Clean Water: Further Implementation and Better Cost Data Needed to Determine Impact of EPA's Storm Water Program on Communities
Published: 2007-05-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Urban storm water runoff is a major contributor to the nation's degraded waters. Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a program requiring communities to obtain permits and implement activities to control storm water pollution. EPA's Phase I regulations (1990) applied to communities with populations of 100,000 or more, and its Phase II regulations (1999) covered smaller urban communities. Communities must report progress in meeting permit requirements. Some have raised concerns that storm water requirements impose an undue burden. To evaluate storm water program costs, EPA developed estimates for both phases. GAO was asked to (1) determine the progress in implementing the storm water program, (2) evaluate the extent to which the program burdens communities, (3) examine the accuracy of EPA's cost estimates, and (4) examine the data available for assessing program burden. GAO collected data for all states and a sample of 130 communities, among other steps.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Storm water program implementation has been slow for both Phase I and II communities. The federal deadlines for permit applications were years ago--14 years for Phase I and 4 years for Phase II--but almost 11 percent of all communities were not yet permitted as of fall 2006. In addition, litigation, among other reasons, delayed the issuance of some permits for years after the application deadlines. As a result, almost all Phase II and some Phase I communities are still in the early stages of program implementation. It is too early to determine the storm water program's overall burden, but several factors influence the extent to which the program burdens a community. In particular, burden varies depending on whether communities (1) can use the flexibility built into EPA's regulations to implement less expensive measures, or (2) are able to benefit from prior storm water management experience. Some communities may face a greater burden because of more stringent requirements set by EPA or the states, additional efforts required to address litigation over water quality, or because of barriers to obtaining funding for storm water activities. Storm water program burdens could increase in the future because, among other reasons, EPA or the states may reissue permits with more stringent requirements. Without an estimate of actual storm water program costs--or burden--GAO could not determine the accuracy of EPA's cost estimates. However, GAO did identify methodological concerns that raise questions about the usefulness of these estimates for measuring the burden communities face. That is, the Phase I analysis was not designed to estimate national program costs, the Phase II analysis was based on survey data of questionable validity and reliability, and neither analysis excluded costs for activities that communities were implementing before the program. Any assessment of program burden will be hampered because EPA is not collecting complete and consistent data on communities' activities and their costs. For example, only Phase I communities are required to include data on program costs and these data are often limited. Also, communities' inconsistent reporting of activities makes it difficult to evaluate program implementation nationwide. Consequently, EPA will find it challenging to meet its goal to examine Phase II implementation starting in 2012.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Storm water from urban areas is a major contributor to the degradation of  the nation’s lakes, rivers, and streams. It runs off paved or other  impervious areas into surface waters and may contain dangerous  chemicals, harmful bacteria, debris, and other pollutants that can pose  serious public health risks. As urban and suburban areas have expanded,  so too has the amount of impervious surface. As a result, storm water  runoff has increased in volume and velocity, which can alter the natural  flow of water, harm aquatic ecosystems, and cause considerable property  damage.
In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act, directing that the  Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish a  program to regulate storm water pollution. EPA developed the Storm  Water Program as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination  System (NPDES) Program by issuing regulations in two phases: Phase I in  1990 and Phase II in 1999. These regulations required communities with  separate sewer systems for storm water to obtain permits and implement  activities to control storm water runoff. The Phase I regulations generally  applied to communities with populations of 100,000 or more and identified  220 communities potentially subject to the program. The Phase II  regulations generally applied to smaller communities in urban areas and  identified 5,036 communities that could be required to obtain permit  coverage. Communities had to apply for permits by specified dates early  in the 1990s for Phase I and in 2003 for Phase II. In most cases, the states,  authorized by EPA, issue 5-year permits that must then be renewed. The  permits require communities to implement activities to control storm  water runoff. These activities may include (1) educating the public about  the impacts of runoff in order to discourage such practices as dumping  used automobile oil into a storm drain; (2) street-sweeping; (3) structural  practices, such as building retention ponds to slow or prevent the release  of polluted storm water; or (4) disconnecting illicit plumbing connections  to the storm sewer system. Communities are required to report  periodically on their storm water activities. In some cases, communities  may be able to obtain federal or state funds, such as Clean Water State  Revolving Fund loans—low-interest loans that can be used for a variety of  water quality projects—to help implement their storm water management  programs.
In 1990 and 1999, respectively, EPA analyzed the costs of implementing  Phases I and II of the storm water program. EPA’s Phase I analysis  modeled program costs for a limited number of large and medium cities. It  did not provide a national estimate of program costs. EPA’s Phase II  analysis estimated national program implementation costs based on  survey data received from 56 communities. In its Phase II regulations, EPA  set a goal of beginning to evaluate implementation of Phase II of the  program in 2012.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to  determine the cost of a significant regulatory action on state and local  governments. However, the act does not require agencies to look at the  cumulative costs of multiple regulations. Many communities responsible  for implementing storm water program requirements are also responsible  for implementing other regulations relating to water quality, such as  drinking water regulations or specific pollution treatment programs.  Consequently, states, local governments, water associations, and industry  and academic experts have raised concerns that implementing EPA’s  storm water program imposes a burden on communities. For purposes of  this report, we use burden to mean additional costs for implementing  storm water control measures, increased administrative activities, reduced  budget flexibility because of the need to divert resources from other  governmental activities, actions related to litigation, and the influences of  other regulatory programs on how storm water runoff is managed.
In this context, you asked us to (1) identify the progress made in  implementing the storm water program, (2) determine the extent to which  the storm water program burdens communities, (3) evaluate the accuracy  of EPA’s cost estimates, and (4) examine the data available for future  assessment of program burdens. On December 18, 2006, we briefed your  staff on the results of our review; this report provides more information on  highlights presented at this briefing. A copy of our December briefing is  included as appendix I.
To identify progress made in program implementation, as well as to  examine the extent of program burden, we interviewed officials  responsible for implementing the storm water program, including EPA,  state, and local officials. For all 50 states, we obtained and analyzed storm  water program data, such as the number of communities required to  obtain permits, and the number that had obtained permits as of fall 2006.  For each state’s data, we assessed the reliability of the data by (1)  examining how the data were collected, processed, and maintained; (2)  reviewing the data we received for discrepancies, such as duplicate  entries; and (3) conducting detailed follow-up in cases where we found  inconsistencies. Through these efforts, we determined that the data we  collected were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. In  addition, we reviewed applicable statutes, regulations, guidance, and  studies, and obtained the views of state and local government associations  and academic and industry experts on program implementation.  Furthermore, we analyzed EPA’s cost estimates of the Phase I and II  regulations and adjusted all dollars to 2006 dollars. Finally, to obtain  information on future data availability issues, we reviewed storm water  program documents from a sample of 130 communities to obtain  information on their activities. Most of these communities (about 95  percent) were selected randomly, with the remainder chosen through a  judgmental selection of communities that we believed had well- established storm water programs and good cost information based on  interviews we conducted and studies we reviewed. Appendix II provides a  more detailed description of our scope and methodology. We conducted  our work between January 2006 and April 2007 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Pollutants and sediment carried by storm water, as well as the volume and  temperature of runoff, can alter aquatic habitats and make it hard for fish  and other organisms to survive. Some pollutants can also make fish and  shellfish unsafe to eat. Reducing storm water pollution may help increase  the number, size, and quality of fish and other organisms; which could  provide benefits to those who value these resources for consumption, as  well as for commercial, recreational, subsistence, and aesthetic purposes.  Moreover, polluted storm water runoff can negatively impact those who  use fresh and salt water areas for swimming and boating. Swimmers in  water with high levels of bacteria have a greater risk of contracting  gastrointestinal or respiratory illnesses. Reducing storm water pollution  could also lead to fewer beach closings, and enhanced enjoyment of fresh  and salt water areas. Finally, reducing the quantity and improving the  quality of storm water runoff could help avoid costs to  treat illnesses caused by contact with polluted runoff,    stabilize stream banks to limit erosion and prevent property damage,  repair water and sediment damage caused by flood events,    dredge waterways to maintain navigation channels, and treat or obtain alternate sources of drinking water.
EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management, within the Office of Water, leads  and manages water quality improvement efforts under the NPDES  program in partnership with EPA regional offices, states, and tribes. The  NPDES program, created in 1972 under the Clean Water Act, authorized  the Administrator to issue permits, according to conditions prescribed in  regulation, for the discharge of pollutants from point sources. These point  sources included factories or wastewater treatment plants that  contributed pollutants directly into a body of water from a pipe or other  conveyance. Neither the NPDES legislation nor the rules promulgated in  1973 specifically addressed storm water discharges. Under the 1987  amendments to the Clean Water Act, Congress required EPA to regulate  storm water runoff that reaches municipal separate storm sewer systems  (MS4s) as a point source of pollution.
EPA met this requirement by establishing the NPDES Storm Water  Program, which regulated storm water discharges from MS4s in two  phases. In November 1990, EPA issued regulations for Phase I of the  program, requiring that large and medium MS4s obtain permits for their  storm water discharges. Large MS4s were those serving populations of  250,000 or more, while medium MS4s were those serving 100,000 or more  but less than 250,000. In a February 2000 report to Congress on the  implementation of Phase I, EPA reported that storm water pollution from  these systems was considered to be the greatest threat to water quality.  EPA’s Phase I regulations required that applications for storm water  permits be submitted in two parts. Among other things, the first part was  to describe the characteristics of local storm water pollution and identify  existing controls. The second part was to include a proposed storm water  management program, and was due in November 1992 and May 1993 for  large and medium MS4s, respectively. In December 1999, EPA issued  regulations for Phase II of the program, which required other systems— generally smaller MS4s in urban areas—to obtain permits for their storm  water discharges. Applications for these smaller systems were more  streamlined and were generally due in March 2003. EPA has authorized  most states to issue and enforce storm water permits. EPA and state  permitting authorities are authorized to include additional MS4s in the  storm water program, beyond those designated automatically by EPA  regulations. Most Phase I MS4s have been issued individual permits,  while most Phase II MS4s have received coverage under general permits  that EPA and state permit authorities issued for entire groups, such as all  Phase II MS4s in a state. Figure 1 shows the processes for issuing  individual and general storm water permits.
