Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

EPA Needs to Track 

Whether Its Major Municipal 

Settlements for Combined 

Sewer Overflows

Benefit Water Quality

Project No. 15-P-0280 September 16, 2015

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Protecting America’s Waters
Report Contributors: Kathlene Butler

Dan Engelberg

Julie Hamann

Gerry Snyder 

Genevieve Borg Soule

Abbreviations

ACS Annual Commitment System

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

CWA Clean Water Act

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OIG Office of Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OW Office of Water

Cover photo: A faded sign at Proctor Creek in Atlanta, Georgia, warns of combined sewer 

overflow contamination. (OIG photo)

Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an

EPA program? 

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)

Washington, DC 20460

(888) 546-8740

(202) 566-2599 (fax)

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

More information at www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.html.

EPA Office of Inspector General

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 566-2391

www.epa.gov/oig

Subscribe to our Email Updates

Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig

Send us your Project Suggestions
 

 15-P-0280

September 16, 2015

Why We Did This Review

We initiated this review to 

determine how selected 

municipalities are implementing

actions, achieving milestones 

and achieving anticipated 

outcomes under the U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) stormwater 

enforcement initiative to 

address combined sewer 

overflows (CSOs). We also 

sought ways the EPA could 

improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of its tracking 

efforts for this program. 

The CSO program was 

intended to improve water 

quality through consent 

decrees with CSO 

communities. Based on EPA 

estimates, we calculate that 

consent decrees will eliminate 

at least 75 billion gallons of 

untreated CSO discharges 

each year and cost more than 

$32 billion. The EPA 

anticipates these actions will 

aid in the achievement of water 

quality standards—the 

objective of the CSO policy. 

This report addresses the 

following EPA goals or 

cross-agency strategies:

 Protecting America’s 

waters. 

 Working to make a visible 

difference in communities.

Send all inquiries to our public 

affairs office at (202) 566-2391

or visit www.epa.gov/oig.

The full report is at:

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2015/ 

20150916-15-P-0280.pdf

 

EPA Needs to Track Whether Its Major Municipal 

Settlements for Combined Sewer Overflows

Benefit Water Quality

 What We Found

We found that some communities under consent 

decrees are meeting project milestones, and there 

is evidence that combined sewer overflows have 

been reduced. However, the EPA is not tracking 

and assessing results from consent decrees or 

determining whether the consent decrees are 

leading to desired water quality improvements. 

Consent decrees involve significant financial 

investments from ratepayers. Consent decrees also require communities to 

collect information to demonstrate progress in achieving results, including 

pollution reduction and meeting water quality standards. The EPA could compile 

information on consent decree compliance to develop a national assessment and 

view of the overall progress of its CSO enforcement efforts. However, without 

such an assessment, it is unknown whether billions of dollars invested in CSO 

system changes and upgrades actually lead to the water quality improvements 

that the EPA anticipated, and reported to Congress and the public. 

The EPA lacks a national tracking system that consistently monitors CSO 

consent decree results and improves oversight of the agency’s regional tracking 

activities. The EPA also has not established an Annual Commitment System goal 

for regional consent decree tracking, which would allow EPA headquarters to 

incentivize consent decree tracking in regions. Further, the increased use of 

promising new technologies and public reporting can improve the efficiency of 

EPA oversight and its ability to demonstrate that associated water quality 

improvements result from the CSO program. 

 Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions

We recommended that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) develop and report outcome-based goals and 

measures for the CSO consent decrees; develop a national consent decree 

tracking system for regional and headquarters use; develop an Annual 

Commitment System goal that establishes regional goals for monitoring and 

reporting outcomes associated with CSO consent decrees; and provide a public 

website for CSO consent decree information. 

After we received OECA’s corrective action plan, outlined in its July 30, 2015,

response to the draft report, we held several follow-up discussions with the office. 

Based on our meetings and OECA’s supplemental information, the corrective 

action plan meets the intent of the report’s recommendations. All 

recommendations are considered resolved.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

By tracking environmental 

results, the EPA can show 

how the $32 billion that 

communities are spending 

to address discharges of 

untreated sewage and 

contaminated stormwater 

improves water quality.
September 16, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Needs to Track Whether Its Major Municipal Settlements for Combined Sewer 

Overflows Benefit Water Quality

Report No. 15-P-0280

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems 

the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in 

this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures. 

The EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance has primary responsibility for 

implementing the recommendations in this report. 

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, your office provided acceptable and complete planned corrective 

actions in response to OIG recommendations. All recommendations are resolved and no final response 

to this report is required. 

We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
EPA Needs to Track Whether Its Major Municipal 15-P-0280

Settlements for Combined Sewer Overflows Benefit Water Quality

Table of Contents

Chapters

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1

Background................................................................................................ 1

Responsible Offices ................................................................................... 5

Scope and Methodology ............................................................................ 5

2 EPA Has Not Analyzed Existing CSO Data to Determine

 Environmental Results..................................................................................... 7

Progress Is Being Made and CSO Events Are Being Reduced.................. 7

EPA Has Not Evaluated Pollution Reduction or Water Quality 

 Information Derived From Consent Decree Requirements ..................... 8

Enhanced Management Can Improve Oversight and Program Results...... 11

Conclusion................................................................................................. 14

Recommendations..................................................................................... 15

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation..................................................... 15

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 16

Appendices

A Prior OIG Reports ............................................................................................. 17

B Municipal CSO Consent Decrees Selected for Review .................................. 19

C Agency Response to Draft Report .................................................................. 21

D Agency’s Supplemental Response to Draft Report ....................................... 29

E Distribution ....................................................................................................... 31
15-P-0280 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Purpose

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Inspector General 

(OIG), conducted this review to examine the EPA’s efforts to address combined 

sewer overflow (CSO) enforcement. Specifically, the OIG addressed the 

following questions: 

 How are selected municipalities implementing consent decrees issued 

under the EPA’s enforcement initiative to keep raw sewage and 

contaminated stormwater out of the nation’s waters, and are they 

achieving milestones and anticipated outcomes? 

 What opportunities exist for the EPA to improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of tracking the progress of consent decree implementation 

and outcomes? 

Background

Combined sewers transport both sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff in a 

single-pipe system to a wastewater treatment facility. In dry weather, the flow in 

combined sewers consists only of sewage. However, during periods of high 

precipitation, a portion of the combined flow of stormwater runoff and sewage is 

discharged directly to surface waters (e.g., oceans, rivers, creeks, bays and 

streams). These discharges are combined sewer overflows (CSOs). 

CSO discharges of raw sewage can impair a state’s water quality standards and 

impact designated uses, like fishing and swimming, in affected waters. In 2014, 

for example, a CSO event that occurred in the Potomac River in Washington, 

D.C., led to the cancellation of the swim portion of The Nation’s Triathlon due to 

public health concerns. 

The EPA’s most recent 2004 CSO Report to Congress indicated that 828 Clean 

Water Act permits establish technology and water quality-based requirements for 

discharges from combined sewer systems to surface water. These combined sewer 

system permits under the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System 

(NPDES) provision are spread across 31 states and the District of Columbia.1In 

the 2004 report, the EPA estimated the combined systems with CSO discharges 

accounted for 850 billion gallons of contaminated discharge annually. 

 

1 Combined sewer communities may follow city, county or other municipal boundaries, like those designated by 

local water authorities. 
15-P-0280 2

EPA Has Taken Steps to Manage and Control CSOs 

The EPA’s Office of Water (OW) and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance (OECA) play complementary roles when it comes to CSOs meeting 

water quality standards. 

In 1994, the EPA established a CSO policy that provides a comprehensive 

national strategy for the control of CSOs through NPDES permitting, water 

quality standards, and enforcement programs. The policy provides guidance to 

permittees on sewer system engineering and management controls, and 

developing and implementing a long-term CSO control plan as soon as 

practicable. Under the policy, permittees can develop long-term control plans to 

demonstrate how CSO communities would achieve compliance with Clean Water 

Act (CWA) requirements. 

Congress amended the CWA by adding Section 402(q), which requires that each 

permit, order or decree issued pursuant to the CWA after the date of enactment 

for a municipal combined sewer discharge shall conform to the 1994 CSO Control 

Policy.

