[House Report 104-112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



   104th Congress 1st 
         Session        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES        Report
                                                       104-112
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                     CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                           AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                                   on

                                H.R. 961

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND
                            DISSENTING VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]




  May 3, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
   104th Congress 1st   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES        Report
         Session
                                                       104-112
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                     CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                           AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                                   on

                                H.R. 961


                             together with


                     ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]




  May 3, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-112
_______________________________________________________________________


                     CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

_______________________________________________________________________


  May 3, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


 Mr. Shuster, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

             ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 961]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The amendment....................................................     3
Purpose and summary..............................................    86
Need for legislation.............................................    87
    Unfunded mandates............................................    87
    Nonpoint source discharges...................................    88
    Stormwater...................................................    89
    Flexibility and increased State role.........................    93
    Small communities............................................    94
    Risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis....................    95
    Sound science................................................    97
    Wetlands.....................................................    97
    Navigational dredging........................................    98
Discussion of the Committee bill (H.R. 961) and section-by-
  section analysis...............................................    98
    Title I: Research and Related Programs.......................    98
        Section 101. National goals and policies.................    98
        Section 102. Research, investigations, training and 
          information............................................   100
        Section 103. State management assistance.................   102
        Section 104. Mine water pollution control................   102
        Section 105. Water sanitation in rural and native Alaska 
          villages...............................................   102
        Section 106. Authorization of appropriations for 
          Chesapeake program.....................................   102
        Section 107. Great Lakes management......................   102
    Title II: Construction Grants................................   105
        Section 201. Uses of funds...............................   105
        Section 202. Administration of closeout of construction 
          grant program..........................................   105
        Section 203. Sewage collection systems...................   105
        Section 204. Treatment works defined.....................   105
        Section 205. Value engineering review....................   105
        Section 206. Grants for wastewater treatment.............   105
    Title III: Standards and Enforcement.........................   106
        Section 301. Effluent limitations........................   106
        Section 302. Pollution prevention opportunities..........   107
        Section 303. Water quality standards and implementation 
          plans..................................................   111
        Section 304. Use of biological monitoring................   112
        Section 305. Arid areas..................................   114
        Section 306. Total maximum daily loads...................   115
        Section 307. Revision of criteria, standards, and 
          limitations............................................   115
        Section 308. Information and guidelines..................   117
        Section 309. Secondary treatment.........................   117
        Section 310. Toxic pollutants............................   119
        Section 311. Local pretreatment authority................   120
        Section 312. Compliance with management practices........   121
        Section 313. Federal enforcement.........................   122
        Section 314. Response plans for discharges of oil or 
          hazardous substances...................................   122
        Section 315. Marine sanitation devices...................   123
        Section 316. Federal facilities..........................   123
        Section 317. Clean lakes.................................   124
        Section 318. Cooling water intake structures.............   124
        Section 319. Nonpoint source management programs.........   124
        Section 320. National estuary program....................   128
        Section 321. State watershed management programs.........   128
        Section 322. Stormwater management programs..............   131
        Section 323. Risk assessment and disclosure requirements.   143
        Section 324. Benefit and cost criterion..................   147
    Title IV: Permits and Licenses...............................   152
        Section 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated 
          animal feeding operations..............................   152
        Section 402. Permit reform...............................   153
        Section 403. Review of state programs and permits........   153
        Section 404. Statistical noncompliance...................   154
        Section 405. Anti-backsliding requirements...............   154
        Section 406. Intake credits..............................   155
        Section 407. Combined sewer overflows....................   155
        Section 408. Sanitary sewer overflows....................   155
        Section 409. Abandoned mines.............................   156
        Section 410. Beneficial use of biosolids.................   156
        Section 411. Waste treatment systems defined.............   157
        Section 412. Thermal discharges..........................   159
    Title V: General Provisions..................................   159
        Section 501. Consultation with States....................   159
        Section 502. Navigable waters defined....................   160
        Section 503. CAFO definition clarification...............   160
        Section 504. Publicly owned treatment work defined.......   160
        Section 505. State water quantity rights.................   160
        Section 506. Implementation of water pollution laws with 
          respect to vegetable oil...............................   161
        Section 507. Needs estimate..............................   162
        Section 508. General program authorizations..............   162
        Section 509. Indian tribes...............................   162
        Section 510. Food processing and food safety.............   163
        Section 511. Audit dispute resolution....................   163
    Title VI: State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds......   163
        Section 601. General authority for capitalization grants.   163
        Section 602. Capitalization grant agreements.............   164
        Section 603. Water pollution control revolving loan funds   164
        Section 604. Allotment of funds..........................   165
        Section 605. Authorization of appropriations.............   167
        Section 606. State nonpoint source water pollution 
          control revolving funds................................   169
    Title VII: Miscellaneous Provisions..........................   170
        Section 701. Technical amendments........................   170
        Section 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality 
          Research Laboratory....................................   170
        Section 703. Wastewater service for Colonias.............   170
        Section 704. Savings in municipal drinking water costs...   170
    Title VIII: Wetlands Conservation and Management.............   170
    Title IX: Navigational Dredging..............................   182
Miscellaneous issues.............................................   183
Hearings and previous legislative activity.......................   184
Committee consideration..........................................   187
Committee oversight findings.....................................   200
Oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee on 
  Government Reform and Oversight................................   200
Committee cost estimate..........................................   200
Congressional Budget Office estimates............................   201
Inflationary impact statement....................................   209
Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported............   209
Additional, supplemental and dissenting views....................
Exchange of letters..............................................   433
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Water 
Amendments of 1995''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition.
Sec. 3. Amendment of Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

                 TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. National goals and policies.
Sec. 102. Research, investigations, training, and information.
Sec. 103. State management assistance.
Sec. 104. Mine water pollution control.
Sec. 105. Water sanitation in rural and Native Alaska villages.
Sec. 106. Authorization of appropriations for Chesapeake program.
Sec. 107. Great lakes management.

                     TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

Sec. 201. Uses of funds.
Sec. 202. Administration of closeout of construction grant program.
Sec. 203. Sewage collection systems.
Sec. 204. Treatment works defined.
Sec. 205. Value engineering review.
Sec. 206. Grants for wastewater treatment.

                  TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Effluent limitations.
Sec. 302. Pollution prevention opportunities.
Sec. 303. Water quality standards and implementation plans.
Sec. 304. Use of biological monitoring.
Sec. 305. Arid areas.
Sec. 306. Total maximum daily loads.
Sec. 307. Revision of criteria, standards, and limitations.
Sec. 308. Information and guidelines.
Sec. 309. Secondary treatment.
Sec. 310. Toxic pollutants.
Sec. 311. Local pretreatment authority.
Sec. 312. Compliance with management practices.
Sec. 313. Federal enforcement.
Sec. 314. Response plans for discharges of oil or hazardous substances.
Sec. 315. Marine sanitation devices.
Sec. 316. Federal facilities.
Sec. 317. Clean lakes.
Sec. 318. Cooling water intake structures.
Sec. 319. Nonpoint source management programs.
Sec. 320. National estuary program.
Sec. 321. State watershed management programs.
Sec. 322. Stormwater management programs.
Sec. 323. Risk assessment and disclosure requirements.
Sec. 324. Benefit and cost criterion.

                     TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES

Sec. 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated animal feeding 
operations.
Sec. 402. Permit reform.
Sec. 403. Review of State programs and permits.
Sec. 404. Statistical noncompliance.
Sec. 405. Anti-backsliding requirements.
Sec. 406. Intake credits.
Sec. 407. Combined sewer overflows.
Sec. 408. Sanitary sewer overflows.
Sec. 409. Abandoned mines.
Sec. 410. Beneficial use of biosolids.
Sec. 411. Waste treatment systems defined.
Sec. 412. Thermal discharges.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Consultation with States.
Sec. 502. Navigable waters defined.
Sec. 503. CAFO definition clarification.
Sec. 504. Publicly owned treatment works defined.
Sec. 505. State water quantity rights.
Sec. 506. Implementation of water pollution laws with respect to 
vegetable oil.
Sec. 507. Needs estimate.
Sec. 508. General program authorizations.
Sec. 509. Indian tribes.
Sec. 510. Food processing and food safety.
Sec. 511. Audit dispute resolution.

        TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

Sec. 601. General authority for capitalization grants.
Sec. 602. Capitalization grant agreements.
Sec. 603. Water pollution control revolving loan funds.
Sec. 604. Allotment of funds.
Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 606. State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving 
funds.

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Technical amendments.
Sec. 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research 
Laboratory.
Sec. 703. Wastewater service for colonias.
Sec. 704. Savings in municipal drinking water costs.

            TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Findings and statement of purpose.
Sec. 803. Wetlands conservation and management.
Sec. 804. Definitions.
Sec. 805. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 806. Effective date.

                    TITLE IX--NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

Sec. 901. References to act.
Sec. 902. Ocean dumping permits.
Sec. 903. Dredged material permits.
Sec. 904. Permit conditions.
Sec. 905. Special provisions regarding certain dumping sites.
Sec. 906. References to Administrator.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

  In this Act, the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.

  Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal 
of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to 
be made to a section or other provision of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387).