Under the Clean Water Act, permits issued to MS4s must require controls  that reduce storm water pollution to the maximum extent practicable.  EPA intentionally did not include a precise definition of what it means to  reduce storm water pollution to the maximum extent practicable in order  to provide EPA and state permitting authorities with flexibility in  developing MS4s’ permits. As a result, EPA’s storm water regulations  largely do not identify specific controls that MS4s must implement.  Instead, the regulations direct MS4s to meet their permit requirements by  implementing storm water management programs that may include best  management practices (BMPs) in the following categories: public  education, public involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination,  construction site runoff, post-construction runoff, and pollution  prevention from commercial, industrial, and residential areas, as well as  from municipal operations. Storm water BMPs include, among other  things, prohibiting certain practices or establishing maintenance or other  management procedures to reduce or prevent storm water runoff and/or  pollutants from reaching receiving waters. Table 1 shows examples of  BMPs that MS4s may implement in each of these categories.
As part of their storm water management programs, some MS4s may also  have to implement certain activities as a result of other environmental  requirements, such as those stemming from the Total Maximum Daily  Load (TMDL) Program, EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy,  and the Endangered Species Act. Specifically:    The TMDL Program is a Clean Water Act program requiring states to  (1) set the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can  receive while still meeting water quality standards, and (2) allocate  specific amounts of the pollutant to individual entities that contribute it  to the waterbody. As a result of a TMDL for a pollutant contained in  storm water runoff, an MS4 may have to implement certain activities,  such as treating storm water runoff to ensure that the amount of  pollution it discharges does not exceed the TMDL.
EPA’s 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy provides  guidance to permitting authorities and municipalities on how to meet  the Clean Water Act’s pollution control goals through NPDES permits  issued to combined sewer systems. The policy requires communities  with combined sewer systems to take action to address overflows  caused when the amount of storm water entering pipes already  carrying sewage exceeds the capacity of the system. Actions that  communities take to adhere to this policy, such as separating their  sanitary and storm sewer systems, can affect their storm water  programs by increasing the size of the MS4 and requiring controls for  storm water runoff previously discharged through the combined sewer  system.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits, among other things,  actions that harm endangered species within the United States.  Actions that harm endangered species might include discharging  pollution that kills these species or destroys their habitats. As a result,  an MS4 may have to take steps through its storm water program to  protect endangered species, such as improving the quality of storm  water discharges to certain streams to prevent damage to these  species’ breeding, feeding, or sheltering areas.
MS4s outline their storm water management programs in plans that they  submit to their permitting authority. According to EPA regulations, MS4s  have up to 5 years to fully implement their programs. In addition, MS4s  may work with other entities including the state, neighboring MS4s, or  community groups to implement their storm water management programs.  These relationships may be established by MS4s applying for permit  coverage together as co-permittees, or through agreements allowing  individual permittees to share responsibility for storm water activities. For  those MS4s that establish co-permittee relationships, one MS4 may assume  the position of a lead permittee and implement activities, such as  monitoring, public education, and reporting on behalf of the co-permittees.
MS4s must submit annual reports on their storm water management  efforts that include information on (1) the status of compliance with  permit conditions, (2) proposed changes or revisions to the storm water  management program, and (3) results of information collected and  analyzed, including monitoring data, if any, during the reporting period.  In addition, Phase I MS4s must submit information on annual program  expenditures and a budget for the following year. Phase II MS4s also must  submit (1) an assessment of the appropriateness of their BMPs and  progress towards achieving identified measurable goals in each of the six  BMP categories, (2) a summary of the storm water activities planned for  the next reporting cycle, and (3) notice if the MS4 is relying on another  entity to satisfy any of the permit obligations.
In some cases, MS4s may obtain federal funding to help implement storm  water management efforts. The primary source of federal funds for storm  water activities is the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), which  was created by the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act as a source of  independent, permanent, low-cost financing for a wide range of efforts to  protect or improve water quality. However, from July 1987 to June 2006,  only $346 million, or less than 1 percent of all CWSRF funding for  wastewater projects, was loaned for storm water projects. Other types of  federal assistance that may be available to MS4s include grant and  technical assistance programs. Finally, assistance provided through other  federal agencies’ programs may have a storm water component. For  example, federal community development block grants may be provided  for activities that include some aspect of storm water runoff management.
section_title: Storm Water Permit Issuance Has Been Slow and Many Communities Have Not Fully Implemented Activities
paragraphs: Storm water program implementation has been slow for both Phase I and  II MS4s. Although the Phase I and II federal application deadlines for  storm water permits passed years ago—around 14 years ago for Phase I  and 4 years ago for Phase II—nearly 11 percent of MS4s have not yet  received permits, and thus are not required to implement storm water  management activities. Moreover, for many MS4s, litigation over the  process of issuing storm water permits or their conditions, among other  reasons, delayed program implementation for years after the initial permit  application deadlines. As a result, almost all Phase II and some Phase I  MS4s are still in the early stages of implementing their first 5-year permits.  Furthermore, some permitted MS4s may not be complying with their  permit requirements.
subsections: section_title: A Large Number of Communities Are Still Not Permitted and Many Permits Were Issued Years after Application Deadlines
paragraphs: As of fall 2006, a substantial number of MS4s—11 Phase I and an estimated  809 Phase II MS4s (nearly 11 percent)—had not yet been issued permits.  Furthermore, this problem is widespread. More than half of all permitting  authorities nationwide still had not issued all of their permits. Some  permitting authorities, including Texas, Washington, and EPA Region 6,  had not issued any Phase II permits because they had not yet developed  final permits, or (in the case of Region 6) the permit had not yet gone into  effect. For instance, while one Texas official indicated that most issues  with the state’s Phase II permit had been resolved as of October 2006,  another official anticipated that the permit would not be final until mid- 2007. Appendix III provides more detailed data on the status of storm  water program implementation, by state.
While EPA and state permitting authorities issued storm water permits to  most MS4s by the fall of 2006, in many cases these permits were issued  years after the initial application deadlines. For example, as shown in  figure 2, although some Phase I MS4s’ initial permits were issued by 1993,  many other Phase I MS4s did not receive their initial permits until years  later. Ultimately, almost 93 percent of permitted Phase I MS4s were not  permitted until after 1993.
Furthermore, as figure 3 shows, some Phase II MS4s did not receive permit  coverage until years after the 2003 permit application deadline, and a  substantial number are still not permitted.
These delays in issuing MS4s their Phase I and II permits were caused, in  part, by legal challenges to both the process of issuing storm water  permits and the conditions of these permits. Several EPA, state, and other  storm water experts we spoke with said that legal challenges had  complicated implementation, and many of these individuals noted that the  legal challenges limited permitting authorities’ ability to issue permits on  time. One challenge in particular—Environmental Defense Center v. EPA,  decided in 2003 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit— significantly affected the Phase II permitting process for MS4s in some  states. At issue was whether permit authorities had to submit MS4s’  permit coverage documents for public review and comment. To streamline  the permit application process, EPA’s Phase II regulations authorized the  use of general permits for MS4s. However, the regulations did not require  the notices of intent that MS4s submitted for coverage under these permits  to be subject to public notice and comment. The court held that EPA’s  failure to require the review of these documents violated the Clean Water  Act. To implement the court’s decision, EPA issued guidance in April 2004  that instructed permitting authorities to make MS4s’ notices of intent  available to the public, provide the public with an opportunity to request a  hearing, and review the notices of intent to ensure their consistency with  the permit.
Permitting authorities’ responses to this decision delayed permit issuance  for some MS4s. In particular, permitting authorities for a few states  decided to change their Phase II permitting processes and issue individual  permits—rather than general permits. An EPA Region 10 official expressed  concern over the number of legal challenges that had been filed against  permitting authorities’ use of general permits to address local  environmental issues, and cited it as a key reason for these decisions. For  example, EPA Region 10 was about to issue a general permit for Phase II  MS4s in Alaska and Idaho when the 2003 decision was issued. The EPA  Region 10 official reported that, as a result of the decision, the region  withdrew its draft permit and decided to issue watershed-based individual  permits to MS4s to address specific water quality concerns. As a result of  the extensive planning, consultation, and negotiation involved in issuing  these permits individually, as of fall 2006 Region 10 had not issued permits  to any Phase II MS4s in Idaho, although it had issued such permits to  Phase II MS4s in Alaska. Similarly, an Oregon official noted that the state  initially planned on issuing a Phase II general permit. Because of concern  over the impact of the 2003 decision, the state decided to withdraw its  draft general permit and issue individual permits to Phase II MS4s.
Several EPA and state officials also noted that legal challenges to the  specific conditions of storm water permits delayed permit issuance. For  instance, an EPA Region 10 official reported that the issuance of  Washington’s Phase II general permits was delayed because environmental  groups filed legal challenges against general permits the state had  previously drafted for construction sites and industrial facilities. The  environmental groups claimed that these general permits did not  adequately address impaired waters. The Region 10 official said that these  challenges caused Washington to postpone issuance of general permits for  Phase II MS4s until it was able to resolve the groups’ concerns about how  to deal with impaired waters in the context of a general permit.  Conversely, a South Carolina official said that cities in that state  challenged the state’s Phase II general permit because they considered the  permit requirements to be too strict.