In 1998, OECA began a National Enforcement Initiative (CSO initiative) to focus 

enforcement action on cities that were not complying with their discharge permits 

and CSO policy. Since the initiative began, the EPA said it has targeted 

communities where CSOs have caused the most contamination of surface water. 

In OECA’s 2011 strategy for this initiative, the EPA set a goal, which said OECA 

would address all large CSO communities by 2016. In their 2011 strategy, the 

agency identified 204 large CSO communities (those with more than 50,000 

residents), and the number of large CSO communities grew to 213 by 2015. 

The EPA considers a CSO community “addressed” when the system is under an 

enforceable order, or is on a schedule to develop a long-term control plan that the 

EPA accepts. 

Since 1998, the EPA has addressed 92 percent (196) of the 213 large CSO 

communities nationwide. Enforcement actions can include administrative orders 

and consent decrees. When the EPA uses consent decrees as enforcement tools, 

the agency, typically the state, and the U.S. Department of Justice negotiate and 

enter into a judicial consent decree with the municipality to bring about 

compliance.

Figure 1 shows the locations of CSO communities serving populations of 50,000 

or more people. Red markers indicate CSO communities that the EPA has 

addressed through the initiative, and blue markers indicate CSO communities that 

have not yet been addressed.
15-P-0280 3

Figure 1: Locations of addressed (red) and unaddressed (blue) large CSO 

communities

Source: EPA data.

Communities under Federal Consent Decrees

The EPA has addressed CSO issues through federal consent decrees in 47 

communities. These cases are located in seven of the 10 EPA regions, and include 

both large (more than 50,000 residents) and small CSO communities. The average 

anticipated duration for a CSO consent decree is 13 years from the date of entry to 

the final construction date, and some existing consent decrees have been 

extended.

Figure 2 shows how consent decree milestones and actions are intended to lead to 

communities’ compliance with the CSO policy and place them on the path to 

achieving water quality standards. Required infrastructure and management 

improvements include dozens of projects under each consent decree, and each 

decree is designed to achieve the overall goal of reducing the number and volume 

of CSO events. The EPA anticipates that fewer CSO events will mean reduced 

pollution to receiving waterways. The EPA expects that these actions will reduce 

impacts to communities’ watersheds and sources of drinking water. Appendix B 

shows the goals for pollution reductions and the cost estimates associated with the 

CSO consent decrees in our sample.
15-P-0280 4

As communities work through 

consent decree projects, consent 

decrees require communities to 

submit progress reports to the EPA 

and to their respective states, where 

appropriate. Although reporting 

requirements vary by consent decree, 

reports are typically required to 

include information about 

accomplishing construction and 

management changes, and 

information on the resulting 

reductions in the number and 

volumes of CSO flows. Some consent 

decrees also require regular reporting 

on water quality components in CSO 

flows, like fecal coliform bacteria 

levels, metals, or other contaminants 

of concern.

Consent Decree Costs Require 

Ratepayer Investments

Consent decrees involve significant 

investments from ratepayers to bring 

about CWA compliance and to 

achieve associated improvements in

water quality. Using EPA data, the 

OIG estimates that it will cost 

communities more than $32 billion 

to complete the required actions and 

penalties contained in the 47 consent decrees. The costs averaged $709 million 

per case, and ranged from $60,000 to $4.7 billion. Many municipal officials 

indicated that costs for consent decree actions typically lead to sewer rate 

increases for their customers. As such, in our opinion the EPA and municipalities 

bear a responsibility for demonstrating that these funds are spent in a way that 

achieves the results intended by the consent decrees (i.e., eliminating the unlawful 

discharge of raw sewage in an effort to improve water quality). 

EPA Required to Plan and Manage Programs to Achieve Results

The EPA is required and advised to report on results and evidence of program 

effectiveness and results. The agency is subject to governmentwide guidance and 

policy, EPA guidance, and guidance specific to OECA. The Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010 requires that 

federal agencies ensure that agency progress toward the achievement of all goals 

Source: OIG analysis of OECA documents.

Figure 2: CSO program consent decree 

steps to achieving results
15-P-0280 5

is communicated to leaders, managers, agency employees, and Congress, and 

made available on a public website of the agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) encourages agencies to allocate resources to programs and 

practices backed by strong evidence of effectiveness, while trimming activities 

that evidence shows are not effective. OMB advises that agency performance

plans should be accompanied by a thorough discussion of existing evidence, both 

positive and negative, on the effectiveness of agency actions in achieving goals. 

Within OECA’s internal programs, the Guide for Addressing Environmental 

Problems: Using an Integrated Strategic Approach (2007) describes a strategic 

approach for achieving improved compliance and better protection of human 

health and the environment. The guide reflects GPRA requirements by instructing 

national enforcement initiatives, like the one covering CSOs, to include measures 

and evaluation strategies to determine how well the EPA is achieving its goals. 

Responsible Offices

Responsibility for implementing CSO programs at the EPA is shared among 

OECA, OW and the agency’s regional offices. Within OECA, the Water 

Enforcement Division holds primary responsibility for implementing CSO 

enforcement work. Within OW, the Office of Wastewater Management holds 

primary responsibility for ensuring CSO policy is implemented in NPDES 

permits. 

Scope and Methodology

We performed our work from August 2014 to June 2015. We conducted this 

performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

objectives.

To answer our objectives, we evaluated the nationwide CSO consent decree 

program by reviewing National Enforcement Initiative documents that set forth 

policies, goals and strategies. We also interviewed key EPA personnel in OECA, 

met with the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and reviewed EPA 

databases for relevant enforcement and compliance information related to the wet 

weather National Enforcement Initiative. 

In addition, we requested information regarding general monitoring practices to 

determine whether regions saw CSO consent decrees as on track nationwide. The 

EPA provided Excel spreadsheets with limited nationwide consent decree data. 

The information that OECA provided met our need to provide background and 

context for CSO consent decrees.
15-P-0280 6

We requested information from seven EPA regions where CSO consent decrees 

exist (Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10). Under this request, we asked the seven 

regional leads a set of questions related to their CSO consent decrees. 

We reviewed nine specific consent decrees, including reports of results and public 

information, and interviewed municipal officials in nine of these communities. 

One community—Atlanta, Georgia—was selected based on congressional 

interest, whereas the other eight communities were selected randomly. The nine 

selected consent decrees included both large communities (more than 50,000 

residents) and small communities (less than 50,000 residents). The randomly 

selected consent decrees included two from Region 1, one from Region 4, and 

five from Region 5. 

We conducted a site visit to Atlanta, Georgia, to evaluate the Atlanta CSO 

consent decree. We reviewed the consent decree, and interviewed Region 4 

personnel and officials involved in the monitoring and tracking of the consent 

decrees. We also interviewed officials from the Georgia Environmental Protection 

Division, the City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management, the 

Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, and the South River Watershed Alliance. 

Details on prior OIG reports are included in Appendix A. All consent decrees 

reviewed in preliminary research are listed in Appendix B.
15-P-0280 7

Chapter 2

EPA Has Not Analyzed Existing CSO Data 

to Determine Environmental Results

Some CSO communities under consent decrees are achieving project milestones, 

and there is some evidence that CSOs have been reduced. However, the EPA has 

not analyzed this information nationwide, and there is little evidence or analysis 

about whether the outcomes anticipated from CSO consent decrees (i.e., reduced 

pollution in surface waters and achievement of water quality standards) are 

occurring. 

The EPA could compile existing information on these outcomes to develop 

national reports on the overall progress of the CSO initiative. However, despite 

federal requirements and guidance to report on results and evidence of program 

effects and impact, the EPA has not yet done this for the 1998 CSO initiative. The 

EPA can improve its ability to efficiently oversee and manage consent decrees 

and demonstrate environmental results from the CSO consent decrees by creating 

a national tracking system and a related tracking goal, and by utilizing new 

technologies and public information. 

Progress Is Being Made and CSO Events Are Being Reduced 

In general, CSO communities under consent decrees are making progress toward 

meeting milestones and reducing CSO events and flows. Case managers in five of 

the seven regions monitoring CSO consent decrees reported that communities 

generally met milestones (Table 1). In addition, for CSO consent decrees signed 

after 2007, EPA enforcement and compliance data as of October 2014 show that 

76 percent of consent decrees were in general compliance with all critical 

milestones. 