                 TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

SEC. 101. NATIONAL GOALS AND POLICIES.

  (a) Nonpoint Source Pollution; State Strategies.--Section 101(a) (33 
U.S.C. 1251(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
          (2) in paragraph (7)--
                  (A) by inserting ``, including public and private 
                sector programs using economic incentives,'' after 
                ``programs'';
                  (B) by inserting ``, including stormwater,'' after 
                ``nonpoint sources of pollution'' the first place it 
                appears; and
                  (C) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
                semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(8) it is the national policy to support State efforts 
        undertaken in consultation with tribal and local governments to 
        identify, prioritize, and implement water pollution prevention 
        and control strategies;''.
  (b) Role of State, Tribal, and Local Governments.--Section 101(a) is 
further amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(9) it is the national policy to recognize, support, and 
        enhance the role of State, tribal, and local governments in 
        carrying out the provisions of this Act;''.
  (c) Reclamation and Reuse.--
          (1) Reclamation.--Section 101(a)(4) is amended by inserting 
        after ``works'' the following: ``and to reclaim waste water 
        from municipal and industrial sources''.
          (2) Beneficial reuse.--Section 101(a) is further amended by 
        adding at the end the following:
          ``(10) it is the national policy that beneficial reuse of 
        waste water effluent and biosolids be encouraged to the fullest 
        extent possible; and''.
  (d) Water Use Efficiency.--Section 101(a) is further amended by 
adding at the end the following:
          ``(11) it is the national policy that water use efficiency be 
        encouraged to the fullest extent possible.''.
  (e) Net Benefits.--Section 101 is further amended by adding at the 
end the following:
  ``(h) Net Benefits.--It is the national policy that the development 
and implementation of water quality protection programs pursuant to 
this Act--
          ``(1) be based on scientifically objective and unbiased 
        information concerning the nature and magnitude of risk; and
          ``(2) maximize net benefits to society in order to promote 
        sound regulatory decisions and promote the rational and 
        coherent allocation of society's limited resources.''.

SEC. 102. RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION.

  (a) National Programs.--Section 104(a) (33 U.S.C. 1254(a)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(7) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and 
        local agencies, conduct, promote, and encourage to the maximum 
        extent feasible, in watersheds that may be significantly 
        affected by nonpoint sources of pollution, monitoring and 
        measurement of water quality by means and methods that will 
        help to identify the relative contributions of particular 
        nonpoint sources.''.
  (b) Grants to Local Governments.--Section 104(b)(3) (33 U.S.C. 
1254(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ``local governments,'' after 
``interstate agencies,''.
  (c) Technical Assistance for Rural and Small Treatment Works.--
Section 104(b) (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
          ``(8) make grants to nonprofit organizations to provide 
        technical assistance and training to rural and small publicly 
        owned treatment works to enable such treatment works to achieve 
        and maintain compliance with the requirements of this Act; and
          ``(9) disseminate information to rural, small, and 
        disadvantaged communities with respect to the planning, design, 
        construction, and operation of treatment works.''.
  (d) Wastewater Treatment in Impoverished Communities.--Section 104(q) 
(33 U.S.C. 1254(q)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Small impoverished communities.--
                  ``(A) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants to 
                States to provide assistance for planning, design, and 
                construction of publicly owned treatment works to 
                provide wastewater services to rural communities of 
                3,000 or less that are not currently served by any 
                sewage collection or water treatment system and are 
                severely economically disadvantaged, as determined by 
                the Administrator.
                  ``(B) Authorization.--There is authorized to be 
                appropriated to carry out this paragraph $50,000,000 
                per fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 104(u) (33 U.S.C. 
1254(u)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' before ``(6)''; and
          (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: 
        ``; and (7) not to exceed $50,000,000 per fiscal year for each 
        of fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for carrying out the 
        provisions of subsections (b)(3), (b)(8), and (b)(9), except 
        that not less than 20 percent of the sums appropriated pursuant 
        to this clause shall be available for carrying out the 
        provisions of subsections (b)(8) and (b)(9)''.

SEC. 103. STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

  Section 106(a) (33 U.S.C. 1256(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' before ``$75,000,000'';
          (2) by inserting after ``1990'' the following: ``, such sums 
        as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1991 through 1995, 
        and $150,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 
        through 2000''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following: ``States or 
        interstate agencies receiving grants under this section may use 
        such funds to finance, with other States or interstate 
        agencies, studies and projects on interstate issues relating to 
        such programs.''.

SEC. 104. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

  Section 107 (33 U.S.C. 1257) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 107. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

  ``(a) Acidic and Other Toxic Mine Drainage.--The Administrator shall 
establish a program to demonstrate the efficacy of measures for 
abatement of the causes and treatment of the effects of acidic and 
other toxic mine drainage within qualified hydrologic units affected by 
past coal mining practices for the purpose of restoring the biological 
integrity of waters within such units.
  ``(b) Grants.--
          ``(1) In general.--Any State or Indian tribe may apply to the 
        Administrator for a grant for any project which provides for 
        abatement of the causes or treatment of the effects of acidic 
        or other toxic mine drainage within a qualified hydrologic unit 
        affected by past coal mining practices.
          ``(2) Application requirements.--An application submitted to 
        the Administrator under this section shall include each of the 
        following:
                  ``(A) An identification of the qualified hydrologic 
                unit.
                  ``(B) A description of the extent to which acidic or 
                other toxic mine drainage is affecting the water 
                quality and biological resources within the hydrologic 
                unit.
                  ``(C) An identification of the sources of acidic or 
                other toxic mine drainage within the hydrologic unit.
                  ``(D) An identification of the project and the 
                measures proposed to be undertaken to abate the causes 
                or treat the effects of acidic or other toxic mine 
                drainage within the hydrologic unit.
                  ``(E) The cost of undertaking the proposed abatement 
                or treatment measures.
  ``(c) Federal Share.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
        receiving grant assistance under this section shall be 50 
        percent.
          ``(2) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way.--Contributions of 
        lands, easements, and rights-of-way shall be credited toward 
        the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this 
        section but not in an amount exceeding 25 percent of the total 
        project cost.
          ``(3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal interest 
        shall bear 100 percent of the cost of operation and maintenance 
        of a project under this section.
  ``(d) Prohibited Projects.--No acidic or other toxic mine drainage 
abatement or treatment project may receive assistance under this 
section if the project would adversely affect the free-flowing 
characteristics of any river segment within a qualified hydrologic 
unit.
  ``(e) Applications From Federal Entities.--Any Federal entity may 
apply to the Administrator for a grant under this section for the 
purposes of an acidic or toxic mine drainage abatement or treatment 
project within a qualified hydrologic unit located on lands and waters 
under the administrative jurisdiction of such entity.
  ``(f) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve an application 
submitted pursuant to subsection (b) or (e) after determining that the 
application meets the requirements of this section.
  ``(g) Qualified Hydrologic Unit Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, the term `qualified hydrologic unit' means a hydrologic unit--
          ``(1) in which the water quality has been significantly 
        affected by acidic or other toxic mine drainage from past coal 
        mining practices in a manner which adversely impacts biological 
        resources; and
          ``(2) which contains lands and waters eligible for assistance 
        under title IV of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 
        1977.''.

SEC. 105. WATER SANITATION IN RURAL AND NATIVE ALASKA VILLAGES.

  (a) In General.--Section 113 (33 U.S.C. 1263) is amended by striking 
the section heading and designation and subsections (a) through (f) and 
inserting the following:

``SEC. 113. ALASKA VILLAGE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.

  ``(a) Grants.--The Administrator is authorized to make grants--
          ``(1) for the development and construction of facilities 
        which provide sanitation services for rural and Native Alaska 
        villages;
          ``(2) for training, technical assistance, and educational 
        programs relating to operation and maintenance for sanitation 
        services in rural and Native Alaska villages; and
          ``(3) for reasonable costs of administering and managing 
        grants made and programs and projects carried out under this 
        section; except that not to exceed 4 percent of the amount of 
        any grant made under this section may be made for such costs.
  ``(b) Federal Share.--A grant under this section shall be 50 percent 
of the cost of the program or project being carried out with such 
grant.
  ``(c) Special Rule.--The Administrator shall award grants under this 
section for project construction following the rules specified in 
subpart H of part 1942 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
  ``(d) Grants to State for Benefit of Villages.--Grants under this 
section may be made to the State for the benefit of rural Alaska 
villages and Alaska Native villages.
  ``(e) Coordination.--In carrying out activities under this 
subsection, the Administrator is directed to coordinate efforts between 
the State of Alaska, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of the 
Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the recipients of grants.
  ``(f) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 
for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1995, to carry out this 
section.''.
  (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 113(g) is amended by inserting 
after ``(g)'' the following: ``Definitions.--''.

SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CHESAPEAKE PROGRAM.

  Section 117(d) (33 U.S.C. 1267(d)) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``such sums as may be 
        necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $3,000,000 
        per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' 
        after ``1990,''; and
          (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``such sums as may be 
        necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $18,000,000 
        per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' 
        after ``1990,''.

SEC. 107. GREAT LAKES MANAGEMENT.