Other factors also contributed to delays in issuing storm water permits to  MS4s. For example, officials for two permitting authorities we spoke with  linked the lack of staff resources available for implementing the storm  water program to competing priorities, such as implementing the TMDL  Program and other Clean Water Act efforts. Finally, some MS4s may not  yet have received permit coverage because of questions about whether  they should be included in the program. For example, Missouri has a few  MS4s where the portion of the population served by the MS4 inside the  urban area is actually less than the population threshold set by the federal  regulations. However, these MS4s may also serve people outside the urban  area, bringing their total population served above the federal threshold.  Missouri officials said that they are still trying to determine whether the  state should require these MS4s to obtain permit coverage.
section_title: Many Communities Have Not Fully Developed Storm Water Programs
paragraphs: Because many MS4s are still in the early stages of implementing their  storm water permit requirements, the results of their efforts cannot  generally be assessed. Nearly all Phase II MS4s (4,589, or over 99 percent  of those permitted) and some Phase I MS4s (38, or almost 13 percent of  those permitted) received their initial permits in 2002 or after, and  therefore are still in their first permit terms. According to EPA regulations,  MS4s are typically not responsible for full program implementation until  the end of their first 5-year permit term. Therefore, state officials and  storm water experts reported that they expect MS4s to take some time to  gather information and develop their programs. For example, Virginia  officials said that Phase II MS4s in that state would not have their  programs fully developed and implemented until the end of the first permit  cycle in 2007. Furthermore, because MS4s are still developing their storm  water management programs, some EPA enforcement officials and state  officials reported that they could not yet assess the degree to which MS4s  are in compliance with the Phase II regulations. For example, a  Connecticut official noted that some Connecticut MS4s had only  submitted monitoring results on the types of pollution they face and did  not yet have complete annual reports.
Some permitting authorities who have attempted to assess the status of  their MS4s’ programs found instances in which MS4s may not be  complying with the conditions of their permits. State and other storm  water experts we spoke with noted that there is a wide variation in the  level of noncompliance among permittees—ranging from MS4s that are  inadequately implementing storm water BMPs to MS4s that are potentially  violating their permits. For example, auditors for EPA Region 9 and the  state of California recently discovered, among other things, that some  MS4s (1) had not developed storm water management plans, (2) were not  properly performing an adequate number of inspections to enforce their  storm water ordinances, and (3) were lax in implementing BMPs at  publicly owned construction sites. They also found that some MS4s were  not adequately controlling storm water runoff at municipally owned and  operated facilities, such as maintenance yards. In one case, an MS4’s state- issued permit required it to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the  storm sewer system to the maximum extent practicable. However,  auditors found that street-sweeping debris was dumped about 10 feet from  a storm drain inlet at one of this MS4’s facilities.
section_title: Several Factors Influence the Extent to Which Storm Water Program Implementation Is or Could Be a Burden
paragraphs: Because many MS4s are still in their first permit cycle, it is too early to  determine the overall program burden. However, several factors influence  the extent to which implementing the storm water program burdens an  MS4. Some of these factors may lessen the burden MS4s face from  implementing the storm water program, while other factors may increase  the extent to which the program is a burden on MS4s. In the future, several  factors could increase the program’s burden on MS4s.
subsections: section_title: Regulatory Flexibility, Preexisting Activities, and Communities’ Decisions Can Help Reduce Burden
paragraphs: According to EPA, the maximum extent practicable standard gives MS4s  the flexibility to design their storm water programs using BMPs that  require varying levels of effort and cost. MS4s may choose to implement  lower cost, nonstructural BMPs over higher cost structural activities. In  addition, MS4s can choose less costly routes to implement specific BMPs.  For example, MS4s could be in compliance with permit requirements if  they:    educate the public by having a few staff members put together a storm  water brochure rather than hiring a public relations firm to develop an  elaborate media campaign, or    map their storm sewer systems by purchasing a map from a gas station  and asking volunteers to place dots where the storm water outfalls are  located rather than creating a sophisticated geographic information  system map.
MS4s can also count storm water management efforts they were  undertaking before implementing the program towards meeting their  permit requirements. In some cases we found the following:    States already had regulations to control runoff. Several state  officials reported that they had state storm water regulations in place  prior to the storm water program. Some of these state programs began  as early as the 1970s.
MS4s were already implementing comprehensive storm water  management programs. For example, officials in Austin, Texas, said  that by 1991, virtually the entire city was required to have structural  storm water controls, and that almost all of the controls that it now  uses to meet the conditions of its storm water permit were in place  prior to the permit. In addition, a local official in Florida said that some  MS4s in his region were implementing storm water management  programs long before they were covered under an NPDES permit.
MS4s conducted individual storm water management activities.
For example, several officials reported that MS4s were conducting  street-sweeping, reviewing construction site plans, or collecting  household hazardous waste prior to the storm water program.
Federal and state program funds and/or dedicated funding sources can  also be used to reduce the burden of implementing the storm water  program. As of June 30, 2006, 19 states had provided nearly $346 million in  low-interest loans from their CWSRF programs for storm water projects.  Several state officials also reported that their states established programs  to provide financial support to MS4s to implement storm water activities.  For example, a New Jersey official said the state allotted $12 million in  grants to help MS4s establish their programs, and a Rhode Island official  noted that most MS4s in the state took advantage of a state grant to  implement their storm water programs. In addition to obtaining federal or  state funds, officials and other experts reported that MS4s can reduce  program burdens by creating a dedicated funding source, such as a storm  water utility—a fee-based funding mechanism. With a dedicated funding  source, MS4s may reduce the annual budgetary competition with other  local funding priorities. At the same time, fee-based utilities help to ensure  equity by linking fees to the demands placed on the storm drain system  caused by the runoff from a particular property.
MS4s may also reduce the burden they face by sharing program  responsibilities with the state, co-permittees, or other entities. For  example, Maine officials said MS4s in that state shared costs by  implementing a statewide mass media campaign on storm water  management. The Phase II regulation encouraged MS4s to work  cooperatively with other Phase II MS4s or with a Phase I MS4 to avoid  duplicative efforts and take advantage of economies of scale. For example,  a Maryland official said that some Phase I Maryland counties have taken  on responsibility for helping nearby Phase II MS4s implement the program.  In one instance, a county is implementing the storm water requirements  for Phase II MS4s within the county in exchange for funding contributions  from the MS4s. The county is also submitting annual reports for these  MS4s.
In addition, MS4s may plan public projects in ways that minimize  additional expenditures and reduce program burden. One storm water  expert we spoke with reported that MS4s can avoid large-scale structural  control costs associated with new development sites by planning to  capture and filter storm water runoff at its source through environmentally  friendly techniques, such as conservation design. MS4s can also help  reduce storm water costs by scheduling construction activity for a time of  year when the erosion potential of a site is relatively low. Additionally,  some cities have begun to take steps to manage storm water runoff before  it gets into the storm sewer system—thereby avoiding costly infrastructure  investments. For instance, Portland, Oregon, recently implemented a  program to redirect residential downspouts to decrease the amount of  storm water that drains into city sewers. City officials noted that, to date,  44,000 residential downspouts have been redirected, preventing 1 billion  gallons, or approximately one-tenth of the city’s storm water, from  draining into sewers. By redirecting storm water onto lawns and gardens,  the city was able to avoid spending billions of dollars on structural storm  water systems and treatment plants.
Finally, MS4s may not experience significant program burden if, as is often  the case, developers and contractors have primary responsibility for  implementing BMPs at new and redeveloped sites. According to some  storm water experts we spoke with, developers and contractors—and not  MS4s—are implementing the more expensive structural BMPs. Such  controls may be needed to meet certain water quality standards. Moreover,  experts reported that some MS4s are reducing burden by negotiating with  homeowners’ associations or other groups to maintain these BMPs.
section_title: Additional State Permit Requirements and Litigation, Among Other Factors, May Increase Program Burden
paragraphs: Other factors may increase burdens. First, some states may require that  MS4s implement more stringent or specific storm water permit  requirements than envisioned by federal regulations to address local water  quality concerns. Several state officials noted that such requirements can  (1) widen the scope of the program, (2) establish additional program goals,  (3) institute implementation deadlines, or (4) delineate minimum  acceptable activity levels and measurable goals, which can increase the  burden for MS4s. For example, Washington’s storm water program  includes all of the portions of MS4s—not just the portion in the census- defined urban areas as required by the federal regulations—as well as the  growth areas of unincorporated counties. In addition, one of Washington’s  Phase II general permits includes a requirement that MS4s adopt an  ordinance or other enforceable mechanism to regulate runoff from new  and redeveloped sites that conforms to the state’s standards within 2-1/2  years of receiving permit coverage. The permit also requires that MS4s  institute a process to review development plans, inspect sites, and enforce  ordinance compliance within the same time frame. Specific requirements,  such as those to increase the frequency of activities, can burden MS4s. For  instance, one Wisconsin MS4 reported that a state requirement to increase  the frequency of cleaning catch basins (which are part of its storm sewer  system) will impose a burden. Additional manpower is needed during  warmer months because the city can only clean catch basins during  portions of the year when the temperature is above freezing. Also, shifting  these resources away from current sanitary sewer maintenance may  expose the city to more sanitary sewer overflows than in the past. In  addition, while previously an annual larvicide treatment effectively treated  West Nile Virus, multiple applications will now be necessary because of  the increased catch basin cleaning.
