II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2417

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to increase funding

for State nonpoint source pollution control programs, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 13, 2000

Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. SMITH of New Hamphsire) introduced the

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to increase funding for State nonpoint source pollution control programs, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Pollution Pro5 gram Enhancements Act of 2000’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds that—

8 (1) pollutant loadings from both public and pri9 vate point sources have decreased dramatically since
2

•S 2417 IS

1 the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Con2 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) in 1972 and have

3 greatly contributed to achieving national water qual4 ity goals;

5 (2) under that Act, the Federal Government

6 has provided over $80,000,000,000 in grants and

7 loans to assist in the control of the discharge of pol8 lutants from publicly owned treatment works and

9 less than $2,000,000,000 to assist in the control of

10 nonpoint sources of pollution;

11 (3) increased Federal funding for programs to

12 control nonpoint source pollution through a variety

13 of flexible management practices is necessary to

14 meet water quality standards and the goals of that

15 Act;

16 (4) comprehensive watershed management

17 strategies (including estuary management programs,

18 source water protection programs, and other vol19 untary or statutory programs) are important tools to

20 coordinate point source and nonpoint source water

21 quality programs;

22 (5) State and local governments, businesses,

23 and landowners are expected to spend billions of dol24 lars over the next 20 years to implement the water-
3

•S 2417 IS

1 shed management strategies and other programs to

2 address nonpoint source pollution;

3 (6) in order to complete the total maximum

4 daily load calculations required for currently listed

5 waters, States will be required to develop 1 total

6 maximum daily load allocation per week per region

7 for the next 15 years at an estimated cost to the

8 States of $670,000,000 to $1,200,000,000;

9 (7) States have overwhelmingly cited a lack of

10 resources as a limitation to carrying out their re11 sponsibilities under that Act, including the identi12 fication of impaired waters and the development of

13 total maximum daily loads;

14 (8) any Federal regulatory or nonregulatory

15 water quality management program must be based

16 on sound science, must be effectively and efficiently

17 implemented, and must have the strong support of

18 affected stakeholders, including State and local gov19 ernments, landowners, businesses, environmental or20 ganizations, and the general public;

21 (9) the General Accounting Office recently con22 cluded that only 6 States have the majority of the

23 data needed to assess the condition of their waters;

24 (10) waters of the United States are currently

25 being listed as impaired, and total maximum daily
4

•S 2417 IS

1 loads are being developed under section 303(d) of

2 that Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)), often on the basis of

3 anecdotal evidence, where there are no reliable moni4 toring or other analytical data to support a listing

5 or a total maximum daily load allocation;

6 (11) data described in paragraph (10) are fre7 quently not subject to quality assurance or quality

8 control measures;

9 (12) the use of scarce public and private re10 sources should be focused on waters that are identi11 fied as being impaired by pollutants on the basis of

12 reliable monitoring data;

13 (13) a strong partnership between the Federal

14 Government, the States, and the private sector, with

15 adequate Federal funding and assistance, must con16 tinue if remaining national water quality issues are

17 to be resolved;

18 (14) many States have developed and are imple19 menting effective regulatory and nonregulatory coop20 erative programs that are functionally equivalent to

21 Federal water quality programs, including, for exam22 ple, the Chesapeake Bay watershed protection pro23 gram; and

24 (15) any Federal water quality management

25 program or initiative must recognize and accommo-
5

•S 2417 IS

1 date State water rights allocations and management

2 programs.

3 SEC. 3. FUNDING FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL MEAS4 URES.

5 (a) STATE GRANTS.—Section 106 of the Federal

6 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1256) is amend7 ing by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:

8 ‘‘(a) FUNDING.—

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be

10 appropriated for grants to States and interstate

11 agencies to carry out this section, including the ad12 ministration of programs for the prevention, reduc13 tion, and elimination of pollutants (including en14 forcement directly or through appropriate State law

15 enforcement officers and agencies), $250,000,000

16 for fiscal years 2001 through 2007, to remain avail17 able until expended.

18 ‘‘(2) MONITORING DATA.—From the sums ap19 propriated in any fiscal year, $50,000,000 shall be

20 made available to States for—

21 ‘‘(A) the collection of reliable monitoring

22 data;

23 ‘‘(B) the improvement of lists prepared

24 under section 303(d)(1);
6

•S 2417 IS

1 ‘‘(C) the preparation of total maximum

2 daily load allocations under section 303(d); and

3 ‘‘(D) the development of watershed man4 agement strategies.’’.

5 (b) NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.—

6 Section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

7 (33 U.S.C. 1329) is amended by striking subsection (j)

8 and inserting the following:

9 ‘‘(j) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be

11 appropriated to carry out subsections (h) and (i)

12 $500,000,000 for fiscal years 2001 through 2007, to

13 remain available until expended.

14 ‘‘(2) GROUNDWATER QUALITY.—Of the funds

15 authorized to be appropriated under paragraph (1),

16 for each fiscal year, not more than $7,500,000 may

17 be made available to carry out subsection (i).

18 ‘‘(3) PROJECT GRANTS.—From the sums appro19 priated under paragraph (1) for any fiscal year,

20 $200,000,000 shall be made available for States to

21 provide grants to landowners to develop and imple22 ment nonpoint source pollution control projects or

23 activities to restore or improve the water quality of

24 impaired waters that have been identified by a State

25 as a priority for restoration.
7

•S 2417 IS

1 ‘‘(A) FEDERAL SHARE.—A grant awarded

2 under this paragraph shall not exceed 90 per3 cent of the cost of the project or activity.

4 ‘‘(B) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The recipi5 ent of a grant under this paragraph may use

6 funds from other Federal programs and other

7 eligible in-kind contributions to satisfy the

8 matching requirement.