  (a) Great Lakes Research Council.--
          (1) In general.--Section 118 (33 U.S.C. 1268) is amended--
                  (A) in subsection (a)(3)--
                          (i) by striking subparagraph (E) and 
                        inserting the following:
                  ``(E) `Council' means the Great Lakes Research 
                Council established by subsection (d)(1);'';
                          (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of 
                        subparagraph (I);
                          (iii) by striking the period at the end of 
                        subparagraph (J) and inserting ``; and''; and
                          (iv) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(K) `Great Lakes research' means the application of 
                scientific or engineering expertise to explain, 
                understand, and predict a physical, chemical, 
                biological, or socioeconomic process, or the 
                interaction of 1 or more of the processes, in the Great 
                Lakes ecosystem.'';
                  (B) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the 
                following:
  ``(d) Great Lakes Research Council.--
          ``(1) Establishment of council.--There is established a Great 
        Lakes Research Council.
          ``(2) Duties of council.--The Council--
                  ``(A) shall advise and promote the coordination of 
                Federal Great Lakes research activities to avoid 
                unnecessary duplication and ensure greater 
                effectiveness in achieving protection of the Great 
                Lakes ecosystem through the goals of the Great Lakes 
                Water Quality Agreement;
                  ``(B) not later than 1 year after the date of the 
                enactment of this subparagraph and biennially 
                thereafter and after providing opportunity for public 
                review and comment, shall prepare and provide to 
                interested parties a document that includes--
                          ``(i) an assessment of the Great Lakes 
                        research activities needed to fulfill the goals 
                        of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
                          ``(ii) an assessment of Federal expertise and 
                        capabilities in the activities needed to 
                        fulfill the goals of the Great Lakes Water 
                        Quality Agreement, including an inventory of 
                        Federal Great Lakes research programs, 
                        projects, facilities, and personnel; and
                          ``(iii) recommendations for long-term and 
                        short-term priorities for Federal Great Lakes 
                        research, based on a comparison of the 
                        assessments conducted under clauses (i) and 
                        (ii);
                  ``(C) shall identify topics for and participate in 
                meetings, workshops, symposia, and conferences on Great 
                Lakes research issues;
                  ``(D) shall make recommendations for the uniform 
                collection of data for enhancing Great Lakes research 
                and management protocols relating to the Great Lakes 
                ecosystem;
                  ``(E) shall advise and cooperate in--
                          ``(i) improving the compatible integration of 
                        multimedia data concerning the Great Lakes 
                        ecosystem; and
                          ``(ii) any effort to establish a 
                        comprehensive multimedia data base for the 
                        Great Lakes ecosystem; and
                  ``(F) shall ensure that the results, findings, and 
                information regarding Great Lakes research programs 
                conducted or sponsored by the Federal Government are 
                disseminated in a timely manner, and in useful forms, 
                to interested persons, using to the maximum extent 
                practicable mechanisms in existence on the date of the 
                dissemination, such as the Great Lakes Research 
                Inventory prepared by the International Joint 
                Commission.
          ``(3) Membership.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The Council shall consist of 1 
                research manager with extensive knowledge of, and 
                scientific expertise and experience in, the Great Lakes 
                ecosystem from each of the following agencies and 
                instrumentalities:
                          ``(i) The Agency.
                          ``(ii) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
                        Administration.
                          ``(iii) The National Biological Service.
                          ``(iv) The United States Fish and Wildlife 
                        Service.
                          ``(v) Any other Federal agency or 
                        instrumentality that expends $1,000,000 or more 
                        for a fiscal year on Great Lakes research.
                          ``(vi) Any other Federal agency or 
                        instrumentality that a majority of the Council 
                        membership determines should be represented on 
                        the Council.
                  ``(B) Nonvoting members.--At the request of a 
                majority of the Council membership, any person who is a 
                representative of a Federal agency or instrumentality 
                not described in subparagraph (A) or any person who is 
                not a Federal employee may serve as a nonvoting member 
                of the Council.
          ``(4) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the Council shall be a 
        member of the Council from an agency specified in clause (i), 
        (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (3)(A) who is elected by a majority 
        vote of the members of the Council. The chairperson shall serve 
        as chairperson for a period of 2 years. A member of the Council 
        may not serve as chairperson for more than 2 consecutive terms.
          ``(5) Expenses.--While performing official duties as a member 
        of the Council, a member shall be allowed travel or 
        transportation expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United 
        States Code.
          ``(6) Interagency cooperation.--The head of each Federal 
        agency or instrumentality that is represented on the Council--
                  ``(A) shall cooperate with the Council in 
                implementing the recommendations developed under 
                paragraph (2);
                  ``(B) on written request of the chairperson of the 
                Council, may make available, on a reimbursable basis or 
                otherwise, such personnel, services, or facilities as 
                may be necessary to assist the Council in carrying out 
                the duties of the Council under this section; and
                  ``(C) on written request of the chairperson, shall 
                furnish data or information necessary to carry out the 
                duties of the Council under this section.
          ``(7) International cooperation.--The Council shall 
        cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with the research 
        coordination efforts of the Council of Great Lakes Research 
        Managers of the International Joint Commission.
          ``(8) Reimbursement for requested activities.--Each Federal 
        agency or instrumentality represented on the Council may 
        reimburse another Federal agency or instrumentality or a non-
        Federal entity for costs associated with activities authorized 
        under this subsection that are carried out by the other agency, 
        instrumentality, or entity at the request of the Council.
          ``(9) Federal advisory committee act.--The Federal Advisory 
        Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Council.
          ``(10) Effect on other law.--Nothing in this subsection 
        affects the authority of any Federal agency or instrumentality, 
        under any law, to undertake Great Lakes research activities.'';
                  (C) in subsection (e)--
                          (i) in paragraph (1) by striking ``the 
                        Program Office and the Research Office shall 
                        prepare a joint research plan'' and inserting 
                        ``the Program Office, in consultation with the 
                        Council, shall prepare a research plan''; and
                          (ii) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ``the 
                        Research Office, the Agency for Toxic 
                        Substances and Disease Registry, and Great 
                        Lakes States'' and inserting ``the Council, the 
                        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
                        Registry, and Great Lakes States,''; and
                  (D) in subsection (h)--
                          (i) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph 
                        (1);
                          (ii) by striking ``; and'' at the end of 
                        paragraph (2) and inserting a period; and
                          (iii) by striking paragraph (3).
          (2) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section 
        403(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 
        of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1447b(a)) is amended by striking ``Great 
        Lakes Research Office authorized under'' and inserting ``Great 
        Lakes Research Council established by''.
  (b) Consistency of Programs With Federal Guidance.--Section 
118(c)(2)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following: ``For purposes of this section, a State's standards, 
policies, and procedures shall be considered consistent with such 
guidance if the standards, policies, and procedures are based on 
scientifically defensible judgments and policy choices made by the 
State after consideration of the guidance and provide an overall level 
of protection comparable to that provided by the guidance, taking into 
account the specific circumstances of the State's waters.''.
  (c) Reauthorization of Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated 
Sediments Program.--Section 118(c)(7) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
                  ``(D) Reauthorization of assessment and remediation 
                of contaminated sediments program.--
                          ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting 
                        through the Program Office, in consultation and 
                        cooperation with the Assistant Secretary of the 
                        Army having responsibility for civil works, 
                        shall conduct at least 3 pilot projects 
                        involving promising technologies and practices 
                        to remedy contaminated sediments (including at 
                        least 1 full-scale demonstration of a 
                        remediation technology) at sites in the Great 
                        Lakes System, as the Administrator determines 
                        appropriate.
                          ``(ii) Selection of sites.--In selecting 
                        sites for the pilot projects, the Administrator 
                        shall give priority consideration to--
                                  ``(I) the Ashtabula River in Ohio;
                                  ``(II) the Buffalo River in New York;
                                  ``(III) Duluth and Superior Harbor in 
                                Minnesota;
                                  ``(IV) the Fox River in Wisconsin;
                                  ``(V) the Grand Calumet River in 
                                Indiana; and
                                  ``(VI) Saginaw Bay in Michigan.
                          ``(iii) Deadlines.--In carrying out this 
                        subparagraph, the Administrator shall--
                                  ``(I) not later than 18 months after 
                                the date of the enactment of this 
                                subparagraph, identify at least 3 sites 
                                and the technologies and practices to 
                                be demonstrated at the sites (including 
                                at least 1 full-scale demonstration of 
                                a remediation technology); and
                                  ``(II) not later than 5 years after 
                                such date of enactment, complete at 
                                least 3 pilot projects (including at 
                                least 1 full-scale demonstration of a 
                                remediation technology).
                          ``(iv) Additional projects.--The 
                        Administrator, acting through the Program 
                        Office, in consultation and cooperation with 
                        the Assistant Secretary of the Army having 
                        responsibility for civil works, may conduct 
                        additional pilot- and full-scale pilot projects 
                        involving promising technologies and practices 
                        at sites in the Great Lakes System other than 
                        the sites selected under clause (i).
                          ``(v) Execution of projects.--The 
                        Administrator may cooperate with the Assistant 
                        Secretary of the Army having responsibility for 
                        civil works to plan, engineer, design, and 
                        execute pilot projects under this subparagraph.
                          ``(vi) Non-federal contributions.--The 
                        Administrator may accept non-Federal 
                        contributions to carry out pilot projects under 
                        this subparagraph.
                          ``(vii) Authorization of appropriations.--
                        There are authorized to be appropriated to 
                        carry out this subparagraph $3,500,000 for each 
                        of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.
                  ``(E) Technical information and assistance.--
                          ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting 
                        through the Program Office, may provide 
                        technical information and assistance involving 
                        technologies and practices for remediation of 
                        contaminated sediments to persons that request 
                        the information or assistance.
                          ``(ii) Technical assistance priorities.--In 
                        providing technical assistance under this 
                        subparagraph, the Administrator, acting through 
                        the Program Office, shall give special priority 
                        to requests for integrated assessments of, and 
                        recommendations regarding, remediation 
                        technologies and practices for contaminated 
                        sediments at Great Lakes areas of concern.
                          ``(iii) Coordination with other 
                        demonstrations.--The Administrator shall--
                                  ``(I) coordinate technology 
                                demonstrations conducted under this 
                                subparagraph with other federally 
                                assisted demonstrations of contaminated 
                                sediment remediation technologies; and
                                  ``(II) share information from the 
                                demonstrations conducted under this 
                                subparagraph with the other 
                                demonstrations.
                          ``(iv) Other sediment remediation 
                        activities.--Nothing in this subparagraph 
                        limits the authority of the Administrator to 
                        carry out sediment remediation activities under 
                        other laws.
                          ``(v) Authorization of appropriations.--There 
                        are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
                        this subparagraph $1,000,000 for each of fiscal 
                        years 1996 through 2000.''.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          (1) Research and management.--Section 118(e)(3)(B) (33 U.S.C. 
        1268(e)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
        end the following: ``, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
        year 1995, and $4,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal 
        years 1996, 1997, and 1998''.
          (2) Great lakes programs.--Section 118(h) (33 U.S.C. 1268(h)) 
        is amended--
                  (A) by striking ``and'' before ``$25,000,000''; and
                  (B) by inserting before the period at the end of the 
                first sentence the following: ``, such sums as may be 
                necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and 
                $17,500,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 
                1996 through 2000''.

