[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4502 Introduced in House (IH)]







106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4502

 To improve the implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
                      Act, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2000

 Mr. Combest (for himself, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Goodlatte, Mrs. Clayton, 
Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Berry, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Cooksey, 
  Mr. Cramer, Mr. Dickey, Ms. Dunn, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. 
 Ewing, Mr. Goode, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Herger, 
 Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. 
 Sandlin, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Shows, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Turner, 
Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Riley) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
 To improve the implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
                      Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Water Pollution Program Improvement 
Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Pollutant loadings from both public and private point 
        sources have decreased dramatically since the enactment of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972 and such reductions 
        have greatly contributed to achieving national water quality 
        goals.
            (2) Appropriate emphasis on the management of nonpoint 
        source pollution through a variety of flexible management 
        practices is necessary to meet water quality standards and the 
        goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
            (3) Comprehensive watershed management strategies 
        (including estuary management programs, source water protection 
        programs, and other voluntary or statutory programs) are 
        important tools in coordinating point source and nonpoint 
        source water quality programs.
            (4) State and local governments, businesses, and landowners 
        are expected to spend billions of dollars over the next 20 
        years to implement watershed management strategies and other 
        programs to address nonpoint source pollution.
            (5) In order to complete the total maximum daily load 
        calculations required for currently identified waters, States 
        will be required to develop one total maximum daily load 
        allocation per week per region for each of the next 15 years at 
        an estimated cost to the States ranging from $670,000,000 to 
        $1,200,000,000.
            (6) States have overwhelmingly cited a lack of credible and 
        reliable data and a lack of the resources necessary to collect 
        and analyze such data, as significant limitations to carrying 
        out their responsibilities under the Federal Water Pollution 
        Control Act, including the identification of impaired waters 
        and the development of total maximum daily loads.
            (7) The General Accounting Office recently concluded that 
        only 6 States have the majority of data needed to assess the 
        condition of their waters.
            (8) In cases in which there are no reliable monitoring or 
        other analytical data to support a listing or total maximum 
        daily load allocation, waters of the United States are being 
        identified as impaired and total maximum daily loads are being 
        developed under section 303(d) of the Federal Water Pollution 
        Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) on the basis of anecdotal 
        evidence. The data used are frequently not subject to quality 
        assurance or quality control measures.
            (9) Any Federal regulatory or nonregulatory water quality 
        management program--
                    (A) must be based on sound science, including 
                credible and reliable monitoring data;
                    (B) must be subject to rigorous cost analysis;
                    (C) must be effectively and efficiently 
                implemented; and
                    (D) must have the strong support of affected 
                stakeholders, including State and local governments, 
                landowners, businesses, environmental organizations, 
                and the general public.
            (10) Any Federal water quality management program or 
        initiative must recognize and accommodate--
                    (A) State water rights allocations and management 
                programs;
                    (B) the clear distinction between point and 
                nonpoint sources of pollution provided in the Federal 
                Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); 
                and
                    (C) the exclusive authority of the States to 
                regulate nonpoint sources of pollution.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY.

    (a) Study Required.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency shall make arrangements with the National Academy of 
Sciences to conduct a study on--
            (1) the scientific basis underlying the development and 
        implementation of total maximum daily loads for pollutants in 
        waters identified under section 303(d)(1)(A) of the Federal 
        Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(A));
            (2) the costs of implementing measures to comply with the 
        total maximum daily loads; and
            (3) the availability of alternative programs or mechanisms 
        to reduce the discharge of pollutants from point sources and to 
        reduce pollution from nonpoint sources to achieve water quality 
        standards.
    (b) Scope.--The study shall include an evaluation of the following:
            (1) The scientific methodologies (including water quality 
        monitoring and monitoring plans) that are being used by States 
        to identify waters under section 303(d)(1)(A) of the Federal 
        Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(A)) and to 
        develop and implement total maximum daily loads for pollutants 
        in such waters, and the costs associated with the 
        methodologies.
            (2) Any procedures or programs that are being implemented 
        by States and Federal agencies to coordinate and improve 
        monitoring methodologies and the quality of monitoring data.
            (3) The availability of alternative programs and other 
        regulatory or nonregulatory mechanisms (including Federal, 
        State, and local programs that operate as a functional 
        equivalent to the total maximum daily load program) that may 
        achieve comparable environmental benefits in an impaired water, 
        watershed, or basin.
            (4) The results achieved by regulatory and voluntary 
        programs, activities, and practices that are being implemented 
        to reduce nonpoint source pollution and the costs of such 
        programs, activities, and practices to State and local 
        governments and the private sector.
            (5) The feasibility of implementing a pollutant trading 
        program between point sources and nonpoint sources of 
        pollution.
            (6) An assessment of the total costs (including the costs 
        to Federal land management agencies, State and local 
        governments, and the private sector) associated with programs 
        to reduce the discharge of pollutants from point sources to 
        meet water quality standards on waters currently identified 
        under section 303(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(A)) and with programs to 
reduce pollution from nonpoint sources in such waters under section 319 
of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1329).
    (c) Peer Review.--Before submitting a report under subsection (d), 
the National Academy of Sciences shall provide appropriate Federal, 
State, and private sector interests an opportunity to review and submit 
written comments on the report.
    (d) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the National Academy of Sciences shall submit a report on 
the study to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
the Senate. The report shall include recommendations of the National 
Academy of Sciences for improving the methodologies evaluated under the 
study, as well as any recommendations received pursuant to subsection 
(c) that are not otherwise incorporated into the report.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000. Such sums shall 
remain available until expended.

SEC. 4. RULEMAKING.

    (a) Proposed Rules Defined.--In this section, the term ``proposed 
rules'' means the Proposed Revisions to the National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System Program and Federal Antidegradation Policy 
and the Proposed Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management 
Regulations Concerning Total Maximum Daily Loads, published in the 
Federal Register on August 23, 1999.
    (b) Consideration of Study.--Before making a final determination 
with respect to the proposed rules, the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency shall--
            (1) review the report submitted by the National Academy of 
        Sciences under section 3(d) and incorporate, as appropriate, 
        into the proposed rules the recommendations contained in the 
        report, including recommendations received pursuant to section 
        3(c); and
            (2) publish in the Federal Register and receive public 
        comment on--
                    (A) the recommendations described in paragraph (1) 
                that were incorporated into the proposed rules; and
                    (B) the recommendations described in paragraph (1) 
                that were not incorporated into the proposed rules, 
                including an explanation of why the recommendations 
                were not incorporated.
    (c) Effect on Proposed Rules.--The Administrator shall not make a 
final determination on the proposed rules identified in subsection (a) 
until the conclusion of the public notice and comment period provided 
under subsection (b)(2).
    (d) Prohibited Actions.--Except as specifically provided by an Act 
enacted after the date of enactment of this Act, to ensure that States 
continue to have exclusive authority to regulate nonpoint sources of 
pollution--
            (1) the Administrator shall not take any action to affect 
        any definition of, or distinction made between, point sources 
        and nonpoint sources of pollution contained in a rule of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency in effect on June 1, 2000; and
            (2) the Administrator shall not require approval of any 
        measures set forth by a State to control nonpoint sources of 
        pollution pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
        (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), except as authorized by section 319 
        of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1329).
                                 <all>