Within our sample, a local official 

from one CSO community, and a 

local senior manager from a second

community, said they may not be able 

to complete some of their intended 

projects on schedule due to a lack of 

funds. Likewise, four of the seven 

EPA regions that manage CSO 

consent decrees told us that consent 

decrees in their region have required 

renegotiation, in part to address 

financial or timeframe problems. 

Communities and the EPA saw these 

Table 1: Regional survey responses on 

nationwide consent decree milestones 

and renegotiations

Region

Were milestones 

missed?

Have consent 

decrees required 

renegotiation?

1 No Yes

2 Yes No

3 Yes Yes

4 No No

5 Yes Yes

7 No Yes

10 No No

Summary Yes: 3 regions

No: 4 regions

Yes: 4 regions

No: 3 regions

Source: OIG survey of regional CSO case managers.
15-P-0280 8

modifications as important to ensuring the effectiveness and affordability of 

consent decrees. 

For the communities we reviewed, we found instances where progress reports that 

the communities submitted to the EPA indicated that the number and volume of 

CSO events are declining. For example: 

 The Greater Lawrence (Massachusetts) Sanitary District, located on the 

Merrimack River, reported to the EPA that its 2007 consent decree 

reduced the number of CSO events in the area from 14 to an average of 

less than five per year, and reduced CSO flow volume by almost 60 

million gallons per year. 

 Atlanta, Georgia, which releases combined sewer flows to both the 

Chattahoochee River and Intrenchment Creek, reported that the city had 

reduced the number of CSO events from 80 to fewer than four per year 

since work began under its 1998 consent decree. 

We discussed each of the consent decrees in our sample with officials from the 

regions and communities. Although the EPA has not analyzed ongoing results for 

the CSO consent decrees nationwide, we found that regions and municipalities 

were able to make case-by-case assessments of whether the consent decrees in our 

sample met milestones and reduced CSO flows.

Due to the long timeframe associated with consent decrees—decades in many 

cases—interim monitoring of results is necessary to determine if consent decrees 

are on track. The consent decrees we reviewed have an average duration of more 

than 10 years, ranging from 1 to 18 years. Over time, cities will experience 

population changes, infrastructure maintenance problems, funding issues, and 

other challenges that could affect their ability to achieve the results the CSO 

consent decrees initially projected. Because circumstances change over the course 

of CSO projects, the EPA needs to analyze and summarize interim monitoring 

data to assess whether the work completed under consent decrees and anticipated 

water quality improvements are on track. 

EPA Has Not Evaluated Pollution Reduction or Water Quality 

Information Derived From Consent Decree Requirements

The EPA estimated the reduction in CSO flows that would result from many of 

the communities under consent decrees, but the agency has not evaluated whether 

the results anticipated from the consent decrees are being achieved. Based on the 

EPA’s estimates, we calculated that these communities could eliminate 75.5 

billion gallons of untreated sewage overflows each year, or about 8 percent of the 

estimated 850 billion gallons of untreated sewage released nationwide. 

The EPA estimated pollution reductions for about half of the communities. Based 
15-P-0280 9

on the EPA’s estimates, we calculated that the decreased combined sewer flows 

from these consent decrees could prevent more than 500 million pounds of 

pollutants from being discharged into the nation’s waters. The pollutants include

suspended solids, pathogenic microorganisms, toxic pollutants, floatables, 

nutrients, oxygen-demanding organic compounds, oil and grease, and other

pollutant examples.

The CSO policy aims to improve water quality through improved CSO controls. 

In order to determine the extent of improvement in CSO controls and water 

quality, we believe that the EPA needs to analyze information about CSO consent 

decrees.

Pollutant Loading Data

Consent decree reports include information about construction and management 

milestones, the number and volume of CSO events, and some pollutant loading 

and water quality information. For our sample of 9 consent decrees, four 

communities collect and report water quality information, including one case

involving levels of pollutants in CSO flows. In three of these four cases, the EPA 

had not analyzed the available data to determine whether permitted CSO flows 

met the consent decree-required water quality metrics. 

Two CSO communities in our case study are required to submit discharge 

monitoring reports required under their NPDES permits. When CSO communities 

are required to report pollutant loading information about CSO flows to states, 

some states enter data into EPA data systems maintained by OW. However, the 

EPA has not used this data to assess the extent that CSO communities are 

reducing the pollutant load to receiving waters under the terms of their consent 

decrees. Without regularly tracking the amount of CSO pollution introduced into 

receiving waters, it is unclear whether sewage-related pollution in surface waters 

may have been reduced or eliminated as a result of CSO consent decrees.

Water Quality Impacts and Data From Consent Decrees

Correlating water quality changes with a specific EPA effort like the CSO consent 

decrees presents an analytical challenge to the EPA. The agency has 

acknowledged both the challenge and the necessity of meeting the challenge.

Our survey of the seven EPA regions with CSO consent decrees indicated that all 

of their CSO consent decrees require communities to collect some water quality 

data (Table 2). Four of the seven regions reported that they have not analyzed the 

data for evidence of water quality improvements. OECA said the data were likely 

required in Post Construction Compliance Monitoring Plans. OECA also said 

CSO communities generally did not develop these required plans until the later 

stages of the consent decrees, after the communities complete the design or 

implementation of final controls. 
15-P-0280 10

OECA said that due to the length of consent decrees, 

not many communities had entered into this phase. 

Once completed, consent decrees require that these 

plans include both ambient and effluent water quality 

monitoring and all other appropriate assessments to 

determine whether the community complies with 

water quality standards. Of the 47 CSO consent 

decree communities, OECA data show that final 

construction should have already occurred in 11, and 

four additional consent decrees were within 2 years 

of completion. 

Where post construction monitoring is occurring, 

CSO personnel in OW said they had conducted some 

preliminary reviews. OW personnel said that 

although small communities that have eliminated all 

CSOs have been successful, the limited post-construction monitoring results for 

larger communities indicate the communities may have to complete additional 

control measures to achieve desired water quality standards, even after 

completing implementation of their Long-Term Control Plans. 

Of the three regions reporting that they had evidence of water quality 

improvement from consent decrees, only Region 1 provided documentation of 

that effort. Region 1 provided a report demonstrating improved water quality for 

Boston—one of the region’s consent decree communities. Region 1 said the 

controls that Boston has implemented since it began work on its 2012 consent 

decree have resulted in a dramatic reduction of CSO discharges to the Charles 

River basin and correlate with water quality improvements in Boston Harbor. 

Water Quality Data From Existing Monitoring Networks

All states maintain a water quality monitoring network. Data from these networks 

serve as the primary source of data for states to determine whether surface waters 

meet established water quality standards and intended uses. According to OECA, 

results of the states’ assessments are compiled in the National Assessment 

Database. By collaborating with OW, which manages this data for the EPA, 

OECA could use this information to help correlate changes in water quality with 

the CSO upgrades that occur under consent decrees. For example, the EPA’s 2004 

Report to Congress on CSOs included a comprehensive assessment of CSO 

locations and impacts, which were based on a combination of EPA water quality 

data and modeling results. Using the most current assessments, the EPA could 

estimate whether the CSO enforcement initiative has contributed to improved 

environmental conditions. 

Table 2: Regional survey responses 

regarding nationwide consent decree 

water quality data

Region

Do your consent 

decrees require 

water quality 

data collection?

Do you have 

evidence of water 

quality 

improvement?

1 Yes Yes

2 Yes No

3 Yes Yes*

4 Yes Yes*

5 Yes No

7 Yes No

10 Yes No

*Regions 3 and 4 responded “Yes,” but on follow-up 

could not provide information describing water quality 

improvement during our evaluation..

Source: OIG survey of EPA regional CSO case 

managers.
15-P-0280 11

The EPA has not developed sufficient program controls and processes to 

determine whether CSO changes are contributing to associated improvements in 

water quality as decades-long consent decrees progress. Without reviewing 

available data on water quality, it is unknown whether billions of dollars and 

decades of work put into CSO system changes have, in fact, led to the anticipated 

environmental improvements that the EPA has reported to Congress and the 

public in its annual results. 