                     TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

SEC. 201. USES OF FUNDS.

  (a) Nonpoint Source Program.--Section 201(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
1281(g)(1)) is amended by striking the period at the end of the first 
sentence and all that follows through the period at the end of the last 
sentence and inserting the following: ``and for any purpose for which a 
grant may be made under sections 319(h) and 319(i) of this Act 
(including any innovative and alternative approaches for the control of 
nonpoint sources of pollution).''.
  (b) Retroactive Eligibility.--Section 201(g)(1) is further amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``The Administrator, with the 
concurrence of the States, shall develop procedures to facilitate and 
expedite the retroactive eligibility and provision of grant funding for 
facilities already under construction.''.

SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION OF CLOSEOUT OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM.

  Section 205(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1285(g)(1)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following: ``The Administrator may negotiate an annual budget 
with a State for the purpose of administering the closeout of the 
State's construction grants program under this title. Sums made 
available for administering such closeout shall be subtracted from 
amounts remaining available for obligation under the State's 
construction grant program under this title.''.

SEC. 203. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.

  Section 211(a) (33 U.S.C. 1291(a)) is amended--
          (1) in clause (1) by striking ``an existing collection 
        system'' and inserting ``a collection system existing on the 
        date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995''; 
        and
          (2) in clause (2)--
                  (A) by striking ``an existing community'' and 
                inserting ``a community existing on such date of 
                enactment''; and
                  (B) by striking ``sufficient existing'' and inserting 
                ``sufficient capacity existing on such date of 
                enactment''.

SEC. 204. TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.

  (a) Inclusion of Other Lands.--Section 212(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 
1292(2)(A)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``any works, including site'';
          (2) by striking ``is used for ultimate'' and inserting ``will 
        be used for ultimate''; and
          (3) by inserting before the period at the end the following: 
        ``and acquisition of other lands, and interests in lands, which 
        are necessary for construction''.
  (b) Policy on Cost Effectiveness.--Section 218(a) (33 U.S.C. 1298(a)) 
is amended by striking ``combination of devices and systems'' and all 
that follows through ``from such treatment;'' and inserting ``treatment 
works;''.

SEC. 205. VALUE ENGINEERING REVIEW.

  Section 218(c) (33 U.S.C. 1298(c)) is amended by striking 
``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.

SEC. 206. GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT.

  (a) Coastal Localities.--The Administrator shall make grants under 
title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to appropriate 
instrumentalities for the purpose of construction of treatment works 
(including combined sewer overflow facilities) to serve coastal 
localities. No less than $10,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall 
be used for water infrastructure improvements in New Orleans, no less 
than $3,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall be used for water 
infrastructure improvements in Bristol County, Massachusetts, and no 
less than \1/3\ of the amount of such grants shall be used to assist 
localities that meet both of the following criteria:
          (1) Need.--A locality that has over $2,000,000,000 in 
        category I treatment needs documented and accepted in the 
        Environmental Protection Agency's 1992 Needs Survey database as 
        of February 4, 1993.
          (2) Hardship.--A locality that has wastewater user charges, 
        for residential use of 7,000 gallons per month based on Ernst & 
        Young National Water and Wastewater 1992 Rate Survey, greater 
        than 0.65 percent of 1989 median household income for the 
        metropolitan statistical area in which such locality is located 
        as measured by the Bureau of the Census.
  (b) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding section 202(a)(1) of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act, the Federal share of grants under 
subsection (a) shall be 80 percent of the cost of construction, and the 
non-Federal share shall be 20 percent of the cost of construction.
  (c) Small Communities.--The Administrator shall make grants to States 
for the purpose of providing assistance for the construction of 
treatment works to serve small communities as defined by the State; 
except that the term ``small communities'' may not include any locality 
with a population greater than 75,000. Funds made available to carry 
out this subsection shall be allotted by the Administrator to the 
States in accordance with the allotment formula contained in section 
604(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for making grants under this section $300,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain available until expended and 
shall be equally divided between subsections (a) and (c) of this 
section. Such authorization of appropriation shall take effect only if 
the total amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996 to carry out title 
VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is at least 
$3,000,000,000.

                  TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.

  (a) Compliance Schedules.--Section 301(b) (33 U.S.C. 1311(b)) is 
amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ``not later than July 1, 
        1977,'';
          (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``not 
        later than 3 years after the date such limitations are 
        established;''; and
          (3) by striking ``, and in no case later than March 31, 
        1989'' each place it appears.
  (b) Modifications for Nonconventional Pollutants.--
          (1) General authority.--Section 301(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
        1311(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``(when determined by the 
        Administrator to be a pollutant covered by subsection 
        (b)(2)(F)) and any other pollutant which the Administrator 
        lists under paragraph (4) of this subsection'' and inserting 
        ``and any other pollutant covered by subsection (b)(2)(F)''.
          (2) Procedural requirements for listing and removal of 
        pollutants.--Section 301(g) (33 U.S.C. 1311(g)) is further 
        amended by striking paragraphs (4) and (5).
  (c) Coal Remining.--Section 301(p)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1311(p)(2)) is 
amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``; 
except where monitoring demonstrates that the receiving waters do not 
meet such water quality standards prior to commencement of remining and 
where the applicant submits a plan which demonstrates to the 
satisfaction of the Administrator or the State, as the case may be, 
that identified measures will be utilized to improve the existing water 
quality of the receiving waters''.
  (d) Preexisting Coal Remining Operations.--Section 301(p) (33 U.S.C. 
1311) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Preexisting coal remining operations.--Any operator of 
        a coal mining operation who conducted remining at a site on 
        which coal mining originally was conducted before the effective 
        date of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
        shall be deemed to be in compliance with sections 301, 302, 
        306, 307, and 402 of this Act if--
                  ``(A) such operator commenced remining at such 
                operation prior to the adoption of this subsection in a 
                State program approved under section 402 and performed 
                such remining under a permit pursuant to such Act; and
                  ``(B) the post-mining discharges from such operation 
                do not add pollutants to the waters of the United 
                States in excess of those pollutants discharged from 
                the remined area before the coal remining operation 
                began.''.

SEC. 302. POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES.

