I
106TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4502
To improve the implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 19, 2000
Mr. COMBEST (for himself, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mrs. CLAYTON,
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr. BERRY, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. BOYD, Mr.
COOKSEY, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. DICKEY, Ms. DUNN, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr.
ETHERIDGE, Mr. EWING, Mr. GOODE, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr.
HAYES, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. JONES of North Carolina,
Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. SANFORD, Mr. SHOWS, Mr.
SPRATT, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. TURNER, Mr. CHAMBLISS, and Mr. RILEY)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL
To improve the implementation of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Pollution Pro-
gram Improvement Act of 2000’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Pollutant loadings from both public and pri-
vate point sources have decreased dramatically since
the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act in 1972 and such reductions have greatly
contributed to achieving national water quality goals.
(2) Appropriate emphasis on the management
of nonpoint source pollution through a variety of
flexible management practices is necessary to meet
water quality standards and the goals of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
(3) 
Comprehensive 
watershed 
management
strategies (including estuary management programs,
source water protection programs, and other vol-
untary or statutory programs) are important tools in
coordinating point source and nonpoint source water
quality programs.
(4) State and local governments, businesses,
and landowners are expected to spend billions of dol-
lars over the next 20 years to implement watershed
management strategies and other programs to ad-
dress nonpoint source pollution.
(5) In order to complete the total maximum
daily load calculations required for currently identi-
fied waters, States will be required to develop one
total maximum daily load allocation per week per re-
gion for each of the next 15 years at an estimated
cost to the States ranging from $670,000,000 to
$1,200,000,000.
(6) States have overwhelmingly cited a lack of
credible and reliable data and a lack of the resources
necessary to collect and analyze such data, as sig-
nificant limitations to carrying out their responsibil-
ities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
including the identification of impaired waters and
the development of total maximum daily loads.
(7) The General Accounting Office recently con-
cluded that only 6 States have the majority of data
needed to assess the condition of their waters.
(8) In cases in which there are no reliable mon-
itoring or other analytical data to support a listing
or total maximum daily load allocation, waters of the
United States are being identified as impaired and
total maximum daily loads are being developed
under section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) on the basis of an-
ecdotal evidence. The data used are frequently not
subject to quality assurance or quality control meas-
ures.
(9) Any Federal regulatory or nonregulatory
water quality management program—
(A) must be based on sound science, in-
cluding credible and reliable monitoring data;
(B) must be subject to rigorous cost anal-
ysis;
(C) must be effectively and efficiently im-
plemented; and
(D) must have the strong support of af-
fected stakeholders, including State and local
governments, landowners, businesses, environ-
mental organizations, and the general public.
(10) Any Federal water quality management
program 
or 
initiative 
must 
recognize 
and
accommodate—
(A) State water rights allocations and
management programs;
(B) the clear distinction between point and
nonpoint sources of pollution provided in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.); and
(C) the exclusive authority of the States to
regulate nonpoint sources of pollution.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY.
(a) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall make arrange-
ments with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct
a study on—
(1) the scientific basis underlying the develop-
ment and implementation of total maximum daily
loads for pollutants in waters identified under sec-
tion 303(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(A));
(2) the costs of implementing measures to com-
ply with the total maximum daily loads; and
(3) the availability of alternative programs or
mechanisms to reduce the discharge of pollutants
from point sources and to reduce pollution from
nonpoint sources to achieve water quality standards.
(b) SCOPE.—The study shall include an evaluation of
the following:
(1) The scientific methodologies (including
water quality monitoring and monitoring plans) that
are being used by States to identify waters under
section 303(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(A)) and to de-
velop and implement total maximum daily loads for
pollutants in such waters, and the costs associated
with the methodologies.
(2) Any procedures or programs that are being
implemented by States and Federal agencies to co-
ordinate and improve monitoring methodologies and
the quality of monitoring data.
(3) The availability of alternative programs and
other regulatory or nonregulatory mechanisms (in-
cluding Federal, State, and local programs that op-
erate as a functional equivalent to the total max-
imum daily load program) that may achieve com-
parable environmental benefits in an impaired water,
watershed, or basin.
(4) The results achieved by regulatory and vol-
untary programs, activities, and practices that are
being implemented to reduce nonpoint source pollu-
tion and the costs of such programs, activities, and
practices to State and local governments and the
private sector.
(5) The feasibility of implementing a pollutant
trading program between point sources and nonpoint
sources of pollution.
(6) An assessment of the total costs (including
the costs to Federal land management agencies,
State and local governments, and the private sector)
associated with programs to reduce the discharge of
pollutants from point sources to meet water quality
standards on waters currently identified under sec-
tion 303(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(A)) and with
programs to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources
in such waters under section 319 of such Act (33
U.S.C. 1329).
(c) PEER REVIEW.—Before submitting a report
under subsection (d), the National Academy of Sciences
shall provide appropriate Federal, State, and private sec-
tor interests an opportunity to review and submit written
comments on the report.
(d) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the National Academy of
Sciences shall submit a report on the study to the Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Environ-
ment and Public Works of the Senate. The report shall
include recommendations of the National Academy of
Sciences for improving the methodologies evaluated under
the study, as well as any recommendations received pursu-
ant to subsection (c) that are not otherwise incorporated
into the report.
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until ex-
pended.
SEC. 4. RULEMAKING.
(a) PROPOSED RULES DEFINED.—In this section,
the term ‘‘proposed rules’’ means the Proposed Revisions
to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Program and Federal Antidegradation Policy and the Pro-
posed Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Man-
agement Regulations Concerning Total Maximum Daily
Loads, published in the Federal Register on August 23,
1999.
(b) CONSIDERATION OF STUDY.—Before making a
final determination with respect to the proposed rules, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall—
(1) review the report submitted by the National
Academy of Sciences under section 3(d) and incor-
porate, as appropriate, into the proposed rules the
recommendations contained in the report, including
recommendations received pursuant to section 3(c);
and
(2) publish in the Federal Register and receive
public comment on—
(A) the recommendations described in
paragraph (1) that were incorporated into the
proposed rules; and
(B) the recommendations described in
paragraph (1) that were not incorporated into
the proposed rules, including an explanation of
why the recommendations were not incor-
porated.
(c) EFFECT ON PROPOSED RULES.—The Adminis-
trator shall not make a final determination on the pro-
posed rules identified in subsection (a) until the conclusion
of the public notice and comment period provided under
subsection (b)(2).
(d) PROHIBITED ACTIONS.—Except as specifically
provided by an Act enacted after the date of enactment
of this Act, to ensure that States continue to have exclu-
sive authority to regulate nonpoint sources of pollution—
(1) the Administrator shall not take any action
to affect any definition of, or distinction made be-
tween, point sources and nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion contained in a rule of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency in effect on June 1, 2000; and
(2) the Administrator shall not require approval
of any measures set forth by a State to control
nonpoint sources of pollution pursuant to the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.), except as authorized by section 319 of such
Act (33 U.S.C. 1329).
Æ