Enhanced Management Can Improve Oversight and Program Results 

The EPA can better monitor its national CSO initiative, improve the consistency 

of tracking and oversight of regional tracking activities, and better manage the 

CSO program to achieve the needed pollution reductions. By establishing an 

Annual Commitment System (ACS) goal for regional consent decree tracking, 

EPA headquarters can prioritize consent decree implementation in regional 

offices, and guide regional activities toward tracking whether consent decrees are 

achieving intended environmental goals. Applying the EPA’s Next Generation 

Compliance principles to this program in the form of new technologies and 

expanded transparency with the public can also improve CSO program 

effectiveness and efficiency. 

National Consent Decree Tracking System Will Reduce Duplication 

and Improve Oversight

Through the development of centralized, standardized tracking and monitoring 

tools and resources, the EPA can help eliminate duplicate efforts occurring in the 

regions, improve information accessibility, and improve national consistency in 

tracking and overseeing consent decrees. 

EPA headquarters has not established a national system to track specific consent 

decree milestones, CSO events, and CSO-related water quality information 

included in municipal reports. In the absence of a national data management 

system, each region has developed its own monitoring methods, leading to 

duplicate efforts across the seven EPA regions with CSO consent decrees. While 

some techniques are well-organized and comprehensive, others are not. 

In some cases, regional case managers monitor and track consent decrees using 

individually prepared Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. We encountered a case where 

staff turnover occurred and case officers were not sure if they could retrieve 

information about an ongoing consent decree. Regional staff said they may miss 

whether a community meets a milestone date because staff did not receive 

notification of the approaching milestone. In some instances, files related to 

current consent decrees were stored off-site, which made accessing consent 

decree history difficult. Such occurrences create an inefficient and inconsistent 

system for conducting regional oversight of consent decrees and for EPA 

headquarters trying to oversee consent decrees in a nationally consistent manner. 
15-P-0280 12

We spoke with EPA regional staff and officials who expressed a need for 

improved tracking systems. For example, one region said the EPA’s current 

consent decree tracking system (i.e., the Integrated Compliance Information 

System (ICIS)-NPDES database) is not “user friendly” and does not allow staff to 

track consent decree details needed for monitoring. Several EPA regional staff 

said that tracking efficiency would be enhanced by having an improved data 

management system that could house project documents, allow for more detailed 

milestone tracking, provide national tracking of scheduled milestones, and 

provide alerts for milestones.

EPA Could Prioritize Consent Decree Tracking and Progress 

Monitoring Through Annual Commitment System Goals 

By establishing annual regional goals in the ACS for tracking CSO consent decree 

outcomes, the agency would improve the prioritization of consent decree 

monitoring in regional offices. Regions prioritize their work based on priorities 

set by EPA headquarters through ACS goals. Annual accomplishments by the 

regions are marked at EPA headquarters under the region’s respective ACS 

achievements. By adding ACS goals associated with consent decree 

implementation and results, the EPA would demonstrate to regional offices that 

consent decree tracking is a priority. 

New Technologies Can Improve Program Management

OECA is investing in a new approach toward compliance monitoring called 

“Next Generation Compliance.” This initiative aims to use new monitoring 

technologies, electronic reporting, and expanded public information to improve 

the effectiveness of the EPA’s compliance program. 

Region 1 is using new technology to measure flows and volumes at CSO 

discharge locations for some consent decrees. In recent consent decrees, 

Region 1 required electronic monitoring devices so that communities can 

accurately estimate the size and design of CSO controls. Region 1 management 

estimated that the cost for installing electronic monitoring is $10,000 per device.

Once consent decree requirements were set, Region 1 officials told one 

community that they could remove the monitors. However, the community 

elected to keep the monitors, since the monitors provide the public with real-time 

alerts of overflows that could impact public health. 

Region 1 also reported that information from these systems would help the region 

prioritize its work. With real-time information about where overflows are 

occurring, Region 1 said it could better manage CSO oversight to address 

communities with the most pressing problems. The promising practice of utilizing 

electronic monitoring devices for CSO system planning, implementation and 
15-P-0280 13

monitoring could be replicated in other regions to improve CSO design, reporting 

and public information. 

Region 5 officials said that while some communities in their region have good 

monitoring of their CSOs, monitors with real-time reporting are unusual. Region 

5 officials said that Region 1’s real-time data systems, which also include 

providing some data to the public, offer improved transparency over conventional 

systems.

Expanded Transparency for the Public Can Facilitate Oversight 

and Results

OECA documents (e.g., the OECA’s Next Generation Compliance Initiative, the 

EPA’s congressional budget justification, and OECA’s strategy for addressing 

municipal infrastructure, including CSOs) emphasize providing meaningful 

information to the public about the progress being made under enforcement 

initiatives. OECA’s strategy for addressing CSOs established a goal to provide, 

“information on EPA’s website that will highlight the key strategy goals and 

results in a way that will matter to citizens.” By providing information and a way 

to report concerns under CSO efforts, the EPA could leverage the interest of 

financially invested communities to help monitor whether consent decrees are 

achieving the results that the EPA has already reported, and that communities are 

funding with water and sewer bill payments. 

The EPA’s website for the CSO initiative describes problems caused by 

stormwater and sewer discharges, program goals, and identifies locations where 

the agency has addressed CSO communities through consent decrees or other 

activities. However, the EPA website for the CSO national enforcement initiative 

does not provide information about consent decrees or their progress and results.2

The EPA provides consent decrees on a separate “Civil Cases and Settlements” 

website, but this site only provided consent decrees for two of the 9 communities 

in our sample. For three of the 9 communities, the consent decree was listed, but 

the link was not working during our evaluation.3

Neither of these EPA websites provided any consent decree progress reports to 

the public. Further, even though many of the CSO consent decrees have passed 

their anticipated conclusion dates, the CSO initiative website does not provide any 

information about ongoing or concluded consent decree progress toward solving 

the problem or achieving the program goal cited on the website. 

OECA managers agreed that providing more public information would improve 

the EPA’s ability to oversee the program, and the agency has agreed to provide 

such information under other consent decree programs like the National

 

2 http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiative-keeping-raw-sewage-and-contaminatedstormwater-out-our

3 http://cfpub.epa.gov/enforcement/cases/
15-P-0280 14

Petroleum Refinery Initiative. By providing more information about municipal 

CSO consent decrees (including milestones and progress toward achieving 

intended environmental results), the EPA can meet its transparency goals, show 

how public funds are used to improve public conditions, and allow the public to 

be involved in monitoring progress and results. 

Conclusion

Under consent decrees with the EPA, communities are spending more than 

$32 billion on projects to reduce and manage untreated sewage and contaminated 

stormwater discharge into water bodies so that communities can come into 

compliance with water quality standards. The EPA needs improved program 

controls so that it can assess and track the outcomes resulting from consent decree

requirements. 

Evaluating water quality impacts associated with consent decree activities has 

significant challenges. However, it is incumbent on the EPA to attempt this 

analysis given the large costs associated with consent decree execution, the need 

to protect water resources, and the need to support public confidence in EPA 

accountability. 

Improved program controls can also create efficiencies and identify opportunities 

for program improvements. A national system would improve the efficiency of 

oversight by providing a consistent system for nationwide use. Because CSO 

consent decree tasks stretch out over years or decades, the EPA should take a 

long-term view of monitoring consent decree results that will allow the EPA to 

identify opportunities to adapt to changed circumstances and new information. 

A national tracking system and a nationwide region-focused goal of tracking 

consent decree performance will improve the EPA’s management capabilities, 

opportunities and efficiency. By increasing its reliance on next generation 

technologies, the EPA will be able to: 

 Provide real-time information on sewage discharge events.

 Access more information that can be used by the EPA and CSO 

communities to prioritize work.

 Target limited resources effectively.

 Inform and sustain public confidence. 
15-P-0280 15

Recommendations

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance:

1. Report annual results of the CSO enforcement initiative to the public using 

data collected under consent decrees, including CSO events and volume 

changes; pollutants emitted; and wherever possible, changes to quality in 

receiving water.

2. Develop a nationally consistent consent decree tracking and accountability 

system that includes:

a. Consent decree milestones.

b. Frequency of CSO events and changes in CSO volumes.

c. Effluent and water quality data collected by states and 

communities at CSO outfalls.

d. Wherever possible, water quality improvement of municipal 

impaired waters attributable to CSO upgrades.