  (a) Innovative Production Processes.--Subsection (k) of section 301 
(33 U.S.C. 1311(k)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(k) Innovative Production Processes, Technologies, and Methods.--
          ``(1) In general.--In the case of any point source subject to 
        a permit under section 402, the Administrator, with the consent 
        of the State in which the point source is located, or the State 
        in consultation with the Administrator, in the case of a State 
        with an approved program under section 402, may, at the request 
        of the permittee and after public notice and opportunity for 
        comment, extend the deadline for the point source to comply 
        with any limitation established pursuant to subsection 
        (b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), or (b)(2)(E) and make other appropriate 
        modifications to the conditions of the point source permit, for 
        the purpose of encouraging the development and use of an 
        innovative pollution prevention technology (including an 
        innovative production process change, innovative pollution 
        control technology, or innovative recycling method) that has 
        the potential to--
                  ``(A) achieve an effluent reduction which is greater 
                than that required by the limitation otherwise 
                applicable;
                  ``(B) meet the applicable effluent limitation to 
                water while achieving a reduction of total emissions to 
                other media which is greater than that required by the 
                otherwise applicable emissions limitations for the 
                other media;
                  ``(C) meet the applicable effluent limitation to 
                water while achieving a reduction in energy 
                consumption; or
                  ``(D) achieve the required reduction with the 
                potential for significantly lower costs than the 
                systems determined by the Administrator to be 
                economically achievable.
          ``(2) Duration of extensions.--The extension of the 
        compliance deadlines under paragraph (1) shall not extend 
        beyond the period necessary for the owner of the point source 
        to install and use the innovative process, technology, or 
        method in full-scale production operations, but in no case 
        shall the compliance extensions extend beyond 3 years from the 
        date for compliance with the otherwise applicable limitations.
          ``(3) Consequences of failure.--In determining the amount of 
        any civil or administrative penalty pursuant to section 309(d) 
        or 309(g) for any violations of a section 402 permit during the 
        extension period referred to in paragraph (1) that are caused 
        by the unexpected failure of an innovative process, technology, 
        or method, a court or the Administrator, as appropriate, shall 
        reduce or eliminate the penalty for such violation if the 
        permittee has made good-faith efforts both to implement the 
        innovation and to comply with any interim limitations.
          ``(4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall review, 
        analyze, and compile in a report information on innovative and 
        alternative technologies which are available for preventing and 
        reducing pollution of navigable waters, submit such report to 
        Congress, and publish in the Federal Register a summary of such 
        report and a notice of the availability of such report. The 
        Administrator shall annually update the report prepared under 
        this paragraph, submit the updated report to Congress, and 
        publish in the Federal Register a summary of the updated report 
        and a notice of its availability.''.
  (b) Pollution Prevention Programs.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is 
amended--
          (1) in subsection (l) by striking ``subsection (n)'' and 
        inserting ``subsections (n), (q), and (r)''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(q) Pollution Prevention Programs.--
          ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, the Administrator (with the concurrence of the State) 
        or a State with an approved program under section 402, after 
        public notice and an opportunity for comment, may issue a 
        permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements of 
        subsection (b) of this section or section 306 and makes 
        appropriate modifications to the conditions of the permit, or 
        may modify the requirements of section 307, if the 
        Administrator or State determines that pollution prevention 
        measures or practices (including recycling, source reduction, 
        and other measures to reduce discharges or other releases of 
        pollutants to the environment beyond those otherwise required 
        by law) together with such modifications will achieve an 
        overall reduction in emissions to the environment (including 
        emissions to water and air and disposal of solid wastes) from 
        the facility at which the permitted discharge is located that 
        is greater than would otherwise be achievable if the source 
        complied with the requirements of subsection (b) or section 306 
        or 307 and will result in an overall net benefit to the 
        environment.
          ``(2) Term of modification.--A modification made pursuant to 
        paragraph (1) shall extend for the term of the permit or, in 
        the case of modifications under section 307(b), for up to 10 
        years, and may be extended further if the Administrator or 
        State determines at the expiration of the initial modifications 
        that such modifications will continue to enable the source to 
        achieve greater emissions reduction than would otherwise be 
        attainable.
          ``(3) Nonextension of modification.--Upon expiration of a 
        modification that is not extended further under paragraph (2), 
        the source shall have a reasonable period of time, not to 
        exceed 2 years, to come into compliance with otherwise 
        applicable requirements of this Act.
          ``(4) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit to 
        Congress a report on the implementation of this subsection and 
        the emissions reductions achieved as a result of modifications 
        made pursuant to this subsection.''.
  (c) Pollution Reduction Agreements.--Section 301 is further amended 
by adding at the end the following:
  ``(r) Pollution Reduction Agreements.--
          ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, the Administrator (with the concurrence of the State) 
        or a State with an approved program under section 402, after 
        public notice and an opportunity for comment, may issue a 
        permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements of 
        subsection (b) of this section or section 306 and makes 
        appropriate modifications to the conditions of the permit, or 
        may modify the requirements of section 307, if the 
        Administrator or State determines that the owner or operator of 
        the source of the discharge has entered into a binding 
        contractual agreement with any other source of discharge in the 
        same watershed to implement pollution reduction controls or 
        measures beyond those otherwise required by law and that the 
        agreement is being implemented through modifications of a 
        permit issued under section 402 to the other source, by 
        modifications of the requirements of section 307 applicable to 
        the other source, or by nonpoint source control practices and 
        measures under section 319 applicable to the other source. The 
        Administrator or State may modify otherwise applicable 
        requirements pursuant to this section whenever the 
        Administrator or State determines that such pollution reduction 
        control or measures will result collectively in an overall 
        reduction in discharges to the watershed that is greater than 
        would otherwise be achievable if the parties to the pollution 
        reduction agreement each complied with applicable requirements 
        of subsection (b), section 306 or 307 resulting in a net 
        benefit to the watershed.
          ``(2) Notification to affected states.--Before issuing or 
        modifying a permit under this subsection allowing discharges 
        into a watershed that is within the jurisdiction of 2 or more 
        States, the Administrator or State shall provide written notice 
        of the proposed permit to all States with jurisdiction over the 
        watershed. The Administrator or State shall not issue or modify 
        such permit unless all States with jurisdiction over the 
        watershed have approved such permit or unless such States do 
        not disapprove such permit within 90 days of receiving such 
        written notice.
          ``(3) Term of modification.--Modifications made pursuant to 
        this subsection shall extend for the term of the modified 
        permits or, in the case of modifications under section 307, for 
        up to 10 years, and may be extended further if the 
        Administrator or State determines, at the expiration of the 
        initial modifications, that such modifications will continue to 
        enable the sources trading credits to achieve greater reduction 
        in discharges to the watershed collectively than would 
        otherwise be attainable.
          ``(4) Nonextension of modification.--Upon expiration of a 
        modification that is not extended further under paragraph (3), 
        the source shall have a reasonable period of time, not to 
        exceed 2 years, to come into compliance with otherwise 
        applicable requirements of this Act.
          ``(5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in this 
        subsection shall be construed to authorize the Administrator or 
        a State, as appropriate, to compel trading among sources or to 
        impose nonpoint source control practices without the consent of 
        the nonpoint source discharger.
          ``(6) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit a 
        report to Congress on the implementation of paragraph (1) and 
        the discharge reductions achieved as a result of modifications 
        made pursuant to paragraph (1).''.
  (d) Antibacksliding.--Section 402(o)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1342(o)(2)) is 
amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (D)--
                  (A) by inserting ``301(q), 301(r),'' after 
                ``301(n),''; and
                  (B) by striking ``or'' the last place it appears;
          (2) in subparagraph (E) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
          (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
                  ``(F) the permittee is taking pollution prevention or 
                water conservation measures that produce a net 
                environmental benefit, including, but not limited to, 
                measures that result in the substitution of one 
                pollutant for another pollutant; increase the 
                concentration of a pollutant while decreasing the 
                discharge flow; or increase the discharge of a 
                pollutant or pollutants from one or more outfalls at a 
                permittee's facility, when accompanied by offsetting 
                decreases in the discharge of a pollutant or pollutants 
                from other outfalls at the permittee's facility.''.
  (e) Antidegradation Review.--Section 303(d) (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Antidegradation review.--The Administrator may not 
        require a State, in implementing the antidegradation policy 
        established under this section, to conduct an antidegradation 
        review in the case of--
                  ``(A) increases in a discharge which are authorized 
                under section 301(g), 301(k), 301(q), 301(r), or 
                301(t);
                  ``(B) increases in the concentration of a pollutant 
                in a discharge caused by a reduction in wastewater 
                flow;
                  ``(C) increases in the discharge of a pollutant or 
                pollutants from one or more outfalls at a permittee's 
                facility, when accompanied by offsetting decreases in 
                the discharge of a pollutant or pollutants from other 
                outfalls at the permittee's facility;
                  ``(D) reissuance of a permit where there is no 
                increase in existing effluent limitations and, if a new 
                effluent limitation is being added to the permit, where 
                the new limitation is for a pollutant that is newly 
                found in an existing discharge due solely to improved 
                monitoring methods; or
                  ``(E) a new or increased discharge which is temporary 
                or short-term or which the State determines represents 
                an insignificant increased pollutant loading.''.
  (f) Innovative Pretreatment Production Processes.--Subsection (e) of 
section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317(e)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(e) Innovative Pretreatment Production Processes, Technologies, and 
Methods.--
          ``(1) In general.--In the case of any facility that proposes 
        to comply with the national categorical pretreatment standards 
        developed under subsection (b) by applying an innovative 
        pollution prevention technology (including an innovative 
        production process change, innovative pollution control 
        technology, or innovative recycling method) that meets the 
        requirements of section 301(k), the Administrator or the State, 
        in consultation with the Administrator, in the case of a State 
        which has a pretreatment program approved by the Administrator, 
        upon application of the facility and with the concurrence of 
        the treatment works into which the facility introduces 
        pollutants, may extend the deadlines for compliance with the 
        applicable national categorical pretreatment standards 
        established under this section and make other appropriate 
        modifications to the facility's pretreatment requirements if 
        the Administrator or the State, in consultation with the 
        Administrator, in the case of a State which has a pretreatment 
        program approved by the Administrator determines that--
                  ``(A) the treatment works will require the owner of 
                the source to conduct such tests and monitoring during 
                the period of the modification as are necessary to 
                ensure that the modification does not cause or 
                contribute to a violation by the treatment works under 
                section 402 or a violation of section 405;
                  ``(B) the treatment works will require the owner of 
                the source to report on progress at prescribed 
                milestones during the period of modification to ensure 
                that attainment of the pollution reduction goals and 
                conditions set forth in this section is being achieved; 
                and
                  ``(C) the proposed extensions or modifications will 
                not cause or contribute to any violation of a permit 
                granted to the treatment works under section 402, any 
                violation of section 405, or a pass through of 
                pollutants such that water quality standards are 
                exceeded in the body of water into which the treatment 
                works discharges.
          ``(2) Interim limitations.--A modification granted pursuant 
        to paragraph (1) shall include interim standards that shall 
        apply during the temporary period of the modification and shall 
        be the more stringent of--
                  ``(A) those necessary to ensure that the discharge 
                will not interfere with the operation of the treatment 
                works;
                  ``(B) those necessary to ensure that the discharge 
                will not pass through pollutants at a level that will 
                cause water quality standards to be exceeded in the 
                navigable waters into which the treatment works 
                discharges;
                  ``(C) the limits established in the previously 
                applicable control mechanism, in those cases in which 
                the limit from which a modification is being sought is 
                more stringent than the limit established in a previous 
                control mechanism applicable to such source.
          ``(3) Duration of extensions and modifications.--The 
        extension of the compliance deadlines and the modified 
        pretreatment requirements established pursuant to paragraph (1) 
        shall not extend beyond the period necessary for the owner to 
        install and use the innovative process, technology, or method 
        in full-scale production operation, but in no case shall the 
        compliance extensions and modified requirements extend beyond 3 
        years from the date for compliance with the otherwise 
        applicable standards.
          ``(4) Consequences of failure.--In determining the amount of 
        any civil or administrative penalty pursuant to section 309(d) 
        or 309(g) for any pretreatment violations, or violations by a 
        publicly owned treatment works, caused by the unexpected 
        failure of an innovative process, technology, or method, a 
        court or the Administrator, as appropriate, shall reduce, or 
        eliminate, the penalty amount for such violations provided the 
        facility made good-faith efforts both to implement the 
        innovation and to comply with the interim standards and, in the 
        case of a publicly owned treatment works, good-faith efforts 
        were made to implement the pretreatment program.''.