Second, permitting authorities have made adjustments to their permitting  procedures in response to legal challenges that have affected program  requirements for some MS4s. For instance, an EPA Region 10 official said  that the decision to issue watershed-based individual permits in lieu of a  Phase II general permit in response to the 2003 court decision has resulted  in more prescriptive permits than were required by the Phase II rule.  Similarly, legal challenges to the conditions of permits have required  permitting authorities to adjust these conditions. For example, a  Minnesota official said that an environmental group challenged the state’s  initial Phase II general permit, arguing that the permit would not prevent  water quality from being degraded in certain waters designated by the  state as highly valued. As a result of this challenge, Minnesota revised its  permit to include additional requirements for communities discharging to  these waters, such as evaluating their BMPs to determine whether any  adjustments are needed to prevent storm water pollution that could  degrade water quality. Such provisions could require these communities to  take actions that nondesignated communities do not have to take. Legal  challenges have also resulted in consent decrees that require MS4s to  increase efforts to control storm water runoff. One storm water expert we  spoke with stated that some MS4s do not take the program seriously until  they are forced to do so under a court order.
Third, state and other storm water officials said that requirements  incorporated into storm water permits as a result of other regulatory  programs—such as the TMDL Program, Combined Sewer Overflow Policy,  or Endangered Species Act—have increased program burdens. For  example, a Washington official reported that TMDL requirements for one  local drainage area include, among other things, monitoring for fecal  coliform concentrations at certain places and times, and doing additional  source tracing. Also, one expert noted that incorporating TMDL  requirements into storm water permits can be costly if they lead to  expensive controls such as piping storm water to a wastewater treatment  plant. Officials in Portland, Oregon, said that their storm water costs are  higher because activities the city is implementing as a result of the  Combined Sewer Overflow Policy are being implemented citywide—even  in areas where the storm and sanitary sewers are separate. Further,  Austin, Texas, officials reported that the city is taking additional steps  through its storm water activities, such as purchasing land, to address  endangered species concerns.
Fourth, resource limitations can make program implementation more  burdensome. Specifically, federal funding for storm water activities has  either decreased or been eliminated in recent years. For example,  according to EPA, federal allocations to state CWSRF grants decreased by  about $259 million (nearly 20 percent) between 2004 and 2005. Also, EPA  officials noted that the water quality cooperative agreements grants  program—otherwise known as the 104(b)(3) grants program—is ending.  The officials said that at the peak of the program, the agency was  providing around $19 million in grants. Program funds were used, in part,  to support innovative storm water projects. Additionally, officials for two  permitting authorities said they lack sufficient staff to provide technical  assistance to MS4s as they develop their storm water management  programs. For instance, an Oregon official noted that the state did not  have any full-time storm water staff until 4 years ago, which limited the  state’s ability to review MS4s’ storm water management documents in any  meaningful way. Storm water officials we spoke with also cited limited  technical expertise and staff availability in Phase II MS4s as an  implementation burden.
Fifth, some MS4s may face barriers to obtaining additional resources, such  as CWSRF loans, to help implement storm water activities. EPA storm  water and CWSRF program officials stated that smaller MS4s may not be  aware of the availability of CWSRF loans. The officials attributed this lack  of awareness to a variety of factors, including the limited outreach on the  eligibility of storm water projects for CWSRF loans that has been  conducted to date, as well as the inexperience of local officials who are  just beginning to develop storm water programs. In addition, confusion  caused by unclear language in EPA guidance could affect some MS4s’  ability to obtain CWSRF loans. For example, one EPA guidance document  lists a number of storm water activities that may be eligible for CWSRF  loans, such as rehabilitating a storm sewer system, constructing a wetland,  or purchasing a street sweeper, as long as such efforts are undertaken by a  publicly owned system. However, another section of the same guidance  indicates that an MS4 may be eligible for CWSRF funding “so long as it is a  publicly owned treatment works.” While this guidance is consistent with  federal requirements that entities receiving certain CWSRF loans be  publicly owned, a Publicly Owned Treatment Works is a specific type of  facility regulated under the Clean Water Act and is not part of an MS4.  According to one state official, the state had not issued any loans for storm  water activities under this category of CWSRF loans because the official  believed that loans were only authorized for a publicly owned treatment  work. Furthermore, many smaller Phase II MS4s may lack dedicated  funding sources. However, these MS4s need to show that they have  sufficient revenue streams to pay back a CWSRF loan in order to be  eligible to receive such a loan. In some cases, the ability of these MS4s to  establish utilities and other dedicated funding sources is limited by a lack  of authority or local opposition. For example, according to a California  official, a 67 percent vote of public approval is required in that state for  certain new taxes and fees.
Finally, MS4s’ characteristics—environmental or geographic conditions  and age of infrastructure—can increase the burden of implementing the  storm water program. State and other storm water experts we spoke with  noted that the quality of local receiving waters, whether degraded or  highly valued, is an important factor in determining if an MS4 has to  implement additional BMPs. Geographic conditions, such as the  characteristics of local soils or topography, may affect which BMPs an  MS4 selects. For example, if the composition of an MS4’s soil does not  allow storm water to infiltrate, the MS4 may need to construct a more  costly BMP. In addition, older MS4s will have higher illicit discharge  detection and elimination program costs than newer MS4s because older  infrastructure can mean more incidences of illicit connections and more  pipes needing repair.
section_title: Storm Water Program May Impose Additional Burdens in the Future
paragraphs: Four factors could increase MS4s’ storm water program burden in the  future. First, burdens could increase as EPA and state permitting  authorities reissue permits with more stringent or specific requirements  than they have done to date. Future permits may be more rigorous  because, as EPA described in publication of its regulations, compliance  with the Clean Water Act’s standard of preventing storm water pollution to  the maximum extent practicable should be an iterative process in which  MS4s refine their efforts over time as they consider current conditions and  the effectiveness of their BMPs. For example, a California official said that  with each generation of Phase I permits the state has included more  specific requirements, such as (1) identifying the BMPs MS4s have to  implement, (2) establishing which pollutants MS4s should focus on  reducing, and (3) detailing the number of times MS4s must inspect a BMP.  Similarly, EPA Region 5 officials noted that states in the region that issued  their permits at the beginning of Phase II did not include specific  conditions, while those states that issued their permits more recently  included specific conditions, such as dates by which MS4s had to  complete certain activities. The officials said that as permits expire and  are reissued, they expect that more states will make their permit  conditions and compliance dates more specific. EPA and state officials  and other storm water experts also said that permits could become more  burdensome as requirements get added from future TMDLs. While TMDLs  have been required by the Clean Water Act since 1972, until recently many  had not been developed. As a result, according to EPA, the agency is under  court order or consent decrees in many states to ensure that TMDLs are  established, either by the state or EPA. Several of the officials we spoke  with noted that they expect additional storm water permit requirements as  more TMDLs are developed. Future legal challenges to storm water  permits could also increase permit requirements, as they have done in the  past, according to EPA and state permitting officials.
Second, more aggressive permit enforcement could cause some MS4s to  increase their efforts to implement the program—potentially increasing  the burdens that they face. With some exceptions, enforcement of MS4s’  storm water permits has been limited to date. EPA Region 5 officials said  that early on, the agency’s role in implementing the storm water program  was to make sure that state permitting authorities adopted the necessary  rules, issued permits to MS4s, and kept the permits current. According to  one storm water expert, the lack of permit enforcement has, in part,  contributed to some MS4s’ noncompliance with their permit conditions.  However, officials with EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance  Assurance (the Office), told us they expect to emphasize the enforcement  of storm water permits in the future. For example, while officials stated  that the Office had conducted only 30 Phase I MS4 audits as of November  2006, one official said that EPA is taking steps to increase compliance  monitoring of Phase I and II MS4s by, for example, modifying audit  guidance and procedures to increase the efficiency of audits and  conducting additional training for EPA regional staff. The official said that  these steps are designed to help the agency increase the number of MS4  audits and inspections it conducts. In addition, while EPA regions and  states have conducted limited MS4 audits to date, some states may be  planning to increase their efforts. For example, EPA Region 5 officials said  that the region is training state officials to conduct MS4 audits because  several states in the region have expressed interest in auditing MS4s’  permit compliance in the future.
Third, the need to maintain and replace BMPs could raise storm water  program costs in the future, and some experts indicated that BMP  maintenance and replacement costs are among the more significant  determinants of MS4s’ overall program costs. In particular, some BMPs  with relatively low installation costs have relatively high maintenance  costs. For example, a local storm water official noted that one BMP—an  underground storm water storage unit—is relatively less expensive to  install (since it does not require land space), but could be difficult and  costly to maintain. As a result, the official advocated that MS4s consider  the life-cycle costs of a BMP; that is, the administrative, inspection, and  maintenance costs—in addition to the installation costs—as they  determine which BMPs to use. Furthermore, while private developers  often bear the costs of initially installing storm water BMPs at new or  redeveloped sites, MS4s may be responsible for maintaining these BMPs  over the long term. However, some storm water officials we spoke with  said that MS4s are not adequately planning to maintain storm water BMPs  over the long term. Some BMPs, if not properly maintained, may need to  be replaced, which could lead to even greater costs for MS4s. In addition,  some BMPs may simply prove ineffective at meeting the storm water  management goals for which they were initially installed. Several storm  water experts said that because data are not available on the effectiveness  of some BMPs, controls are being installed that may not achieve their  intended purposes over time. Should MS4s need to redesign or replace  ineffective BMPs, they could face additional costs.
