-
2860) Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Victoria 
Held Hall (225-3220) Impact on the Private Sector: Lauren Marks 
(226-2940)

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

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill 
as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in [black brackets], new matter is printed 
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown 
in roman:
                              ----------                              

                  Federal Water Pollution Control Act

                        (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)

          [As Amended Through P.L. 105-394, November 13, 1998]

AN ACT To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public 
Health Service of the Federal Security Agency and in the Federal Works 
Agency, and for other purposes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                 grants for pollution control programs

      Sec. 106. [(a) There are hereby authorized to be 
appropriated the following sums, to remain available until 
expended, to carry out the purposes of this section--
            [(1) $60,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 
        30, 1973; and 
            [(2) $75,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 
        30, 1974, and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, 
        $100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years 1977, 
        1978, 1979, and 1980, $75,000,000 per fiscal year for 
        the fiscal years 1981 and 1982, such sums as may be 
        necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and 
        $75,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal 
        years 1986 through 1990;
[for grants to States and to interstate agencies to assist them 
in administering programs for the prevention, reduction, and 
elimination of pollution, including enforcement directly or 
through appropriate State law enforcement officers or 
agencies.]
    (a) Funding.--
            (1) In general.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 
        through 2007, to remain available until expended, for 
        grants to States and interstate agencies to be used in 
        carrying out this section, including--
                    (A) the administration of programs for the 
                prevention, reduction, and elimination of 
                pollutants; and
                    (B) enforcement carried out directly or 
                through appropriate State law enforcement 
                officers and agencies.
            (2) State activities.--Of the amount authorized 
        under paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, $50,000,000 
        shall be made available to States for--
                    (A) the collection of reliable monitoring 
                data;
                    (B) the improvement of lists prepared under 
                section 303(d)(1);
                    (C) the preparation of total maximum daily 
                load allocations under section 303(d); and
                    (D) the development of watershed management 
                strategies.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
      (a) State Assessment Reports.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      [(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsections (h) and 
(i) not to exceed $70,000,000 for fiscal year 1988, 
$100,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1989 and 
1990, and $130,000,000 for fiscal year 1991; except that for 
each of such fiscal years not to exceed $7,500,000 may be made 
available to carry out subsection (i). Sums appropriated 
pursuant to this subsection shall remain available until 
expended.]
    (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), 
        there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
        subsections (h) and (i) $500,000,000 for each of fiscal 
        years 2001 through 2007, to remain available until 
        expended.
            (2) Groundwater quality.--Of the amount authorized 
        under paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, not more than 
        $7,500,000 may be made available to carry out 
        subsection (i).
            (3) Project grants.--
                    (A) In general.--Of the amount authorized 
                under paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, 
                $200,000,000 shall be made available to States 
                to provide grants to landowners to develop and 
                implement nonpoint source pollution control 
                projects or activities to restore or improve 
                the water quality of impaired water that has 
                been identified by a State as a priority for 
                restoration.
                    (B) Cost sharing.--
                            (i) Federal share.--The Federal 
                        share of the costs of any project or 
                        activity funded under this paragraph 
                        shall not exceed 90 percent.
                            (ii) Non-federal share.--The 
                        recipient of a grant under this 
                        paragraph may use funds from other 
                        Federal programs and eligible in-kind 
                        contributions to satisfy the non-
                        Federal share.
                    (C) Limitation.--Grants under this 
                paragraph shall not be made available for 
                projects or activities that are required to be 
                carried out under Federal or State law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  

```