Water Quality Issues in the 112th Congress: Oversight and Implementation

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

Much progress has been made in achieving the ambitious goals that Congress established nearly 40 years ago in the Clean Water Act (CWA) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. However, long-standing problems persist, and new problems have emerged. Water quality problems are diverse, ranging from pollution runoff from farms and ranches, city streets, and other diffuse or “nonpoint” sources, to toxic substances discharged from factories and sewage treatment plants.

There is little agreement among stakeholders about what solutions are needed and whether new legislation is required to address the nation’s remaining water pollution problems. For some time, efforts to comprehensively amend the CWA have stalled as interests have debated whether and exactly how to change the law. Congress has instead focused legislative attention on enacting narrow bills to extend or modify selected CWA programs, but not any comprehensive proposals.

For several years, the most prominent legislative water quality issue has concerned financial assistance for municipal wastewater treatment projects. House and Senate committees have approved bills on several occasions, but, for various reasons, no legislation has been enacted. At issue has been the role of the federal government in assisting states and cities in meeting needs to rebuild, repair, and upgrade wastewater treatment plants, especially in light of capital costs that are projected to be as much as $390 billion. In the 111th Congress, the House passed H.R. 1262 to reauthorize the CWA’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) program to finance wastewater infrastructure, and a companion bill, S. 1005, was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. No legislation was enacted. Reauthorization legislation was introduced again in the 112th Congress (H.R. 3145).

Programs that regulate activities in wetlands also have been of interest, especially CWA Section 404, which has been criticized by landowners for intruding on private land-use decisions and for imposing excessive economic burdens. Environmentalists view this regulatory program as essential for maintaining the health of wetland ecosystems, and they are concerned about court rulings that have narrowed regulatory protection of wetlands and about related administrative actions. Many stakeholders desire clarification of the act’s regulatory jurisdiction, but they differ on what solutions are appropriate. In the 111th Congress, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved a bill that sought to clarify but not expand the CWA’s geographic scope (S. 787). Because some stakeholders believe that the bills would expand federal jurisdiction—not simply clarify it—the bills were controversial, and no legislation was enacted. In contrast to approaches reflected in earlier proposals, bills in the 112th Congress would narrow the scope of the act’s jurisdiction (S. 2122/H.R. 4304).

These issues have drawn interest in the 112th Congress, as well. In addition, a number of other CWA issues have been the subject of congressional oversight and legislation, with some legislators highly critical of recent regulatory initiatives and others more supportive of EPA’s actions. Among the topics of interest are environmental and economic impacts of Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts, federal promulgation of water quality standards in Florida, regulation of surface coal mining activities in Appalachia, and other CWA regulatory actions. Congressional interest in several of these issues has been reflected in debate over policy provisions of legislation to provide appropriations for EPA in FY2012 (P.L. 112-74) and FY2013 (H.R. 6091).


Date of Report: December 10, 2012
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R41594
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41594.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?

James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

Since Barack Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations implementing the pollution control statutes enacted by Congress. Critics have reacted strongly. Many, both within Congress and outside of it, have accused the agency of reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules. The House has conducted vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th Congress, and has approved several bills that would overturn specific regulations or limit the agency’s authority. Particular attention is being paid to the Clean Air Act, under which EPA has moved forward with the first federal controls on emissions of greenhouse gases and also addressed emissions of conventional pollutants from a number of industries, but congressional scrutiny has focused as well on other environmental statutes and regulations implemented by EPA.

Environmental groups and others disagree that the agency has overreached, and EPA states that critics’ focus on the cost of controls obscures the benefits of new regulations, which, it estimates, far exceed the costs; and it maintains that pollution control is an important source of economic activity, exports, and American jobs. Further, the agency and its supporters say that EPA is carrying out the mandates detailed by Congress in the federal environmental statutes.

This report provides background information on recent EPA regulatory activity to help address these issues. It examines 46 major or controversial regulatory actions taken by or under development at EPA since January 2009, providing details on the regulatory action itself, presenting an estimated timeline for completion of the rule (including identification of related court or statutory deadlines), and, in general, providing EPA’s estimates of costs and benefits, where available. The report includes tables that show which rules have been finalized and which remain under development.

The report also discusses factors that affect the timeframe in which regulations take effect, including statutory and judicial deadlines, public comment periods, judicial review, and permitting procedures, the net results of which are that existing facilities are likely to have several years before being required to comply with most of the regulatory actions under discussion. Unable to account for such factors, which will vary from case to case, timelines that show dates for proposal and promulgation of EPA standards effectively underestimate the complexities of the regulatory process and overstate the near-term impact of many of the regulatory actions.


Date of Report: December 7, 2012
Number of Pages: 46
Order Number: R41561
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41561.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations

Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy

The principal federal program to aid municipal wastewater treatment plant construction is authorized in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Established as a grant program in 1972, it now capitalizes state loan programs. Authorizations since 1972 have totaled $65 billion, while appropriations have totaled more than $85 billion. It has represented 25%-30% of total funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in recent years.

In appropriations legislation, funding for EPA wastewater assistance is contained in the measure providing funds for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, which includes EPA. Within the portion of that bill which funds EPA, wastewater treatment assistance is specified in an account now called State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). Three trends in the funding of this account are most prominent: inclusion of non-infrastructure environmental grants to states, beginning in FY1993; increasing number and amount of special purpose grants since FY1989; and the addition of grant assistance for drinking water treatment projects in FY1997. This report summarizes, in chronological order, congressional activity to fund items in this account since 1987.