Fourth, the program burdens MS4s face may also increase over time  because federal funds may not be available for storm water projects— particularly CWSRF loans. Officials in a few states we contacted said  continued reductions in federal CWSRF allocations could hurt their ability  to fund storm water projects in the future. For example, in  Massachusetts—which has used more CWSRF funds for storm water  projects than any other state except Florida—officials told us that while  current CWSRF funding levels have been sufficient, future reductions in  the federal allocation to the state’s CWSRF fund could prevent the state  from being able to fund lower priority projects, such as storm water  projects. Similarly, New Jersey officials said that recent decreases in  federal funding will require the state to set priorities for distributing  CWSRF funds for projects, and municipal storm water needs would be the  first category of projects left off the state’s priority list if sufficient funding  is not available for all projects. They also told us that recent reductions in  the federal allocation to the state’s CWSRF fund have reduced New  Jersey’s ability to pay the administrative costs of the CWSRF program.  Consequently, New Jersey has initiated a fee—2 percent of a project’s  cost—to help with administrative costs. However, such a fee reduces the  funds available to MS4s to implement their storm water projects.
section_title: Methodological Concerns Raise Questions about the Usefulness of EPA’s Cost Estimates
paragraphs: Because we could not identify the overall burden MS4s face from the  storm water program, in part due to its early implementation, we could not  determine whether EPA’s Phase I and II analyses over- or underestimated  actual costs for implementing the storm water program. However, the  methodologies and data used in these studies raise questions about  whether the estimates of potential storm water costs identified in EPA’s  analyses are useful as indicators of actual program costs. Specifically, (1)  the methodology used for the Phase I analysis was not designed to  estimate national program costs or present ranges that reflect actual  program costs, (2) concerns about the validity and reliability of Phase II  data call into question the usefulness of the Phase II cost estimates, and  (3) EPA’s Phase I and II analyses did not exclude the costs of storm water  activities that MS4s may have been conducting prior to the program.
subsections: section_title: Phase I Methodology Did Not Realistically Estimate Ranges of National Program Costs
paragraphs: EPA’s 1990 Phase I cost estimate did not provide realistic estimates of the  range of national program costs. EPA estimated Phase I program costs by  modeling storm water management programs for eight hypothetical cities  representing a range of storm sewer system sizes, climatic conditions,  topographies, and other characteristics relevant to storm water pollution.  EPA modeled the per capita capital and operations and maintenance costs  of storm water management programs for these cities under the following  three scenarios:    Scenario 1 assumed the cities would implement the program using  nonstructural BMPs, such as educating the public and cleaning storm  water catch basins;    Scenario 2 assumed the cities would implement both nonstructural  BMPs and structural controls, such as excavated ditches that hold  runoff and allow it to settle (known as infiltration trenches) or  vegetative buffer zones; and    Scenario 3 assumed the cities would install more complex controls,  such as storm water treatment facilities, in addition to nonstructural  BMPs.
Because of multiple limitations in this analysis, however, EPA’s Phase I  costs cannot be statistically projected to identify national program costs.  First, while the characteristics of the hypothetical cities EPA developed  were based on actual cities, these cities were not designed to be  representative of Phase I MS4s nationwide. Second, EPA did not model  program costs for a Phase I county, even though 47 (or over 21 percent) of  the communities designated by the Phase I rule for potential coverage  under the program were counties. Third, owing to the many assumptions it  made about storm water volumes and other local characteristics, EPA  acknowledged that the costs identified for its hypothetical cities should  only be viewed as gross indicators of compliance costs, not actual  compliance costs. Finally, EPA’s cost estimate did not consider Phase I  permit application costs, which according to one state official we spoke  with, have been one of the more expensive aspects of the program. For  example, we found that six Phase I MS4s reported spending (or expecting  to spend) between $237,000 and almost $1.1 million on preparing their  Phase I permit applications.
In addition, the three scenarios identified in EPA’s Phase I analysis did not  provide a realistic estimate of the potential range of Phase I costs.  Specifically, estimated costs for the third scenario in EPA’s Phase I  analysis—implementing complex controls to treat storm water—were so  high that the agency considered it unlikely that permit authorities would  require this level of effort. While presenting cost estimates in terms of  ranges is generally desirable for capturing uncertainty in the data used and  assumptions made, EPA’s inclusion of an unrealistic scenario in this  analysis limits the usefulness of its estimated cost ranges. Table 2 shows  the ranges of per capita capital and operations and maintenance costs in  each of EPA’s three Phase I scenarios.
section_title: Limitations in the Validity and Reliability of the Phase II Data Raise Questions about the Cost Estimates
paragraphs: EPA’s 1999 Phase II cost estimate may not accurately represent program  costs because of limitations in the validity and reliability of the data the  agency used. EPA estimated costs using data from a 1998 survey  distributed to more than 1,600 potential Phase II MS4s by the National  Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA).  NAFSMA sought to (1) solicit information about the proposed Phase II  storm water program, (2) identify current storm water spending levels in  Phase II MS4s, and (3) identify future needs for these communities. It  asked the MS4s to provide annual cost data for activities they were  conducting related to the BMP categories identified by EPA’s Phase II  regulations.
EPA calculated Phase II costs by dividing reported costs per BMP category  by the population of that MS4, and then multiplying the result by an  estimated 2.62 persons per household. In addition to costs for  implementing storm water BMPs, EPA estimated costs for complying with  Phase II administrative requirements, such as submitting applications and  annual reports. These costs were averaged over a 5-year permit term to  obtain an annual administrative cost per household. EPA calculated total  Phase II costs by multiplying its per household estimate by the number of  households (based on total population) in the 5,040 MS4s it anticipated  would be regulated by the Phase II rule.
While EPA’s analysis attempts to provide a national estimate of costs, the  NAFSMA survey data EPA used are not sufficiently valid or reliable for the  purpose of making national projections about MS4s’ costs for  implementing Phase II. Of the over 1,600 MS4s surveyed, only 56 (about 3.5  percent) responded with cost data EPA could use for its analysis.  Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the 56 MS4s did not provide  responses to all of the questions that EPA relied upon to develop its  estimates. In fact, only 5 MS4s provided data for all of the questions that  EPA used, while 17 MS4s provided cost data in response to only one of the  questions EPA used for its cost analysis. Because of the low response rate  to the NAFSMA survey—either in aggregate or for each of the cost data  questions—the MS4s that responded to the survey are unlikely to be a  representative sample of Phase II MS4s nationwide.
The NAFSMA survey data are also of limited usefulness because many of  the key survey questions were extremely complicated and subject to  multiple interpretations, making it unlikely that MS4s could have  responded with valid and reliable information. For example, one survey  question asked whether an MS4 had a map of its storm sewer system. If  the MS4 answered no, then the survey asked the MS4 to provide an  estimate of the costs of preparing such a map. However, the survey design  did not lead the MS4 to provide cost information if it answered yes to this  question. As a result, an MS4 that had already developed a storm sewer  map (and should therefore have more reliable data on the cost of this  effort than an MS4 that had not yet done so) was not prompted to provide  data on the costs of developing a map in its survey response. Moreover,  the NAFSMA survey questions did not clarify the types of costs that MS4s  should report in their responses, leaving substantial room for MS4s to  interpret questions themselves. For example, one question asked MS4s to  report the annual costs of their program to detect and address illicit  discharges, including illegal dumping, to the storm sewer system.  However, the question provided no guidance on what types of activities or  costs MS4s should include in their responses.
As we have found in conducting surveys, such survey questions are  unlikely to yield reliable responses. For example, EPA guidance on  developing programs to detect and eliminate illicit discharges indicates  that these programs can have a number of different components, including  mapping systems, testing for illicit discharges, and taking steps to  eliminate discharges. However, without providing more specific directions  on the illicit discharge activities for which MS4s were to report cost data,  the NASFMA survey cannot ensure that the data MS4s reported were  comparable. Furthermore, the NAFSMA survey did not instruct MS4s on  the types of costs, such as capital, administrative, and labor, they were to  report. The difficulty in obtaining reliable data on MS4s’ storm water  activities is illustrated by the experience of one California expert we  contacted. This researcher attempted to survey six MS4s in California to  obtain data on the costs of implementing the storm water program.  However, owing in part to inconsistencies in reporting between the MS4s,  he had to conduct document reviews as well as in-depth interviews with  local officials in order to obtain reliable data.
The problems with the data collected through the NAFSMA survey limit  the usefulness of EPA’s Phase II cost estimate. Based on the responses  from 56 MS4s, EPA estimated that annual program costs would be $4.30  per capita, and reported that these costs could range from $0.20 to $25.75  per capita. However, the size of the sample of MS4s that responded with  cost data for all of the questions on program implementation costs was so  small that the survey data cannot be used to make precise estimates. As a  result, EPA’s Phase II cost estimate is much less meaningful than EPA  suggests. Finally, even if the MS4s that provided the data used in this  estimate constituted a representative sample of Phase II MS4s nationwide,  the NAFSMA survey questions were not designed to ensure that these data  were reliable—raising questions about the extent to which the data  represent actual program costs.
section_title: EPA’s Phase I and II Analyses Did Not Exclude Previous Costs of Storm Water Activities
paragraphs: The methodologies EPA used in its Phase I and II analyses also raise  concerns because neither of these analyses excluded costs for storm water  activities that MS4s were undertaking before implementing the storm  water program. As a result, EPA cannot determine the costs specifically  attributable to the program’s requirements and could overestimate costs,  which limits the estimates’ usefulness as indicators of actual program  costs. In its Phase I analysis, EPA assumed that none of its hypothetical  cities had any storm water controls already in place. For Phase II, since  the NAFSMA survey was distributed in 1998 (prior to the Phase II final  regulation in 1999 and permit application deadline in 2003), the cost data  reported by MS4s largely represent costs for activities that they were  undertaking prior to the program. However, EPA did not exclude costs for  such preexisting activities from its final cost estimate.