3. Develop an ACS goal that establishes regional goals for monitoring and 

reporting outcomes associated with CSO consent decrees, in order to 

prioritize consent decree tracking in regional offices. 

4. Provide information on a public website that links the public to CSO 

consent decree information, and links to information produced under the 

recommendation pertaining to progress and results.

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

The Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

provided a response to our draft report on July 30, 2015 (Appendix C). OIG staff 

also met with OECA officials on four subsequent dates to discuss the agency’s 

responses. After these meetings, OECA provided a supplemental response to the 

draft report and proposed alternative corrective actions. 

Based on information and discussions from our meetings, OECA provided a 

supplemental response further describing proposed corrective actions. In light of 

our discussions and the supplemental response, we accept the agency’s corrective

actions for all four recommendations. All recommendations are resolved and open 

with agreed-to corrective actions pending. The agency also provided technical 

comments that were incorporated into our report as appropriate.
15-P-0280 16

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

Agreed-To 

Amount

1

2

3 

4 

15

15

15 

15 

Report annual results of the CSO enforcement 

initiative to the public using data collected under 

consent decrees, including CSO events and 

volume changes; pollutants emitted; and wherever 

possible, changes to quality in receiving water.

Develop a nationally consistent consent decree 

tracking and accountability system that includes:

a. Consent decree milestones.

b. Frequency of CSO events and changes in 

CSO volumes.

c. Effluent and water quality data collected by 

states and communities at CSO outfalls.

d. Wherever possible, water quality improvement 

of municipal impaired waters attributable to 

CSO upgrades.

Develop an ACS goal that establishes regional 

goals for monitoring and reporting outcomes 

associated with CSO consent decrees, in order to 

prioritize consent decree tracking in regional 

offices.

Provide information on a public website that links 

the public to CSO consent decree information, and 

links to information produced under the 

recommendation pertaining to progress and 

results.

O

O

O

O

Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

12/01/15

4/01/16

2/28/16

4/01/16

1 O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending. 

C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed. 

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
15-P-0280 17

Appendix A

Prior OIG Reports

The OIG issued one report on CSOs and a series of reports on the national enforcement 

initiatives, including the CSO-related initiative. The OIG has also written extensively about 

incorporating program planning into the EPA’s programs. Although most of these 

recommendations are considered complete, prior reports reflect findings similar to those 

identified in this evaluation, as well as other program improvement recommendations. 

EPA OIG Report No. 2002-P-00012, Wastewater Management: Controlling and Abating 

Combined Sewer Overflows, issued August 26, 2002

(http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2002/csofinal.pdf), reviewed CSO control progress in Regions 

1, 3 and 5. We found that many communities did not have the data to determine the effect of 

CSO controls on water quality. Most communities were only monitoring the number, volume 

and duration of CSO discharges, and did not have data on the effect CSO controls were having 

on the quality of receiving waters. This was because the EPA did not require monitoring until 

completion of CSO projects. Consequently, it could not be determined until it was too late 

whether each CSO project being undertaken was a wise investment of taxpayers’ dollars. We 

recommended that the EPA work with CSO permitting authorities and communities to assure the 

performance of interim reviews regarding water quality, and take a leadership role in 

encouraging the use of watershed approaches and having states and communities work together 

to accomplish clean water. 

At the time, the Assistant Administrator for Water disagreed with the recommendation in the 

draft report, which recommended that the EPA amend its CSO policy to require communities to 

perform interim reviews of the water quality impacts of CSO upgrade projects. Although he 

agreed with our contention that these reviews are often beneficial, he argued that it would be 

more expedient if the EPA achieved this by working with individual communities and permitting 

authorities, rather than implementing a policy change. The EPA reported the recommendations 

as complete in 2012.

EPA OIG Report No. 08-P-0278, EPA Has Initiated Strategic Planning for Priority 

Enforcement Areas, but Key Elements Still Needed, issued September 25, 2008

(http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2008/20080925-08-P-0278.pdf), reviewed strategic planning for 

the national enforcement priority areas now referred to as national enforcement initiatives. We 

found that the CSO priority strategic plan did not have a comprehensive set of performance 

measures that could provide a complete picture of program performance. Specifically, we found 

that the CSO priority plan did not include any outcome measures. At the time, we recommended 

that OECA issue a policy requiring a full range of performance measures with targets and 

timeframes. The EPA concurred with our recommendation. The planned completion date for this 

recommendation was April 2009. The EPA reported the recommendations as complete in 2009.

In 2004 and 2014, we reviewed the National Petroleum Refinery Initiative, another national 

enforcement initiative. In EPA OIG Report No. 2004-P-00021, EPA Needs to Improve 

Tracking of National Petroleum Refinery Compliance Program Progress and Impacts, issued 
15-P-0280 18

June 23, 2004 (http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040622-2004-P-00021.pdf), we found 

and reported that OECA’s performance measurement and reporting approach for the national 

petroleum refinery program had not provided useful and reliable information necessary to 

effectively implement, manage, evaluate and continuously improve program results. We 

recommended that OECA develop clear overall refinery program goals. The EPA reported that 

the recommended actions were completed in 2009.

In EPA OIG Report No. 14-P-0184, EPA Needs to Demonstrate Whether It Has Achieved the 

Goals It Set Under the National Petroleum Refinery Initiative, issued April 15, 2014

(http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20140415-14-P-0184.pdf), we found the EPA had not 

analyzed the available facility data to determine whether the initiative achieved the established 

emissions-reduction goal. We also found the EPA did not place the same attention on monitoring 

initiative outcomes as it did on negotiating consent decrees. We reported that the EPA had 

replicated this enforcement model in other National Enforcement Initiative sectors, such as the 

Stormwater Initiative, and we said the EPA needed to know whether this enforcement approach 

produced intended outcomes. We recommended that OECA develop and implement a plan to 

assess whether the National Petroleum Refinery Initiative led to sustained improvement in 

compliance and sustained reductions in pollution among refineries. We also recommended that 

the EPA report the results of its efforts to the public. The recommendations were reported as 

complete in 2014.
15-P-0280 19

Appendix B

Municipal CSO Consent Decrees Selected for Review

Consent decrees in our sample include the earliest signed consent decree (Atlanta, Ga.) from 

1998, which was scheduled to conclude in 2014, and a recent consent decree (Ironton, Ohio) 

from 2009, which is scheduled to conclude in 2026. The anticipated duration of the consent 

decrees range from 1 year (Greater Lawrence Sanitary District, Mass.) to 18 years (Hamilton 

County, Ohio). 

Although four consent decrees in our sample were scheduled to be completed by the end of 

2014, none of the consent decrees in our sample have been terminated. In some cases, 

communities may have completed construction but are working through additional consent 

decree tasks. The sample consent decrees cover three of the seven EPA regions managing 

consent decrees nationwide, and generally reflect the distribution of CSO consent decrees 

between regions. 

Municipality EPA

region

Date 

entered

Anticipated 

environmental 

benefits 

(estimated by 

EPA)

Estimated 

cost of 

injunctive 

relief

Final 

construction 

date

Duration 

(years)

Atlanta, Ga.* 4 12/20/1998 Reduction of 5.2 

billion gallons of 

inadequately 

treated sewage 

per year

$2 billion 7/1/2014 16

Fort Wayne, Ind. 5 4/1/2008 Elimination of 175 

tons of 

biochemical 

oxygen 

demanding 

materials; 350 

tons of total 

suspended solids; 

and 2000 

(2.0E15) trillion 

colony-forming 

units of fecal 

coliform.

$250 million 12/31/2025 17

Gloucester, Mass. 1 9/2/2005 Reduction of 26.4 

million gallons of 

raw sewage 

overflows per 

year.

$9 million 12/31/2014 9

Greater Lawrence 

Sanitary District, 

Mass.

1 1/30/2007 Reduction of 

approximately 67 

million gallons per 

year; 122,931 

pounds per year.