SEC. 303. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

  (a) No Reasonable Relationship.--Section 303(b) (33 U.S.C. 1313(b)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) No reasonable relationship.--No water quality standard 
        shall be established under this subsection where there is no 
        reasonable relationship between the costs and anticipated 
        benefits of attaining such standard.''.
  (b) Revision of State Standards.--
          (1) Review of revisions by the administrator.--Section 
        303(c)(1) is amended by striking ``three'' and all that follows 
        through ``1972'' and inserting the following: ``5-year period 
        beginning on the date of the enactment of the Clean Water 
        Amendments of 1995 and, for criteria that are revised by the 
        Administrator pursuant to section 304(a), on or before the 
        180th day after the date of such revision by the 
        Administrator''.
          (2) Factors.--Section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)) is amended 
        by striking paragraph (2)(A) and inserting the following:
          ``(2) State adoption of water quality standards.--
                  ``(A) In general.--
                          ``(i) Submission to administrator.--Whenever 
                        the State revises or adopts a new water quality 
                        standard, such standard shall be submitted to 
                        the Administrator.
                          ``(ii) Designated uses and water quality 
                        criteria.--The revised or new standard shall 
                        consist of the designated uses of the navigable 
                        waters involved and the water quality criteria 
                        for such waters based upon such uses.
                          ``(iii) Protection of human health.--The 
                        revised or new standard shall protect human 
                        health and the environment and enhance water 
                        quality.
                          ``(iv) Development of standards.--In 
                        developing revised or new standards, the State 
                        may consider information reasonably available 
                        on the likely social, economic, energy use, and 
                        environmental cost associated with attaining 
                        such standards in relation to the benefits to 
                        be attained. The State may provide a 
                        description of the considerations used in the 
                        establishment of the standards.
                          ``(v) Record of state's review.--The record 
                        of a State's review under paragraph (1) of an 
                        existing standard or adoption of a new standard 
                        that includes water quality criteria issued or 
                        revised by the Administrator after the date of 
                        the enactment of this sentence shall contain 
                        available estimates of costs of compliance with 
                        the water quality criteria published by the 
                        Administrator under section 304(a)(12) and any 
                        comments received by the State on such 
                        estimate.
                          ``(vi) Limitation on statutory 
                        construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
                        be construed to limit or delay the use of any 
                        guidance of the Administrator interpreting 
                        water quality criteria to allow the use of a 
                        dissolved metals concentration measurement or 
                        similar adjustment in determining compliance 
                        with a water quality standard or establishing 
                        effluent limitations.''.
  (c) Revision of Designated Uses.--Section 303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(C) Revision of designated uses.--
                          ``(i) Regulations.--After consultation with 
                        State officials and not later than 1 year after 
                        the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, 
                        the Administrator shall propose, and not later 
                        than 2 years after such date of enactment shall 
                        issue, a revision to the Administrator's 
                        regulations regarding designation of uses of 
                        waters by States.
                          ``(ii) Waters not attaining designated 
                        uses.--For navigable waters not attaining 
                        designated uses, the Administrator shall 
                        identify conditions that make attainment of the 
                        designated use infeasible and shall allow a 
                        State to modify the designated use if the State 
                        determines that such condition or conditions 
                        are present with respect to a particular 
                        receiving water, or if the State determines 
                        that the costs of achieving the designated use 
                        are not justified by the benefits.
                          ``(iii) Waters attaining designated uses.--
                        For navigable waters attaining the designated 
                        use applicable to such waters for all 
                        pollutants, the Administrator shall allow a 
                        State to modify the designated use only if the 
                        State determines that continued maintenance of 
                        the water quality necessary to support the 
                        designated use will result in significant 
                        social or economic dislocations substantially 
                        out of proportion to the benefits to be 
                        achieved from maintenance of the designated 
                        use.
                          ``(iv) Modification of point source limits.--
                        Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
                        Act, water quality based limits applicable to 
                        point sources may be modified as appropriate to 
                        conform to any modified designated use under 
                        this section.''.

SEC. 304. USE OF BIOLOGICAL MONITORING.

  (a) Laboratory Biological Monitoring Criteria.--Subparagraph (B) of 
section 303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended--
          (1) by inserting ``Criteria for toxic pollutants.--'' after 
        ``(B)'';
          (2) by moving such subparagraph 4 ems to the right;
          (3) by inserting after the third sentence the following: 
        ``Criteria for whole effluent toxicity based on laboratory 
        biological monitoring or assessment methods shall employ an 
        aquatic species indigenous, or representative of indigenous, 
        and relevant to the type of waters covered by such criteria and 
        shall take into account the accepted analytical variability 
        associated with such methods in defining an exceedance of such 
        criteria.''.
  (b) Permit Procedures.--Section 402 is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(q) Biological Monitoring Procedures.--
          ``(1) Responding to exceedances.--If a permit issued under 
        this section contains terms, conditions, or limitations 
        requiring biological monitoring or whole effluent toxicity 
        testing designed to meet criteria for whole effluent toxicity 
        based on laboratory biological monitoring or assessment methods 
        described in section 303(c)(2)(B), the permit shall establish 
        procedures for responding to an exceedance of such criteria 
        that includes analysis, identification, reduction, or, where 
        feasible, elimination of any effluent toxicity. The failure of 
        a biological monitoring test or whole effluent toxicity test 
        shall not result in a finding of a violation under this Act, 
        unless it is demonstrated that the permittee has failed to 
        comply with such procedures.
          ``(2) Discontinuance of use.--The permit shall allow the 
        permittee to discontinue such procedures--
                  ``(A) if the permittee is an entity, other than a 
                publicly owned treatment works, if the permittee 
                demonstrates through a field bio-assessment study that 
                a balanced and healthy population of aquatic species 
                indigenous, or representative of indigenous, and 
                relevant to the type of waters exists in the waters 
                that are affected by the discharge, and if the 
                applicable water quality standards are met for such 
                waters; or
                  ``(B) if the permittee is a publicly owned treatment 
                works, the source or cause of such toxicity cannot, 
                after thorough investigation, be identified.''.
  (c) Information on Water Quality Criteria.--Section 304(a)(8) (33 
U.S.C. 1314(a)(8)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``, after'' and all that follows through 
        ``1987,''; and
          (2) by inserting after ``publish'' the following: ``, 
        consistent with section 303(c)(2)(B) of this Act,''.

SEC. 305. ARID AREAS.