Several state officials and storm water experts we contacted said that,  before the program, some states had regulations in place to control storm  water runoff, and that some MS4s were (1) implementing comprehensive  storm water management programs or (2) conducting some storm water  management activities, such as street-sweeping. In addition, in publication  of both the Phase I and II regulations, EPA encouraged MS4s to consider  these preexisting activities as they developed their storm water  management programs. Therefore, to the extent that MS4s were already  taking steps to control storm water, the costs of these activities should not  be considered program implementation costs.
section_title: Assessment of Program Burden Is Hampered by Limited and Inconsistent Data
paragraphs: Any assessment of program burden will be hampered by limited and  inconsistent data on MS4s’ storm water activities and their costs.  Specifically, while MS4s must submit reports of their storm water  activities to their permitting authority, according to EPA storm water  officials, there are no national guidelines on what should be included in an  MS4’s annual report, and federal regulatory requirements are weak and  unspecific. For example, the officials noted that the Phase I rule directs  MS4s to provide information on expenditures and budgeted amounts in  their annual reports, but does not include any specific direction on what  costs should be tracked and how they should be reported. Moreover, the  Phase II rule did not require MS4s to report any cost data.
Without standard reporting guidelines, we found it difficult to use the data  in MS4s’ reports to assess the costs of the storm water program.  Specifically, we examined the cost data (either total expenditures or unit  costs) and output information (such as the number of miles swept or the  number of catch basins cleaned) in the most recent annual report  provided by the 130 MS4s we sampled. We also collected data from other  studies of BMP costs. Using all these data, we tried to identify cost ranges  for selected BMPs that we thought would be among the more commonly  implemented BMPs: public education efforts, catch basin/storm drain  cleaning, street-sweeping, and illicit discharge detection and elimination  activities.
However, our efforts to develop reliable data for all the selected BMPs  were hampered by the limited and inconsistent data available in MS4s’  annual reports. Some MS4s’ annual reports were hundreds of pages long,  with detailed data on their activities, while other MS4s’ annual reports  provided little evidence of their storm water activities or costs. In one  case, a Phase II MS4’s annual report was a one-page letter which stated  that the MS4’s estimated implementation status was “20-percent,” but  provided few additional details. As a result, we were only able to estimate  the per capita costs of street-sweeping activities, which we found ranged  between $0 and $17.51 for Phase I MS4s, and between $0 and $9.61 for  Phase II MS4s.
Overall, we found that about 18 percent of the MS4 annual reports we  reviewed reported some cost data in such a way that these data could be  used to develop ranges of BMP costs. Some MS4s’ annual reports provided  cost data that were not usable for certain BMPs. In these cases, MS4s’ data  for some BMPs were not useful because MS4s tracked and reported costs  differently. For example, where they reported cost data, Phase I MS4s  frequently reported total cost data for their activities. One Phase I MS4  estimated spending $770,000 on public education activities, including  workshops, seminars, and education programs and materials related to  water quality. However, in order to compare this total cost figure with the  total cost for other MS4s, we needed sufficiently detailed activity data to  allow for comparisons among programs with similar activities. Because  MS4s usually did not report their activities and costs consistently, it was  not possible to make such comparisons.
In addition, we found that 60 percent of the MS4 annual reports we  reviewed reported output data in such a way that these data could be used  to estimate BMP costs. Some reports included output data that could not  be used to estimate BMP costs. In these instances, MS4s’ output data for  certain BMPs were not usable because MS4s either did not report BMP  output measures consistently, or did not provide sufficiently detailed  information to estimate BMP costs. Even for street-sweeping, such  inconsistencies could cause errors in the estimated cost ranges we  developed. For instance, some reports provided estimates of the number  of lane miles swept; others provided estimates of the number of curb miles  swept; and still others simply provided estimates of the miles swept.
The difficulties in assessing program costs due to a lack of detailed and  consistently reported data are even greater for more complex BMPs,  which may have different types of costs. For example, the development of  local ordinances to control storm water pollution entails legal and  administrative costs, while the installation of a structural storm water  control (such as a retention pond) entails costs for planning, mobilization  and demobilization of construction equipment, materials, labor, and land.  Moreover, the costs of implementing any particular BMP are influenced by  a number of factors. For example, the costs of street-sweeping are  influenced by fuel and dumping costs, equipment choices, and the type of  material being swept. Therefore, the more potential variation in the scope  and nature of a BMP, the greater the need for MS4s to report detailed and  consistent data on the costs of that BMP in order to ensure that the data  reported will be comparable to those of other MS4s.
Several state officials and storm water experts we contacted cited  problems with these data as a barrier to assessing program  implementation, costs, or effectiveness. For example, according to one  expert who has audited MS4s as an EPA contractor, the quality of annual  reports varies so greatly that site visits are often necessary to obtain  accurate and detailed information about program activities. One MS4’s  annual report contained documentation showing that MS4 officials  conducted two storm water site inspections per week. However, when the  expert visited the MS4, he found that there were 5,000 sites that needed to  be inspected, and at the rate of 2 sites per week, it would take the MS4  nearly 50 years to visit each of its sites once. In addition, EPA storm water  officials said that without clear and specific reporting guidance, it is  difficult to identify the incremental activities and costs attributable to the  storm water program. The officials said that some MS4s may be reporting  costs for all storm water program activities—including costs for those  activities that were taking place prior to permit implementation.
Without specific guidance directing MS4s to provide detailed information  in their annual reports on storm water activities, costs, and results, EPA  will encounter difficulties similar to those we and others have  encountered in using the data in the annual reports to assess program  implementation, burdens, and effectiveness. For example, in January 2007,  EPA published guidance that identified a number of data elements that  permitting authorities may use for evaluating an MS4’s compliance with  program requirements by reviewing its annual reports. While the guidance,  for example, instructs evaluators to identify the total number of sites an  MS4 must inspect to determine if an inspection schedule is adequate, there  are no requirements for reporting detailed data on costs and activities in a  consistent manner. Therefore, the data collected through these evaluations  will likely vary by MS4, and be of limited use in assessing program  implementation nationwide.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Because many communities are still implementing their first permits for  controlling storm water runoff, it is too early to determine the extent to  which implementation of the program has been a burden. Furthermore,  the number of factors that can influence a community’s storm water  management activities—such as whether it can take advantage of the  flexibility provided by EPA’s storm water regulations to implement the  program in a less expensive manner, its current level of water pollution, or  whether it shares program responsibility with other entities—make it  difficult to develop a uniform assessment of the burden the storm water  program may impose nationwide. For some communities, challenges to  establishing reliable sources of local funding for their efforts can also  influence the extent to which the program is a burden.
Furthermore, it will be difficult to assess the burden of implementing the  storm water program, and for EPA to meet its goal of evaluating Phase II  starting in 2012, without more complete and consistent reporting on the  scope, costs, and results of communities’ storm water best management  practices.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to enable EPA to evaluate the implementation of the storm water  program, we are recommending that the Administrator, EPA, issue  additional program guidance and consider regulatory changes to ensure  that (1) communities report on activities in sufficient detail to determine  their scope, costs, and results; and (2) communities report this  information consistently so that it can be analyzed on a national basis.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft copy of this report to EPA for review and comment.  EPA’s letter is presented as appendix IV.
In its written comments, EPA stated that it had already taken some steps  to implement our recommendation, but agreed to investigate ways to  collect better cost data through communities’ annual reports. While EPA  indicated that it does not believe it appropriate to modify the annual  reporting regulations at this time, it said it had initiated an effort to  identify the information communities should submit in their annual  reports and to develop corresponding guidance for EPA regions, states,  and local communities. Furthermore, EPA supported the development of  an annual report template or other information collection tool. We believe  that this tool, along with EPA guidance, could help the agency obtain  better data for evaluating program implementation. However, some states  have already established their own annual report formats, and may choose  not to follow EPA’s guidance or use its annual report template. As a result,  without strengthening federal regulatory reporting requirements—such as  requiring Phase II MS4s to report cost data—we believe it could be  difficult for EPA to obtain consistent and reliable data on program  implementation nationwide. EPA also provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the congressional committees with  jurisdiction over EPA and its activities; the Honorable Stephen L. Johnson,  Administrator, EPA; and the Honorable Rob Portman, Director, Office of  Management and Budget. In addition, this report will be available at no  charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report or need additional information,  please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and of Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are  listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Briefing Provided to Congressional Requesters
paragraphs: To view appendix I, “Briefing Provided to Congressional Requesters,” click  here: http://www.gao.gov/d07479appendix1.pdf. We are providing the   51-page briefing as a separate file because the file size is 32 megabytes.  Therefore, appendix II begins on the following page, page 91.
section_title: Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In September 2004, Senator Inhofe and Senator Crapo requested that GAO  provide information on the cumulative costs that communities face from  implementing drinking water and clean water regulations. In particular,  Senator Inhofe and Senator Crapo noted that communities faced the costs  of implementing Phase II of the storm water program at the same time  they were expected to address a number of other water pollution  prevention regulations. However, the Environmental Protection Agency’s  (EPA) estimates of the costs of implementing these regulations did not  consider the burdens communities faced from regulations already in place.