$9 million 6/30/2008 1

Hamilton County, 

Ohio

5 6/9/2004 Reduction of 5.27 

billion gallons 

from CSOs; 

Reducing the 6.2 

billion gallons of 

$3.29 billion 2/28/2022 18
15-P-0280 20

raw sewage 

discharged 

annually from the 

CSOs by at least 

85% and the 

elimination of 

hundreds of 

millions.

Ironton, Ohio 5 3/17/2009 Remedial 

measures in this 

consent decree 

will reduce the 

volume of 

overflows by 

approximately 

1.38 million 

gallons per year, 

resulting in an 

annual reduction 

in discharges of 

approximately 

115,084 pounds 

of BOD, and 

460,336 pounds 

of TSS.

$12.5 

million

12/31/2026 15

Louisville, Ky. 4 11/20/2008 Reduction in 4.5 

billion gallons of 

average annual 

CSOs.

$800 million 1/1/2020 12

Port Clinton, Ohio 5 9/8/1999 No information 

available.

--- 2006 7

Toledo, Ohio 5 12/19/2002 Reduction of 1 

billion gallons of 

raw sewage 

overflows per 

year.

$433 million 8/31/2016; 

1/1/2016

14

* Atlanta, Ga., was not randomly selected.

Source: OECA data. Post-1994 concluded federal CSO case settlements.
15-P-0280 21

Appendix C

Agency Response to Draft Report 

July 30, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: EPA Comments on Draft Report: “EPA Needs to Track the Extent Its 

Enforcement Work on Combined Sewer Overflows Keeps Raw Sewage and 

Contaminated Stormwater out of Nation’s Waters and Benefits Water Quality.” 

Project No. OPE-FY14-0045 June 26, 2015.

FROM: Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

TO: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General

Office of the Inspector General

We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with comments on the draft report EPA Needs to 

Track the Extent Its Enforcement Work on Combined Sewer Overflows Keeps Raw Sewage and 

Contaminated Stormwater out of Nation’s Waters and Benefits Water Quality. EPA agrees that 

assuring that we accomplish the huge environmental benefits from this enforcement work is 

vitally important to reducing pollution from raw sewage and contaminated stormwater that 

threatens people’s health and imperils our nation’s waters. EPA appreciates the IG’s finding that 

large pollution reductions are scheduled to result from EPA’s enforcement actions, and that EPA 

is tracking implementation of these enforcement settlements, and that municipalities are largely 

on track to meet the milestones and the pollution reductions contained in the consent decrees.

As the IG’s report points out, this national enforcement initiative was started back in 1998 to 

address the very serious problem of large volumes of raw sewage and contaminated stormwater 

flowing into our nation’s waters. Exposure to raw sewage is a significant health threat both from 

direct exposure through contact with water in rivers and streams and beaches, as well as 

basement backups, and indirect contact through consumption of fish and shellfish that have been 

contaminated. In addition, these high volume discharges can threaten drinking water supplies as 

well as fish and other living organisms in our waters, and add to the nutrient and other pollution 

loading that causes poor water quality and harmful algal blooms.

EPA decided early on to focus on the largest contributors to discharges of raw sewage and set as 

a goal for this initiative getting the largest CSO municipal systems (population over 50,000) with 

raw sewage discharges under an enforceable schedule to significantly reduce or eliminate those 

discharges. We are very close to reaching that goal, which we think is a huge accomplishment 

for clean water in this country. 
15-P-0280 22

As the IG’s report also notes, for some communities significantly reducing discharges of raw 

sewage can be a complicated and sometimes expensive undertaking. For that reason, the 

schedules set for this work can be long, sometimes 15 years or more. Thus, getting an 

enforceable schedule in place is only the first step toward cleaner and safer water; the essential 

next step is to ensure that the schedules are being adhered to and that the large volumes of raw 

sewage discharge are actually being significantly reduced. These are the benchmarks against 

which we measure our progress: getting the commitment to a schedule to reduce the pollution, 

usually through a federal consent decree, then assuring that the pollution actually is reduced and 

that the communities meet the required schedules.

The appropriate solution for each community is different, and EPA has worked hard to tailor our 

enforcement outcomes to the needs, challenges and finances of each community. In addition, 

EPA has incorporated the latest thinking on sensible management of stormwater and sewage, 

including adopting integrated planning and green infrastructure solutions into these schedules as 

is appropriate for each community. This is definitely not a one size fits all approach to 

enforcement.

The IG’s report focuses on two main topics: how best to account for and measure the health and 

environmental benefits of this enforcement work, and some possible approaches to strengthening 

our oversight and monitoring of the consent decrees under which the work is being done. EPA 

agrees that these are important topics and appreciates the opportunity to engage with the IG 

about them. 

The health and environmental benefits of the work

The IG’s report acknowledges that the goal of EPA’s enforcement work for this initiative was to 

establish an enforceable scheduled for these communities to significantly reduce the volume of 

discharges of raw sewage and contaminated stormwater and to ensure that these schedules are 

met. The IG’s report notes that the intended result of the consent decrees is eliminating the 

unlawful discharge of raw sewage. The report also finds that communities under consent decrees 

are making progress toward milestones for reducing CSO events and flows. That is the objective 

of our enforcement cases and we are pleased that the IG’s review finds success in achieving this 

important goal. In addition to this critical metric, the IG also explored whether there may be 

additional ways to demonstrate a connection to water quality improvement from this work. 

Reducing discharges of raw sewage and contaminated stormwater into our nation’s waters will 

certainly minimize exposure to pathogens and other health-threatening contamination. Multiple 

studies have confirmed both the seriousness of the present exposure pathways

1

and the benefit from reducing that pollution loading2.

 

1 National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants, 2014 Edition, [EPA, 2014, EPA-823-B14-001], http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-07/documents/beach-guidance-final-2014.pdf; Chapter 4: 

Faecal pollution and water quality, [WHO, 2003], http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/bathing/srwe1/en/ 

2 Recreational water quality criteria [USEPA, 2012, 820-F-12-058], 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/recreation/upload/RWQC2012.pdf
15-P-0280 23

Because discharge of raw sewage is primarily a rainfall related event – i.e., it occurs largely 

when the amount of rain overwhelms the capacity of the storage and treatment system to process 

it – it is not well correlated with the established water quality monitoring systems3. This is why 

reductions in raw sewage loading are often not evident in ambient water quality monitoring data. 

However, the benefits of reductions in raw sewage discharges are evident in other types of 

monitoring, such as pathogen monitoring at beaches, and numerous studies have shown the 

public health benefits of reducing the discharge of those pollutants. Although pathogen 

monitoring reveals such public health benefits, it is impractical to conduct such large-scale 

monitoring because... Municipal CSOs, of course, are not the only source of pollution into our 

nation’s waters, so work on other sources of pollution – both point and nonpoint – are important 

for achieving our water quality goals.

Established ambient monitoring for water quality by state and local governments typically does 

not focus on characterizing the impact of specific wet weather sources, so we do not support 

attempting to draw that connection. Ambient monitoring during precipitation events adds 

significant variability to the interpretation of data because of the number of point source 

activations (storm outlets, CSOs, etc.). Furthermore, nonpoint runoff increases depending on the 

magnitude of the storm, thus making it technically infeasible to determine the contributions of 

CSOs unless significant corollary analysis is undertaken [See Tiered Monitoring Plan in National 

Beach Guidance4]. However, EPA has a number of other means for tracking the pollution 

reductions from implementation of consent decrees. These include specific monitoring 

requirements for individual consent decrees and the post construction monitoring by the 

municipality that will occur after construction of the remedy is completed. As noted in the report, 

some consent decrees do include water quality monitoring requirements negotiated for case 

specific reasons, e.g., both the Atlanta and Toledo decrees have requirements for water quality 

monitoring. 