  (a) Constructed Water Conveyances.--Section 303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(D) Standards for constructed water conveyances.--
                          ``(i) Relevant factors.--If a State exercises 
                        jurisdiction over constructed water conveyances 
                        in establishing standards under this section, 
                        the State may consider the following:
                                  ``(I) The existing and planned uses 
                                of water transported in a conveyance 
                                system.
                                  ``(II) Any water quality impacts 
                                resulting from any return flow from a 
                                constructed water conveyance to 
                                navigable waters and the need to 
                                protect downstream users.
                                  ``(III) Management practices 
                                necessary to maintain the conveyance 
                                system.
                                  ``(IV) State or regional water 
                                resources management and water 
                                conservation plans.
                                  ``(V) The authorized purpose for the 
                                constructed conveyance.
                          ``(ii) Relevant uses.--If a State adopts or 
                        reviews water quality standards for constructed 
                        water conveyances, it shall not be required to 
                        establish recreation, aquatic life, or fish 
                        consumption uses for such systems if the uses 
                        are not existing or reasonably foreseeable or 
                        such uses impede the authorized uses of the 
                        conveyance system.''.
  (b) Criteria and Guidance for Ephemeral and Effluent-Dependent 
Streams.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
          ``(9) Criteria and guidance for ephemeral and effluent-
        dependent streams.--
                  ``(A) Development.--Not later than 2 years after the 
                date of the enactment of this paragraph, and after 
                providing notice and opportunity for public comment, 
                the Administrator shall develop and publish--
                          ``(i) criteria for ephemeral and effluent-
                        dependent streams; and
                          ``(ii) guidance to the States on development 
                        and adoption of water quality standards 
                        applicable to such streams.
                  ``(B) Factors.--The criteria and guidance developed 
                under subparagraph (A) shall take into account the 
                limited ability of ephemeral and effluent-dependent 
                streams to support aquatic life and certain designated 
                uses, shall include consideration of the role the 
                discharge may play in maintaining the flow or level of 
                such waters, and shall promote the beneficial use of 
                reclaimed water pursuant to section 101(a)(10).''.
  (c) Factors Required To Be Considered by Administrator.--Section 
303(c)(4) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In revising 
or adopting any new standard for ephemeral or effluent-dependent 
streams under this paragraph, the Administrator shall consider the 
factors referred to in section 304(a)(9)(B).''.
  (d) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
  ``(21) The term `effluent-dependent stream' means a stream or a 
segment thereof--
          ``(A) with respect to which the flow (based on the annual 
        average expected flow, determined by calculating the average 
        mode over a 10-year period) is primarily attributable to the 
        discharge of treated wastewater;
          ``(B) that, in the absence of a discharge of treated 
        wastewater and other primary anthropogenic surface or 
        subsurface flows, would be an ephemeral stream; or
          ``(C) that is an effluent-dependent stream under applicable 
        State water quality standards.
  ``(22) The term `ephemeral stream' means a stream or segments thereof 
that flows periodically in response to precipitation, snowmelt, or 
runoff.
  ``(23) The term `constructed water conveyance' means a manmade water 
transport system constructed for the purpose of transporting water in a 
waterway that is not and never was a natural perennial waterway.''.

SEC. 306. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS.

  Section 303(d)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(C)) is amended to read as 
follows:
                  ``(C) Total maximum daily loads.--
                          ``(i) State determination of reasonable 
                        progress.--Each State shall establish, to the 
                        extent and according to a schedule the State 
                        determines is necessary to achieve reasonable 
                        progress toward the attainment or maintenance 
                        of water quality standards, for the waters 
                        identified in paragraph (1)(A) of this 
                        subsection, and in accordance with the priority 
                        ranking, the total maximum daily load, for 
                        those pollutants which the Administrator 
                        identifies under section 304(a)(2) as suitable 
                        for such calculation.
                          ``(ii) Phased total maximum daily loads.--
                        Total maximum daily loads may reflect load 
                        reductions the State expects will be realized 
                        over time resulting from anticipated 
                        implementation of best management practices, 
                        storm water controls, or other nonpoint or 
                        point source controls; so long as by December 
                        31, 2015, such loads are established at levels 
                        necessary to implement the applicable water 
                        quality standards with seasonal variations and 
                        a margin of safety.
                          ``(iii) Considerations.--In establishing each 
                        load, the State shall consider the availability 
                        of scientifically valid data and information, 
                        the projected reductions achievable by control 
                        measures or practices for all sources or 
                        categories of sources, and the relative cost-
                        effectiveness of implementing such control 
                        measures or practices for such sources.''.

SEC. 307. REVISION OF CRITERIA, STANDARDS, AND LIMITATIONS.

  (a) Revision of Water Quality Criteria.--
          (1) Factors.--Section 304(a)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(1)) is 
        amended--
                  (A) by striking ``and (C)'' and inserting ``(C)''; 
                and
                  (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting 
                the following: ``(D) on the organisms that are likely 
                to be present in various ecosystems; (E) on the 
                bioavailability of pollutants under various natural and 
                man induced conditions; (F) on the magnitude, duration, 
                and frequency of exposure reasonably required to induce 
                the adverse effects of concern; and (G) on the 
                bioaccumulation threat presented under various natural 
                conditions.''.
          (2) Certification.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is 
        amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(10) Certification.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the 
                date of the enactment of this paragraph, and at least 
                once every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator shall 
                publish a written certification that the criteria for 
                water quality developed under paragraph (1) reflect the 
                latest and best scientific knowledge.
                  ``(B) Updating of existing criteria.--Not later than 
                90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
                paragraph, the Administrator shall publish a schedule 
                for updating, by not later than 5 years after the date 
                of the enactment of this paragraph, the criteria for 
                water quality developed under paragraph (1) before the 
                date of the enactment of this subsection.
                  ``(C) Deadline for revision of certain criteria.--Not 
                later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
                this paragraph, the Administrator shall revise and 
                publish criteria under paragraph (1) for ammonia, 
                chronic whole effluent toxicity, and metals as 
                necessary to allow the Administrator to make the 
                certification under subparagraph (A).''.
  (b) Consideration of Certain Contaminants.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 
1314(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(11) Consideration of certain contaminants.--In developing 
        and revising criteria for water quality criteria under 
        paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider addressing, at 
        a minimum, each contaminant regulated pursuant to section 1412 
        of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-1).''.
  (c) Cost Estimate.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is further 
amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(12) Cost estimate.--Whenever the Administrator issues or 
        revises a criteria for water quality under paragraph (1), the 
        Administrator, after consultation with Federal and State 
        agencies and other interested persons, shall develop and 
        publish an estimate of the costs that would likely be incurred 
        if sources were required to comply with the criteria and an 
        analysis to support the estimate. Such analysis shall meet the 
        requirements relevant to the estimation of costs published in 
        guidance issued under section 324(b).''.
  (d) Revision of Effluent Limitations.--
          (1) Elimination of requirement for annual revision.--Section 
        304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is amended in the matter preceding 
        paragraph (1) by striking ``and, at least annually 
        thereafter,'' and inserting ``and thereafter shall''.
          (2) Special rule.--Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is 
        amended by striking the period at the end of the first sentence 
        and inserting the following: ``; except that guidelines issued 
        under paragraph (1)(A) addressing pollutants identified 
        pursuant to subsection (a)(4) shall not be revised after 
        February 15, 1995, to be more stringent unless such revised 
        guidelines meet the requirements of paragraph (4)(A).''.
  (e) Schedule for Review of Guidelines.--Section 304(m)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
1314(m)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(1) Publication.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
        the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, the 
        Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a plan 
        which shall--
                  ``(A) identify categories of sources discharging 
                pollutants for which guidelines under subsection (b)(2) 
                of this section and section 306 have not been 
                previously published;
                  ``(B) establish a schedule for determining whether 
                such discharge presents a significant risk to human 
                health and the environment and whether such risk is 
                sufficient, when compared to other sources of 
                pollutants in navigable waters, to warrant regulation 
                by the Administrator; and
                  ``(C) establish a schedule for issuance of effluent 
                guidelines for those categories identified pursuant to 
                subparagraph (B).''.
  (f) Revision of Pretreatment Requirements.--Section 304(g)(1) (33 
U.S.C. 1314(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``and review at least 
annually thereafter and, if appropriate, revise'' and insert ``and 
thereafter revise, as appropriate,''.
  (g) Central Treatment Facility Exemption.--Section 304 (33 U.S.C. 
1314) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(n) Central Treatment Facility Exemption.--The exemption from 
effluent guidelines for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source 
Category set forth in section 420.01(b) of title 40, Code of Federal 
Regulations, for the facilities listed in such section shall remain in 
effect for any facility that met the requirements of such section on or 
before July 26, 1982, until the Administrator develops alternative 
effluent guidelines for the facility.''.

SEC. 308. INFORMATION AND GUIDELINES.

  Section 304(i)(2)(D) (33 U.S.C. 1314(i)(2)(D)) is amended by striking 
``any person'' and all that follows through the period at the end and 
inserting the following: ``any person (other than a retiree or an 
employee or official of a city, county, or local governmental agency) 
who receives a significant portion of his or her income during the 
period of service on the board or body directly or indirectly from 
permit holders or applicants for a permit).''.