To address these concerns, GAO issued Federal Water Requirements:  Challenges to Estimating the Cost Impact on Local Communities (GAO- 06-151R) in November 2005. In this report, we noted that while EPA and  others developed cost estimates for different regulatory programs, these  estimates did not provide information on the cumulative costs of  complying with federal water requirements—primarily because they were  not intended to do so. Moreover, we found that several methodological  challenges hinder efforts to develop reliable cumulative cost estimates,  including obtaining accurate and complete cost data, particularly for older  requirements; accurately allocating costs (e.g., among jurisdictions that  share costs); and establishing a causal link between community  investments and federal water requirements.
In consideration of Senator Inhofe’s and Senator Crapo’s continued  interest in the costs of EPA’s storm water program, GAO agreed, in  December 2005, to examine the implementation of Phases I and II of the  program. In this context, GAO was asked to (1) identify the progress made  in implementing the storm water program, (2) determine the extent to  which the storm water program burdens communities, (3) evaluate the  accuracy of EPA’s cost estimates, and (4) examine the data available for  future assessment of program burdens.
To identify the progress made in implementing the storm water program,  we collected and analyzed storm water permittee data for all 50 states  between early March and early June 2006. Specifically, from the 3 EPA  regions and 45 states with permitting authority, we obtained data on the  number of Phase I and II municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)  that (1) were required to have a storm water permit, (2) obtained a permit,  (3) received a waiver from permit coverage, or (4) had not obtained either  a permit or a waiver. Moreover, we developed a detailed database of  Phase I and II MS4s that included information on each MS4’s:    date of initial permit coverage (by year),  type of entity (traditional local government or nontraditional entity),   type of permit (individual or general),    source of designation (the federal rule or as a result of additional  designation criteria set by the EPA region or state), and    co-permittee status (whether the MS4 established a co-permittee  relationship with another MS4 or other entity to share responsibility for  implementing permit requirements).
To ensure a consistent, reliable, and verifiable approach to collecting  these data, we developed and distributed a standardized data request. We  sent the data request to the EPA regional and state officials that EPA  identified as being in charge of storm water permitting for each state.  Furthermore, to gain a better understanding of the reliability of the data  we obtained, we conducted structured interviews with each of the  permitting officials during which we asked about how they collected,  processed, and maintained their storm water data. Specifically, we asked  these officials to provide information on:    how their data are stored,    whether they assign MS4s a unique identifier for tracking purposes,    what sources they use to compile their data,   how often their data are updated and when this was last done,  reasons why their data might not be complete,    whether checks are performed on the accuracy of their data or to  identify duplicate entries, and   their confidence in the accuracy and completeness of their data.
We also performed additional checks to ensure the reliability of the data  we collected. First, to ensure the data provided by permitting authorities  were complete, we compared summary statistics for each state with the  individual permittee data we received. Second, we identified any errors or  inconsistencies in the data by, for example, sorting the data to distinguish  duplicate entries. In cases where we identified errors or inconsistencies,  we resolved these issues during follow-up interviews conducted with the  permitting officials. Third, we clarified which MS4s should be considered  traditional or nontraditional MS4s. Fourth, we confirmed the dates of  MS4s’ initial permit coverage. Fifth, in cases where EPA or state officials  reported that MS4s established co-permittee relationships, we verified, if  possible, which MS4 was the lead permittee and how many co-permittees  were associated with the permit. Based on these assessments, we  determined that the data we collected were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our audit work.
As many EPA and state permitting authorities indicated that they were still  developing and finalizing MS4s’ initial permits around the time of our data  collection effort, we conducted a second data collection effort between  October and December 2006 to obtain updated data. During this second  data collection effort, we obtained data on the number of Phase I and II  MS4s that had received permit coverage or a waiver since the initial data  collection effort. We also obtained data on the number of co-permittees  associated with these newly issued permits. We did not obtain certain  data, such as the permit number, type of permit, or source of designation  for these MS4s. However, we checked all of the updated data we received  for errors and inconsistencies, and conducted follow-up interviews to  resolve any issues we identified. In technical comments provided on a  draft copy of this report, EPA indicated that there are some differences  between its storm water permittee data and the data we present in this  report. For example, EPA said that some MS4s were required to obtain  Phase I permits as a result of additional designations made by their  permitting authority, but may not have been notified that they were  required to obtain this coverage until years after the program began. We  did not obtain information on the dates when MS4s were notified that they  were required to obtain permit coverage; the data we present on the status  of storm water program implementation include MS4s that received permit  coverage in a given year, and MS4s that have not yet obtained permit  coverage, according to EPA regional and state officials. In addition, EPA  said that some additional MS4s received waivers from Phase I of the  program. However, the data we obtained from EPA regional and state  officials indicated that these MS4s were generally either permitted under  Phase I, permitted under Phase II with no indication that they had been  waived, or were not yet permitted or waived.
In addition, to assess the status of program implementation we collected  information on storm water program requirements and reasons why MS4s  may not yet have permit coverage. Specifically, we examined the Clean  Water Act and EPA’s Phase I and II storm water regulations to gain an  understanding of permitting processes and program requirements. Then,  to identify the types of best management practices (BMPs) that MS4s can  implement to meet program requirements, we reviewed EPA’s guidance  for states and MS4s, and assessed the likelihood that MS4s would  implement certain BMPs through our interviews with EPA and state  permitting authorities and other storm water experts. Finally, we  examined relevant legal decisions concerning storm water permit  processes and conditions. We also discussed the impact of these decisions,  including whether they delayed permit issuance, during our interviews  with storm water officials and experts.
To determine the extent to which the storm water program has imposed a  burden on communities, we initially considered estimating the ranges of  costs for Phase I and II MS4s implementing the program. Using the  database of permittees we developed through our 50-state data collection  effort, we selected a random sample of 143 permitted Phase I and II MS4s  that had been implementing their storm water permits for at least 1 year as  of June 2006. The sample was designed to allow us to generalize any cost  data we obtained to the universe of Phase I and II MS4s. To this sample,  we added a judgmental selection of 7 MS4s that we believed had well- established storm water programs and good cost information based on our  interviews with storm water experts and storm water management studies  we reviewed. We contacted each of these 150 MS4s and requested copies  of their annual reports, storm water management plans, permit  applications, and related documents. We developed a data collection  instrument which we planned to use to analyze the information on storm  water activities and costs that MS4s included in the documents we  collected. We intended to supplement the cost data obtained through this  effort with data on activity costs we obtained from our review of national,  state, and local studies and publications on the costs of storm water BMPs.
However, during the process of testing our data collection instrument we  encountered a number of challenges. First, we found that MS4s’ annual  reports provided widely varying detail on their activities, which made it  hard to compare the data we gathered from different MS4s’ documents.  Second, we found it difficult to determine which activities MS4s were  conducting before the program. For example, we found evidence in MS4s’  permit application documents that they were taking some steps to manage  storm water runoff before the program began. However, in reviewing  subsequent annual reports we had difficulty determining whether these  activities had continued at the same level of effort, or, if the level of effort  had increased, the data for estimating the cost impacts of this increase  were not provided. Third, we found it challenging to identify MS4s’ actual  program costs due to a lack of specific information on (1) how costs were  shared in instances where MS4s cooperated with other entities to  implement program requirements, and (2) what efforts were taken  because of storm water program requirements versus those that were  taken because of MS4s’ own initiative or the requirements of other  environmental programs.
As a result of these and other challenges associated with our initial  methodology, we revised our approach to evaluating the extent to which  implementing the storm water program has burdened MS4s by examining  the factors that influence the extent of program burden instead of  estimating ranges of program costs. To identify the factors that influence  storm water program burdens and characterize which factors may  increase or reduce these burdens, we interviewed EPA, state, and local  officials, and almost 20 storm water experts from industry, academia, and  relevant state and local government associations. Specifically, we  interviewed EPA officials with the Office of Wastewater Management’s  Storm Water Program, the Office of Science and Technology’s Effluents  Guidelines Program, the Office of Research and Development’s Wet- Weather Flow Research Program, and six regional offices. We asked state  permitting officials about the factors that could influence program  burdens during the follow-up interviews we conducted as part of our 50- state data collection effort. Further, we interviewed officials from  Altamonte Springs, Florida; Austin, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and  Portland, Oregon. Finally, the state and local government associations we  contacted included the National Association of Flood and Stormwater  Management Agencies, the Association of State and Interstate Water  Pollution Control Administrators, and the Environmental Council of the  States.
In addition to interviewing regulatory officials and other experts, we  obtained information on the factors that influence program burdens  through an extensive literature review of national, state, and local storm  water BMP studies. We identified roughly 55 studies related to storm water  management practices based on our expert interviews, and internet and  database searches. Due to concerns about their methodology, data  sources, or limits in geographic area or BMP type, we excluded 33 of the  studies. We then synthesized information from the remaining 22 studies  based on factors that can influence storm water program burdens, such as  the costs of implementing particular BMPs. We then incorporated this  information into our analysis of statements from the experts we  interviewed.
As part of our effort to gather information on the extent to which program  implementation has been a burden on MS4s, we also obtained data on  federal funding for storm water projects. Specifically, we contacted EPA  staff, including officials in the Office of Wastewater Management and the  Office of the Chief Financial Officer, to collect information on the  availability of federal funds for storm water activities, as well as data on  the amount of funds provided. After confirming that wastewater treatment  loans from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) are the  primary source of federal storm water funding, we conducted targeted  follow-up interviews with nine states that we selected based on factors  including the amount of CWSRF funding they used for storm water-related  projects and their populations. We asked these officials to provide  information on their experiences using these loans to fund storm water  projects and how they set funding priorities. We also obtained information  from both EPA and state officials we interviewed on the potential barriers  that may prevent MS4s from applying for or receiving these loans. To  assess the reliability of the CWSRF funding data we analyzed, we  contacted an EPA official responsible for managing the data. We obtained  information describing the CWSRF program, its data management  procedures, and the reliability of these data. Based on the official’s  responses, these data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our  report.