The pollution reduction benefits of the consent decrees sometimes occur gradually throughout 

the implementation of the consent decree and sometimes they happen all at once after the 

necessary work is complete. For example, in some instances, a consent decree will require the 

construction of a storage tunnel. In such cases, pollutant reductions will not occur until the 

construction is complete and the tunnel becomes operational, a process that can sometimes take 

more than a decade to complete. Similarly, a consent decree can require separation of sewers into 

sanitary and storm sewers, which generally requires monitoring upon completion of the work, 

rather than at interim steps along the way. This approach is consistent with agency wide policy; 

EPA’s 1994 CSO Policy and the Clean Water Act (the Wet Weather Quality Act of 2000 in 

section 402(q) requires that permits and enforcement orders shall conform with EPA’s 1994 

CSO Policy) specifically requires “Post-construction Compliance Monitoring” to be conducted at 

the end of a long-term control plan. For both of these reasons – it is often technically infeasible 

to determine the contribution of CSOs from established water quality monitoring, and sometimes 

the pollution reductions do not happen until close to the end of the CD schedule – interim 

 

3 1) When data is reported, typically it is not reported whether it is raining during (or before) the sampling event; 2) 

During wet weather events, many sources may be impacting water quality, making it difficult to evaluate CSO 

contribution/reductions; and/or 3) Monitoring data may not be correlated with CSO events.

4 National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants, 2014 Edition, [EPA, 2014, EPA-823-B14-001], http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-07/documents/beach-guidance-final-2014.pdf
15-P-0280 24

measures of water quality progress are not a reliable or relevant measure of success. Including 

them would add expense and complexity to the implementation of the decree without adding 

information of scientific validity or relevance.

The metric that EPA can and does require municipalities to measure, and that is the best 

indicator of reduced pollution and protection of public health from raw sewage exposure, is the 

reduction in the number and volume of raw sewage discharges from the work required in the 

consent decree. As described above, during post-construction monitoring, the municipality will 

incorporate these CSO reductions into their hydraulic model (the model must continually be 

adjusted to account for changes in collection system). Dependent on numerous conditions, 

including precipitation patterns (i.e. how much rain in the city and where), the hydraulic model 

will indicate the average projected CSO reductions. Municipalities can then demonstrate from 

their hydraulic models how much CSO volume and numbers were cut per the required injunctive 

relief. 

Because rainfall amount and intensity varies from year to year, the modeled number of CSO 

discharges from the upgraded systems after the construction required by the consent decrees is 

completed is the most reliable method for describing the pollution load reduction that will occur 

under different rainfall possibilities. The measured number of CSO discharges in any given year 

may be higher or lower than the year before based primarily on the weather; thus, it is the overall 

long-term trend and reduction that matters. What EPA is seeking to achieve is a system that is 

resilient to a variety of rainfall intensities and amounts. In any given year, a smaller number of 

CSOs could be either due to better system design or just a reduced amount of rainfall. The water

quality impacts are predicted through modeling to normalize to a target level of precipitation. 

Conducting such modeling requires extensive flow monitoring in the system, which is expensive 

and time consuming. This is part of the reason that the CSO Policy relies on post-construction 

monitoring to provide the data necessary to run the model.

Because of the generally long implementation times of the consent decrees, we are only 

beginning to get to the post construction phase for any of these consent decrees. Most are many 

years away from that point. Some of the consent decrees that were originally scheduled to be 

complete by now are still in progress, pursuant to extensions they received based on new 

information, improved design or other factors. This is probably why the IG incorrectly assumed 

that EPA is not reviewing water quality information that it receives through consent decrees; the 

IG assumed that over ten consent decrees have reached the post-construction monitoring stage 

when, in fact, only a handful have reached this stage. Atlanta is one example, cited by the IG, 

where all of the long-term control plan work has been completed, post-construction water quality 

monitoring has occurred, and the review showed water quality improvements. As more consent

decrees reach the post-closure stage, EPA will be closely following the requirements for postconstruction monitoring.5

 

5 The IG report also mentioned that DMR data might be an additional way to track progress on pollution reduction. 

There are occasional exceptions, but the majority of permits, and therefore DMRs, do not track CSO discharges, and 

are instead limited to the discharges directly from the sewage treatment facilities. Most DMRs therefore do not 

provide information on CSO volumes, which is the subject of the IG’s inquiry.
15-P-0280 25

What EPA committed to in this initiative, and what we think is an essential part of protecting 

public health and water quality, is reducing the discharge of raw sewage into our nation’s waters. 

We think that the IG’s review supports our view that the consent decrees are achieving that 

objective. That is the question that the IG set out to examine for this review, and we think the 

results are definitive that the initiative is meeting this important objective. As more consent 

decrees are completed, and post-construction monitoring is done, the evidence to support that 

finding will grow. For these reasons, we think that the IG’s language in the heading and in the 

opening summary is misleading. It is incorrect to suggest that we do not know whether the CSO 

system upgrades that are the subject of this review are benefitting clean water. Rather, the 

consent decrees will result in reduced discharges of raw sewage and contaminated stormwater, 

the science and modelling and reporting under the decrees are designed to achieve and to 

monitor that, and the IG itself has found that we are on track to implementation of the consent 

decrees.

Strengthening monitoring of CSO consent decrees

The IG report supports what EPA has long said about this important work: under the consent 

decrees the number and volume of CSO events are declining. This is the measure of our work 

that is most important, and we agree that the consent decrees are having the desired impact. 

Having said that, we also agree that there are ways we can strengthen both our monitoring of the 

consent decrees and our public accountability for this work.

The current system for monitoring CSO consent decree compliance operates on three parallel 

tracks. The first is an ICIS-based system, developed in response to a previous IG report.6 This 

system requires that major milestones of the consent decree, including completion of all consent 

decree requirements, payment of penalties, and completion of any Supplemental Environmental 

Projects, be entered in ICIS so that these critical consent decree requirements can be tracked and 

monitored. The ICIS-based system also requires a periodic review of compliance with all consent 

decree requirements, at least every three years. Consistent with this guidance, OECA and the 

Regions assure that achievement of the major critical milestones and overall consent decree 

compliance for CSO (and other) consent decrees are being tracked. 

Second, OECA’s commitment to review all consent decrees for compliance every three years is 

such a high priority for EPA that we have established a Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA) measure for the current EPA strategic plan. The GPRA target for this performance 

measure is 100% and we are very pleased to say that we meet or come very close to meeting that 

target every year. OECA already monitors regional performance on this important metric, and it 

is something that regions also track very closely. For this reason, adding an ACS measure for the 

identical work seems duplicative and unnecessary.

Third, every region has an additional system for monitoring the day-to-day oversight of the CSO 

consent decrees. Every consent decree requires regular reporting of progress toward the 

milestones in the decree. Failure to submit the reports, and failure to meet the milestones in the 

decree, subject the municipality to penalties and possible additional enforcement action. These 

 

6 This tracking system is described in the 2010 Revised Guidance on Tracking Civil Judicial Consent Decree 

Implementation in ICIS), developed in response to an earlier OIG Audit Report, No. 2001-P-00006.
15-P-0280 26

regional tracking systems have worked very well to monitor progress. We are pleased that the IG 

recognized this in finding that regions are able to make case-by-case assessments of whether the 

consent decrees met milestones and reduced CSO flows.

Although we do have a national system that is doing an effective job tracking performance and 

compliance, we agree that there is still room for improvement. We agree with the OIG that it is 

important to continue to work to ensure effective and timely implementation of consent decree 

obligations. We think that sharing of best practices for tracking implementation across regions 

would be a valuable addition to our approach. Regions are acutely aware of the large amount of 

resources they devote to this important tracking work, and ways to make this more effective and 

more efficient will be widely embraced. EPA has also identified some ways to make 

implementation and monitoring of consent decree compliance more cost effective7. As consent 

decrees are reopened to address scheduling problems, incorporation of green infrastructure, and 

other issues, EPA intends to bring these ideas to the table, so we can modernize and update some 

of the older consent decrees. That will also be an ideal time to explore some of the newer 

monitors that can measure CSO discharges that some communities are experimenting with now 

and that may prove to be a cost-effective monitoring strategy for both EPA and the communities 

themselves. These new monitors may allow communities to collect data from CSO discharges 

that, when paired with data on rainfall levels, other dischargers, and water quality, may be useful 

for assessing water quality improvements.

In an ideal world, OECA would also agree that developing a national data system and approach 

for tracking of the CSO consent decrees would be a helpful addition. However, OECA’s budget 

has been cut every year for the past five years, and we do not currently have or expect to receive 

funds sufficient to establish such a system. As the IG has found that we are effectively tracking 

consent decree implementation, and that municipalities are largely meeting the obligations under 

EPA’s oversight, a national tracking system, while desirable, is clearly not necessary to ensuring 

that the important work is getting done. Because the IG’s own review does not indicate that such 

a system is essential to the work, and because OECA cannot afford such a system, EPA 

respectfully disagrees with this recommendation. 