Prior to the 1987 amendments, wastewater treatment assistance was provided in the form of grants made to municipalities. The federal share of project costs was generally 55%; state and local governments were responsible for the remaining 45%. The 1987 amendments altered this arrangement by replacing the traditional grant program with one that provides federal grants to capitalize state clean water loan programs, or state revolving funds (SRFs). Appropriations for the clean water SRF program through FY2012 have totaled nearly $36 billion. As a general matter, states and cities support the program changes made by the 1987 amendments and the shift to a loan program that was intended to provide long-term funding for water quality and wastewater construction activities. However, the change means that local communities now are responsible for 100% of projects costs, rather than 45%, because they are required to repay loans to states. The greater financial burden of the act’s loan program on some cities has caused some to seek continued grant funding.

This has been particularly evident in the appropriations process where, in recent years, Congress has reserved as much as 30% of funds in the STAG account for special purpose grants directed to specified communities. Since FY2000, appropriators have awarded earmarks to a larger total number of projects, resulting in more communities receiving such grants, but at the same time receiving smaller amounts of funds, on average. Most of the funded projects are not authorized in the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act. State water quality officials, state infrastructure financing officials, and EPA have objected to this practice, since it reduces the amount of funding for state SRF programs. Since FY1997, the STAG account also has been used to fund a drinking water SRF program established by Congress in 1996. Appropriations for the drinking water SRF program through FY2012 have totaled $16.4 billion.


Date of Report: December 3, 2012
Number of Pages: 35
Order Number: 96-647
Price: $29.95

To Order:

96-647.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Water Quality Management: A Compendium

Dominating this 500+ page Compendium are extensive sections covering implementation of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. A third equally extensive section focuses on water infrastructure.

The two federal laws, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, provide the framework for the nation’s efforts to provide safe and healthy water to its citizens. Although much progress has been made towards the goals established in these laws, long-standing problems persist, and new problems have emerged. Specific areas of interest include whether additional steps are necessary to achieve the overall goals of these acts; how to meet the costs and technological challenges of providing safe drinking water and cleaning the flow of used water from a community; and what is the appropriate federal role in guiding and paying for safe and healthy water and other activities.

Over the last 35 years, federal, state and local governments, and private utilities have invested more than $100 billion in water infrastructure in order to attain the goals of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet remaining funding needs are projected to be as much as $660 billion over the next two decades. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), if there is no increase in investment, there will be about an $11 billion annual gap between current capital expenditures for water infrastructure (which total $23 billion annually) and projected spending needs. Analysts predict that, barring major breakthroughs in technology, investment costs will rise for decades to come as more of the existing water infrastructure deteriorates. Many systems simultaneously face the need to increase security measures and to construct treatment plants to remove newly regulated drinking water contaminants. At issue are how to meet funding needs and what are the appropriate public and private sector roles in doing so. State, municipal, and rural stakeholders have called for greater federal investment in water infrastructure, while others (including privately owned water utilities) have argued for greater self-reliance.

Date of Report: December 10, 2012
Number of Pages: 521
Order Number: C-12020
Price: $79.95

To Order:

C-12020.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Pesticide Law: A Summary of the Statutes

Linda-Jo Schierow
Specialist in Environmental Policy

Robert Esworthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy

This report summarizes the major statutory authorities governing pesticide regulation: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and Section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended, as well as the major regulatory programs for pesticides. Text relevant to FIFRA is excerpted, with minor modifications, from the corresponding chapter of CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, coordinated by David M. Bearden, which summarizes more than a dozen environmental statutes.

Congress enacted the original version of FIFRA in 1947, but a revision in 1972 is the basis of current pesticide policy. Substantial changes were made in 1988, with a focus on the reregistration of older pesticides, and again in the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which also amended the FFDCA. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA 1), the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act of 2007 (PRIA 2), and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2012 (PRIA 3; P.L. 112-177), enacted September 28, 2012, amended FIFRA to revise EPA authorities for collecting and expending fees imposed on pesticide manufacturers and formulators. These fees are used to supplement annual appropriations so as to expedite EPA processing of applications for pesticide registration and reregistration.

Congress first required limits on pesticide residues on raw food in 1954 amendments to the FFDCA. Limits were required for food additives (including pesticide residues in processed foods) in the 1958 FFDCA amendments. In the 1996 FFDCA amendments, Congress established a new standard of safety for pesticide residues in food (both raw and processed): maximum residue levels set by EPA must ensure with “a reasonable certainty” that “no harm” will result from pesticide exposure. The FQPA directed EPA to coordinate tolerance setting with pesticide registration under FIFRA for food-use registrations of pesticides.

FIFRA requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the sale and use of pesticides in the United States through registration and labeling of pesticide products. The sale of any pesticide is prohibited in the United States unless it is registered and labeled. EPA is directed to restrict the use of pesticides as necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on people and the environment, taking into account the costs and benefits of various pesticide uses. Pesticides manufactured solely for export do not require registration. FIFRA also requires EPA to review registrations for pesticides periodically and to reregister older pesticides based on new data that meet current regulatory and scientific standards. For pesticides to be registered for use in food production, FFDCA Section 408 authorizes EPA to establish allowable residue levels, called “tolerances,” that ensure that human exposure to pesticide residues in food will be “safe.” Foods with pesticide residues above the tolerance, or for which there is no tolerance established, may not be imported or sold in interstate commerce. A pesticide may not be registered under FIFRA for a food use unless a tolerance for that pesticide and food has been established under FFDCA.

FIFRA directs EPA to make public any data submitted to support a registration application, if EPA registers the pesticide, but certain data are protected as trade secrets, and other registrants may not use the same data to support registration applications for similar pesticides for a period of 10 years. EPA continues to evaluate the safety of pesticides after they are registered, as new information becomes available. A pesticide registration may be canceled or amended if EPA determines that current use may cause unreasonable adverse effects.


Date of Report: November 14, 2012
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: RL31921
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL31921.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.