To assess the potential for future changes in program burdens, we asked  about the factors that could influence future burdens during our  interviews with regulatory officials and other storm water experts. From  these interviews, we obtained information on the extent to which the  burdens MS4s face may increase from more stringent or specific permit  requirements, as well as increasing BMP maintenance and replacement  costs. For information on the potential impact of increased storm water  permit enforcement, we contacted officials from EPA’s Office of  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. We also discussed this issue  during our interviews with EPA regional officials and other storm water  experts.
To examine the accuracy of EPA’s cost estimates, we analyzed the  methodology and data used by the agency to estimate the costs for  implementing Phases I and II of the storm water program. Specifically, we  assessed EPA’s use of hypothetical cities as the basis for its estimate of  Phase I program costs. In addition, we obtained data on Phase I permit  application costs by reviewing permit application documents we collected  from the MS4s in our sample. Of the 57 Phase I MS4s in our sample of 150,  we were able to identify Phase I permit application cost data in 10 of these  MS4s’ permit application documents. However, we were not able to  identify cost data for both Parts I and II of the Phase I permit application  for all of these MS4s. Consequently, we only reported data for the 6 MS4s  for which we were able to identify total Phase I permit application costs,  or costs for both Parts I and II of the application. We did not assess the  reliability of these data. For Phase II, we examined the methodology and  data EPA used for its analysis of Phase II program costs. We also obtained  and analyzed the raw survey data collected by the National Association of  Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies and used by EPA to develop  the Phase II cost estimate. Finally, we interviewed knowledgeable EPA  and state officials and other storm water experts to obtain their views on  the accuracy of EPA’s cost estimates, and the extent to which MS4s were  implementing storm water management activities before the program.
To summarize future challenges associated with evaluating the storm  water program’s burden, we conducted a limited review of the documents  we received from our nationwide sample of MS4s. Of the 150 MS4s in our  sample, we received at least one annual report from 130. We reviewed the  most recent annual report for each of these 130 MS4s to obtain data on  activities that we expected to be among the more commonly implemented,  including public education BMPs, catch basin/storm drain cleaning, street- sweeping, and illicit discharge detection and elimination activities.  Through this effort, we collected any cost data included in the document  for the selected BMPs, either as total expenditures or unit costs. We also  collected output information to the extent it was available, such as the  number of miles swept or the number of catch basins cleaned. We planned  to identify ranges of costs for these activities based on the data we found,  supplemented with data from the storm water BMP studies we reviewed.
However, we found limited and inconsistent data in MS4s’ annual reports.  As a result, with the exception of street-sweeping, we were unable to  identify ranges of costs for these activities. The estimated range of Phase I  street-sweeping costs we present in the report is based on data we  identified in 10 MS4s’ annual reports, as well as data for 10 Phase I MS4s  that we obtained from other documentation we reviewed. The estimated  range of Phase II street-sweeping costs is based on data from 14 MS4s’  annual reports. We developed a per capita street-sweeping cost for each  MS4 by dividing that MS4’s total street-sweeping cost by its estimated  population as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau for July 1, 2005. Some  MS4s reported only output information (e.g., number of miles swept). For  those MS4s, we obtained total street-sweeping costs using an estimated  street-sweeping cost per mile that we calculated based on MS4s that  reported both total cost and output information. We adjusted all cost data  to 2006 dollars.
This analysis has a number of limitations. First, the sample size is  extremely small, which could impact the reliability of our estimated cost  ranges. Second, the MS4s for which we were able to obtain street- sweeping data did not always report these data in consistent units. For  instance, some reports included estimates of the number of lane miles  swept, while others reported estimates of the number of curb miles swept,  and still others simply reported estimates of the miles swept. While it  might be reasonable to assume that curb and lane miles are approximately  equal measures of distance, additional follow-up would be needed to  confirm the data for MS4s that simply reported the number of miles swept.  Third, we did not assess the reliability of the data included in these annual  reports.
We conducted our work between January 2006 and April 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix III: Detailed Analysis of Storm Water Program Implementation Data
paragraphs: Number of MS4s that have not  received a permit or a waiverLead permittees include MS4s reported by EPA and state permitting authorities as being a co- permittee with one or more MS4s and having lead responsibility for coordinating or implementing  activities for those co-permittees. Some MS4s cooperate with other MS4s without becoming co- permittees; however, the number of MS4s with these cooperative relationships are not represented in  the table.  uired to obtain Phase II permit coverage had they not obtained coverage under Phase I. We  counted such MS4s as Phase I co-permittees because they are implementing the program under the  conditions of a Phase I permit.  uirements by permitting  authorities because they met certain conditions, such as having a combined sewer system that  served enough of their population to bring them below the Phase I population threshold. Many of  these MS4s were subseuently permitted under Phase II of the storm water program, and we  included them in the data provided in table 4. In some cases, Phase I MS4s were exempted, but not  officially waived, from Phase I reuirements. For consistency, we counted these MS4s as being  waived.  uired to obtain.
These states did not have any MS4s that were reuired to obtain Phase I permits.
In California, three MS4s are the lead permittees for multiple permits; however, we counted each  of these permittees only once in table 3. Also, one MS4 received a Phase I permit and later  obtained coverage under a Phase II permit, while another MS4 is the lead permittee under both a  Phase I and a Phase II permit. We included these MS4s in table 3 rather than table 4 because  they first received coverage under a Phase I permit. In addition, four MS4s received coverage as  both Phase I co-permittees and Phase II lead permittees. We included the data for these four  MS4s in table 4 since that is the phase of the program under which they are lead permittees.
One Oregon MS4 has received coverage as a co-permittee under two different permits; however,  we counted this MS4 only once in table 3.
Two of Washington’s Phase I MS4s are lead permittees that received coverage under multiple  permits; however, these permittees are counted only once. Also, one Washington MS4 received  coverage as both a lead permittee, and a co-permittee with a different MS4. We counted this MS4  only once in table 3.
Delaware’s Phase I co-permittees include four MS4s that volunteered to implement the program, but  which were never officially reuired to obtain permit coverage under Phase I or II.
Number of MS4s that have not  received a permit or a waiver1 Number of MS4s that have not  received a permit or a waiver809 Lead permittees include MS4s reported by EPA and state permitting authorities as being a co- permittee with one or more MS4s and having lead responsibility for coordinating or implementing  activities for those co-permittees. Some MS4s cooperate with other MS4s without becoming co- permittees; however, with some exceptions, the number of MS4s with these cooperative relationships  are not represented in the table.  uirements by EPA and  state permitting authorities because they met certain conditions, such as they did not own or operate  any roads or drains that discharged into local waterways. In some cases, Phase II MS4s were  exempted, but not officially waived, from Phase II reuirements. For consistency, we counted these  MS4s as being waived.  uired to obtain permit coverage. The totals shown are estimates  provided by these officials.
In these states, some MS4s are covered under multiple permits:
One California MS4 received coverage under the state’s Phase II general permit twice; however,  we counted this MS4 only once in table 4. Also, one MS4 received a Phase I permit and later  obtained coverage under a Phase II permit, while another MS4 is the lead permittee under both a  Phase I and a Phase II permit. We included these MS4s in table 3 rather than table 4 because  they first received coverage under a Phase I permit. In addition, four MS4s received coverage as  both Phase I co-permittees and Phase II lead permittees. We included the data for these four  MS4s in table 4 since that is the phase of the program under which they are lead permittees.
One Connecticut MS4 received two Phase II permits; however, we counted this MS4 only once in  table 4.
Thirteen Michigan MS4s received multiple Phase II permits; however, we counted these MS4s  only once in table 4.  uently, although  these MS4s have not entered into co-permittee relationships, Kentucky considers them to be in  compliance with program reuirements. Therefore, we included these MS4s among those that have  received coverage as co-permittees.  uirements, while the other meets the reuirements of the state’s  pollution prevention permitting system. The data we present for New Jersey include only MS4s  covered under the permits meeting federal reuirements. Regarding the number of waivers issued by  New Jersey, some of the MS4s were waived from meeting federal storm water reuirements, but  were covered under permits issued under the state program. We did not obtain data on the number of  MS4s for which this occurred.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from EPA
section_title: Appendix V: Key Contributors to This Report
subsections: section_title: Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Diane B. Raynes, Assistant  Director; Tim Bazzle; Kevin Bray; Mark Braza; Ellen M. Crocker; Kathleen  M. Drennan; Brian Hanley; Benjamin Howe; Krista Loose; Christopher  Murray; Mehrzad Nadji; Ellen Phelps Ranen; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman;  and Winnie Tsen made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Clean Water: How States Allocate Revolving Loan Funds and Measure  Their Benefits. GAO-06-579. Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2006.
Federal Water Requirements: Challenges to Estimating the Cost Impact  on Local Communities. GAO-06-151R. Washington, D.C.: November 30,  2005.
Storm Water Pollution: Information Needed on the Implications of  Permitting Oil and Gas Construction Activities. GAO-05-240.  Washington, D.C.: February 9, 2005.
Water Quality: Better Data and Evaluation of Urban Runoff Programs  Needed to Assess Effectiveness. GAO-01-679. Washington, D.C.: June 29,  2001.