EPA appreciates the IG’s observation that information is not available to the public on all of the 

consent decrees. Transparency is an important element of EPA enforcement work, and we agree 

that improvements can be made to the presentation of CSO consent decree information on 

existing web pages. As the study found, older consent decrees may have broken links or predate 

our present system for posting all new decrees, settlements and consent decree amendments. 

EPA agrees to make these improvements. 

For your consideration, we have also included a Technical Comments attachment.

 

7 Guidance on Streamlining Oversight in Civil Settlements (Guidance is Privileged and Confidential), 

http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oce/io/documents/finalstreamliningmemo11013.pdf 
15-P-0280 27

OIG Recommendations:

No. Recommendation Agency Explanation/Response Proposed 

Alternative 

1. Report annual results 

of the CSO enforcement 

initiative to the public 

using data collected 

under consent decrees, 

including CSO events 

and volume changes; 

pollutants emitted; and 

wherever possible, 

changes to quality in 

receiving water.

 Every consent decree is different 

and most do not have annual 

information of the type suggested 

here, as described more fully in the 

comments above.

 OECA currently reports to the 

public on the results of the CSO 

portion of the Municipal 

Infrastructure National Enforcement 

Initiative” via its National 

Enforcement Initiative website: 

http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/n

ational-enforcement-initiativekeeping-raw-sewage-andcontaminated-stormwater-out-our. 

OECA report on progress made in 

addressing the universe of Large 

CSS’s, provides a map indicating 

which CSS’s have and have not been 

addressed, and provides information 

on the most recent CSO enforcement 

cases. The enforcement case 

information is updated as new cases 

conclude, and the entire website is 

updated annually.

The Office of Civil 

Enforcement and 

Compliance 

Assurance will 

continue to update 

the CSO results 

portion of the 

Municipal 

Infrastructure 

National 

Enforcement 

Initiative” via its 

National 

Enforcement 

Initiative website: 

http://www2.epa.g

ov/enforcement/na

tionalenforcementinitiative-keepingraw-sewage-andcontaminatedstormwater-outour.

2. Develop a nationally 

consistent consent 

decree tracking and 

accountability system 

that includes: 

a. Consent decree 

milestones. 

b. Frequency of CSO 

events and changes in 

CSO volumes. 

c. Effluent and water 

quality data collected 

by states and 

 OIG found that progress is being 

tracked on a case by case basis.

 Effective tracking may be achieved 

with different levels of effort in 

different regions depending on the 

number and complexity of decrees 

in that region.

 Water quality data collected by 

states and community groups are not 

tailored to evaluating CSO impacts.

Work with the 

regional offices to 

identify and then 

share best 

practices for 

tracking of CSO 

consent decree 

milestones to 

ensure that case 

specific milestones 

are being met.
15-P-0280 28

communities at CSO 

outfalls. 

d. Wherever possible, 

water quality 

improvement of 

municipal impaired 

waters attributable to 

CSO upgrades. 

3. Develop an ACS goal 

that establishes 

regional goals for 

monitoring and 

reporting outcomes 

associated with CSO 

consent decrees, in 

order to prioritize 

consent decree tracking 

in regional offices.

EPA already has an effective GPRA 

(Government Performance and Results 

Act) measure tracking whether we are 

reviewing Consent Decrees in 

accordance with our 2010 consent 

decree tracking guidance. This measure 

is effective in focusing regional 

attention on this important work. 

Adding an ACS measure to the same 

effect would be duplicative.

OECA will 

continue to 

monitor and report 

on the GPRA 

measure for 

regional attention 

to consent decree 

tracking.

4. Provide information on 

a public website that 

links the public to CSO 

consent decree 

information, and links 

to information 

produced under the 

recommendation 

pertaining to progress 

and results.

OECA agrees that it would be beneficial 

to review our web pages to seek 

improvements. As the study found, 

older consent decrees may have broken 

web links or predate our present system 

for posting new decrees, settlements and 

consent decree amendments online. 

EPA also agrees that EPA should 

continue its ongoing efforts to make 

settlement agreement monitoring and 

reporting more efficient and effective to 

ensure compliance.

Review and 

improve OECA 

web pages that 

provide public 

access to CSO 

consent decrees, 

amendments, and 

other settlement 

documents to 

ensure better 

transparency with 

regards to consent 

decree milestones, 

progress and 

compliance.
15-P-0280 29

Appendix D

Agency’s Supplemental Response to Draft Report

OECA Supplemental Response to Draft OIG Report: “EPA Needs to Track the Extent Its 

Enforcement Work on Combined Sewer Overflows Keeps Raw Sewage and Contaminated 

Stormwater out of Nation’s Waters and Benefits Water Quality, Project No. OPE-FY14-0045

Proposed EPA Alternatives for Recommendations:

o Based on OECA-OIG discussions of 8/26/15, 9/2/15, 9/3/15, and 9/8/15

OIG Recommendations:

No. Recommendation OECA Proposed Actions to Address Recommendation Completion Date

1. Report annual results of the 

CSO enforcement initiative to 

the public using data collected 

under consent decrees, 

including CSO events and 

volume changes; pollutants 

emitted; and wherever 

possible, changes to quality in 

receiving water.

 As a component of OECA’s FY 2015 end-of-year reporting effort, 

update the CSO results portion of the Municipal Infrastructure 

National Enforcement Initiative (NEI) via the OECA National 

Enforcement Initiative website: 

http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiativekeeping-raw-sewage-and-contaminated-stormwater-out-our.

 Supplement the CSO portion of the Municipal Infrastructure 

National Enforcement Initiative website by adding a link to a table 

of the CSO facilities with federal judicial Consent Decrees 

presented on the National Enforcement Initiative website map 

(including facility name, location, addressed status, link to facility 

on the ECHO Website, link to the Consent Decree, date CD was 

entered, date Region projected terms of CD will be completed, 

projected estimated environmental benefits (lbs and gallons), and 

projected estimated cost of compliance).

December 1, 2015

2. Develop a nationally 

consistent consent decree 

tracking and accountability 

system that includes: 

a. Consent decree milestones. 

b. Frequency of CSO events 

and changes in CSO volumes. 

c. Effluent and water quality 

data collected by states and 

communities at CSO outfalls. 

d. Wherever possible, water 

quality improvement of 

municipal impaired waters 

attributable to CSO upgrades. 

Proposed alternative action:

 As an interim measure, pending the outcome of the effort 

described immediately below, make available to the public the 

current data collected by OECA for the GPRA measure on the 

overall compliance status of CSO consent decrees. Publish this 

data in a public-friendly format, identifying EPA’s determination 

of consent decree compliance status for each NEI CSO under a 

consent decree.

 Establish an OECA/Regional group to: determine how best to 

obtain and relay the compliance status of individual federal 

judicial CSO consent decrees to the public; and, review the current 

approach for regularly determining the overall compliance status 

for each open CSO consent decree and revise as needed to support 

relaying CSO consent decree compliance status to the public. 

Initiate efforts to implement any agreed upon course of action.

April 1, 2016

3. Develop an ACS goal that 

establishes regional goals for 

monitoring and reporting 

outcomes associated with CSO 

consent decrees, in order to 

Proposed alternative action:

 Emphasize in the FY 2015 Updates and Clarifications 

memorandum the need for the EPA Regions to monitor and report 

for the GPRA measure that concerns consent decree tracking.

February 28, 2016
15-P-0280 30

prioritize consent decree 

tracking in regional offices.

 Convene a meeting with senior EPA enforcement management to 

examine the existing EPA approach and measure for reviewing 

consent decree compliance tracking to revise or develop new 

approaches and/or metrics as appropriate to assure adequate 

accounting for this enforcement work and initiate efforts to 

implement any agreed upon course of action.

4. Provide information on a 

public website that links the 

public to CSO consent decree 

information, and links to 

information produced under 

the recommendation 

pertaining to progress and 

results.

 See Proposed Actions for recommendation 2, above. April 1, 2016
15-P-0280 31

Appendix E

Distribution

Office of the Administrator

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator

General Counsel

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Water