9 ‘‘(C) LIMITATION.—Grants shall not be

10 made available for projects or activities that are

11 otherwise required by Federal or State law.’’.

12 SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

13 (a) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY.—

14 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the

15 Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in

16 this Act as the ‘‘Administrator’’) shall contract with

17 the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a

18 study (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Study’’) on—

19 (A) the scientific basis underlying the de20 velopment and implementation of total max21 imum daily loads;

22 (B) the costs of implementing measures to

23 comply with total maximum daily loads; and

24 (C) the availability of alternative programs

25 or mechanisms to reduce the discharge of pol-
8

•S 2417 IS

1 lutants from point sources and nonpoint source

2 pollution to achieve water quality standards.

3 (2) SCOPE.—The National Academy of Sciences

4 shall include in the Study an evaluation of, and

5 where possible, provide recommendations for im6 provements in, the following:

7 (A) The scientific methodologies (including

8 water quality monitoring and State monitoring

9 plans) currently being used by States to identify

10 impaired waters and develop and implement

11 total maximum daily loads, and the costs asso12 ciated with monitoring and other methodologies.

13 (B) Any procedures or programs being im14 plemented by the States and Federal agencies

15 to coordinate and improve monitoring meth16 odologies and the quality of monitoring data.

17 (C) The availability of alternative pro18 grams and other regulatory or nonregulatory

19 mechanisms (including other Federal, State,

20 and local programs that operate as a functional

21 equivalent to the total maximum daily load pro22 gram) that may achieve comparable environ23 mental benefits in an impaired water, water24 shed, or basin.
9

•S 2417 IS

1 (D) The results achieved by existing regu2 latory and voluntary programs, activities, and

3 practices currently being implemented to reduce

4 nonpoint source pollution and the costs of these

5 programs, activities, and practices to State and

6 local governments and the private sector;

7 (E) The circumstances in which water

8 quality standards may not be attainable, and

9 the availability of mechanisms to address those

10 circumstances.

11 (F) The feasibility of implementing a pol12 lutant trading program between point sources

13 and nonpoint sources.

14 (G) An assessment of the total costs asso15 ciated with programs to reduce the discharge of

16 pollutants from point sources and nonpoint

17 source pollution (including the costs to Federal

18 land management agencies, State and local gov19 ernments, and the private sector) to meet water

20 quality standards on waters currently listed

21 under section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pol22 lution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)).

23 (3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

24 There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
10

•S 2417 IS

1 the Study $5,000,000, to remain available until ex2 pended.

3 (b) SUBMISSION OF NAS STUDY TO CONGRESS.—

4 Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of

5 this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee

6 on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the

7 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the

8 House of Representatives a copy of the Study.

9 SEC. 5. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PILOT PROGRAM.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—In cooperation with the States,

11 the Administrator shall jointly establish a watershed man12 agement pilot program (referred to in this Act as the

13 ‘‘Pilot Program’’) to evaluate the relative water quality

14 improvements resulting from up to 5 State watershed

15 management programs or strategies, to be selected by the

16 Administrator and the States, that incorporate non-Fed17 eral water quality control programs, innovative tech18 nologies and incentives to reduce the discharge of pollut19 ants, or total maximum daily load allocations under sec20 tion 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

21 (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)).

22 (b) SELECTION OF STATE PROGRAMS.—To be eligi23 ble for consideration in the Pilot Program, a State water24 shed management strategy must be expected to achieve
11

•S 2417 IS

1 environmental results comparable to those of the Federal

2 total maximum daily load program.

3 (c) REPORTS.—

4 (1) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Administrator, in

5 cooperation with the States, shall jointly develop and

6 submit annually to Congress a report on the pro7 gram and, for each State included in the Pilot Pro8 gram, specific information on the progress being

9 achieved to improve water quality.

10 (2) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than 6 months

11 after the termination of the Pilot Program, the Ad12 ministrator, in cooperation with the States, shall

13 jointly develop and submit to Congress a report eval14 uating the State programs, including for each State

15 an assessment of—

16 (A) the overall improvements achieved in

17 water quality;

18 (B) the extent to which the water quality

19 improvements are consistent with those that

20 would likely have been achieved through the

21 Federal total maximum daily load program;

22 (C) the administrative and other burdens

23 imposed on State and local governments and

24 the private sector under the State program; and
12

•S 2417 IS

1 (D) the costs associated with implementing

2 the State program.

3 (d) TERMINATION.—With respect to each State par4 ticipating in the program, the Pilot Program shall termi5 nate 3 years after the date on which the Administrator

6 accepts the State program in the Pilot Program.

7 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

8 authorized to be appropriated to establish and implement

9 the Pilot Program $2,000,000, to remain available until

10 expended.

11 SEC. 6. RULEMAKING.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Prior to finalizing the Proposed

13 Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

14 System Program and Federal Antidegradation Policy,

15 published August 23, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 46058), and the

16 Proposed Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and

17 Management Regulations Concerning Total Maximum

18 Daily Loads, published August 23, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg.

19 46012), the Administrator shall—

20 (1) review the National Academy of Sciences

21 Study prepared under section 4; and

22 (2) take into consideration the recommenda23 tions of the National Academy of Sciences in issuing

24 any final regulations.
13

•S 2417 IS

1 (b) EXPLANATION.—If the Administrator includes

2 provisions in any final regulation that are not consistent

3 with the recommendations of the National Academy of

4 Sciences, the Administrator shall publish with the final

5 rule an explanation why the recommendations of the Na6 tional Academy of Sciences were not included in the final

7 regulation.

Æ