SEC. 309. SECONDARY TREATMENT.

  (a) Coastal Discharges.--Section 304(d) (33 U.S.C. 1314(d)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Coastal discharges.--For purposes of this subsection, 
        any municipal wastewater treatment facility shall be deemed the 
        equivalent of a secondary treatment facility if each of the 
        following requirements is met:
                  ``(A) The facility employs chemically enhanced 
                primary treatment.
                  ``(B) The facility, on the date of the enactment of 
                this paragraph, discharges through an ocean outfall 
                into an open marine environment greater than 4 miles 
                offshore into a depth greater than 300 feet.
                  ``(C) The facility's discharge is in compliance with 
                all local and State water quality standards for the 
                receiving waters.
                  ``(D) The facility's discharge will be subject to an 
                ocean monitoring program acceptable to relevant Federal 
                and State regulatory agencies.''.
  (b) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
          (1) In general.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by 
        adding at the end the following:
  ``(s) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, with the concurrence of 
        the State, shall issue a 10-year permit under section 402 which 
        modifies the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this 
        section with respect to the discharge of any pollutant from a 
        publicly owned treatment works into marine waters which are at 
        least 150 feet deep through an ocean outfall which discharges 
        at least 1 mile offshore, if the applicant demonstrates that--
                  ``(A) there is an applicable ocean plan and the 
                facility's discharge is in compliance with all local 
                and State water quality standards for the receiving 
                waters;
                  ``(B) the facility's discharge will be subject to an 
                ocean monitoring program determined to be acceptable by 
                relevant Federal and State regulatory agencies;
                  ``(C) the applicant has an Agency approved 
                pretreatment plan in place; and
                  ``(D) the applicant, at the time such modification 
                becomes effective, will be discharging effluent which 
                has received at least chemically enhanced primary 
                treatment and achieves a monthly average of 75 percent 
                removal of suspended solids.
          ``(2) Discharge of any pollutant into marine waters 
        defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `discharge 
        of any pollutant into marine waters' means a discharge into 
        deep waters of the territorial sea or the waters of the 
        contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine waters where there is 
        strong tidal movement.
          ``(3) Deadline.--On or before the 90th day after the date of 
        submittal of an application for a modification under paragraph 
        (1), the Administrator shall issue to the applicant a modified 
        permit under section 402 or a written determination that the 
        application does not meet the terms and conditions of this 
        subsection.
          ``(4) Effect of failure to respond.--If the Administrator 
        does not respond to an application for a modification under 
        paragraph (1) on or before the 90th day referred to in 
        paragraph (3), the application shall be deemed approved and the 
        modification sought by the applicant shall be in effect for the 
        succeeding 10-year period.''.
          (2) Extension of application deadline.--Section 301(j) (33 
        U.S.C. 1311(j)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(6) Extension of application deadline.--In the 365-day 
        period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
        paragraph, municipalities may apply for a modification pursuant 
        to subsection (s) of the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) 
        of this section.''.
  (c) Modifications for Small System Treatment Technologies.--Section 
301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(t) Modifications for Small System Treatment Technologies.--The 
Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, or a State with an 
approved program under section 402 may issue a permit under section 402 
which modifies the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section 
with respect to the discharge of any pollutant from a publicly owned 
treatment works serving a community of 20,000 people or fewer if the 
applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that--
          ``(1) the effluent from such facility originates primarily 
        from domestic users; and
          ``(2) such facility utilizes a properly constructed and 
        operated alternative treatment system (including recirculating 
        sand filter systems, constructed wetlands, and oxidation 
        lagoons) which is equivalent to secondary treatment or will 
        provide in the receiving waters and watershed an adequate level 
        of protection to human health and the environment and 
        contribute to the attainment of water quality standards.''.
  (d) Puerto Rico.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C 1311) is further amended by 
adding at the end the following:
  ``(u) Puerto Rico.--
          ``(1) Study by government of puerto rico.--Not later than 3 
        months after the date of the enactment of this section, the 
        Government of Puerto Rico may, after consultation with the 
        Administrator, initiate a study of the marine environment of 
        Anasco Bay off the coast of the Mayaguez region of Puerto Rico 
        to determine the feasibility of constructing a deepwater 
        outfall for the publicly owned treatment works located at 
        Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Such study shall recommend one or more 
        technically feasible locations for the deepwater outfall based 
        on the effects of such outfall on the marine environment.
          ``(2) Application for modification.--Notwithstanding 
        subsection (j)(1)(A), not later than 18 months after the date 
        of the enactment of this section, an application may be 
        submitted for a modification pursuant to subsection (h) of the 
        requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section by the 
        owner of the publicly owned treatment works at Mayaguez, Puerto 
        Rico, for a deepwater outfall at a location recommended in the 
        study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).
          ``(3) Initial determination.--On or before the 90th day after 
        the date of submittal of an application for modification under 
        paragraph (2), the Administrator shall issue to the applicant a 
        draft initial determination regarding the modification of the 
        existing permit.
          ``(4) Final determination.--On or before the 270th day after 
        the date of submittal of an application for modification under 
        paragraph (2), the Administrator shall issue a final 
        determination regarding such modification.
          ``(5) Effectiveness.--If a modification is granted pursuant 
        to an application submitted under this subsection, such 
        modification shall be effective only if the new deepwater 
        outfall is operational within 5 years after the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection. In all other aspects, such 
        modification shall be effective for the period applicable to 
        all modifications granted under subsection (h).''.

SEC. 310. TOXIC POLLUTANTS.

  (a) Toxic Effluent Limitations and Standards.--Section 307(a)(2) (33 
U.S.C. 1317(a)(2)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``(2) Each'' and inserting the following:
          ``(2) Toxic effluent limitations and standards.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Each'';
          (2) by moving paragraph (2) 2 ems to the right;
          (3) by indenting subparagraph (A), as so designated, and 
        moving the remaining text of such subparagraph 2 ems further to 
        the right; and
          (4) in subparagraph (A), as so designated, by striking the 
        third sentence; and
          (5) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(B) Factors.--The published effluent standard (or 
                prohibition) shall take into account--
                          ``(i) the pollutant's persistence, toxicity, 
                        degradability, and bioaccumulation potential;
                          ``(ii) the magnitude and risk of exposure to 
                        the pollutant, including risks to affected 
                        organisms and the importance of such organisms;
                          ``(iii) the relative contribution of point 
                        source discharges of the pollutant to the 
                        overall risk from the pollutant;
                          ``(iv) the availability of, costs associated 
                        with, and risk posed by substitute chemicals or 
                        processes or the availability of treatment 
                        processes or control technology;
                          ``(v) the beneficial and adverse social and 
                        economic effects of the effluent standard, 
                        including the impact on energy resources;
                          ``(vi) the extent to which effective control 
                        is being or may be achieved in an expeditious 
                        manner under other regulatory authorities;
                          ``(vii) the impact on national security 
                        interests; and
                          ``(viii) such other factors as the 
                        Administrator considers appropriate.''.
  (b) Beach Water Quality Monitoring.--
          (1) In general.--Section 304 is further amended by adding at 
        the end the following:
  ``(o) Beach Water Quality Monitoring.--After consultation with 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and after providing 
notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall 
develop and issue, not later than 18 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, guidance that States may use in monitoring water 
quality at beaches and issuing health advisories with respect to 
beaches, including testing protocols, recommendations on frequency of 
testing and monitoring, recommendations on pollutants for which 
monitoring and testing should be conducted, and recommendations on when 
health advisories should be issued. Such guidance shall be based on the 
best available scientific information and be sufficient to protect 
public health and safety in the case of any reasonably expected 
exposure to pollutants as a result of swimming or bathing.''.
          (2) Reports.--Section 516(a) (33 U.S.C. 1375(a)) is amended 
        by striking ``and (9)'' and inserting ``(9) the monitoring 
        conducted by States on the water quality of beaches and the 
        issuance of health advisories with respect to beaches, and 
        (10)''.
  (c) Fish Consumption Advisories.--Any fish consumption advisories 
issued by the Administrator shall be based upon the protocols, 
methodology, and findings of the Food and Drug Administration.

SEC. 311. LOCAL PRETREATMENT AUTHORITY.

  Section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
  ``(f) Local Pretreatment Authority.--
          ``(1) Demonstration.--If, to carry out the purposes 
        identified in paragraph (2), a publicly owned treatment works 
        with an approved pretreatment program demonstrates to the 
        satisfaction of the Administrator, or a State with an approved 
        program under section 402, that--
                  ``(A) such publicly owned treatment works is in 
                compliance, and is likely to remain in compliance, with 
                its permit under section 402, including applicable 
                effluent limitations and narrative standards;
                  ``(B) such publicly owned treatment works is in 
                compliance, and is likely to remain in compliance, with 
                applicable air emission limitations;
                  ``(C) biosolids produced by such publicly owned 
                treatment works meet beneficial use requirements under 
                section 405; and
                  ``(D) such publicly owned treatment works is likely 
                to continue to meet all applicable State requirements;
        the approved pretreatment program shall be modified to allow 
        the publicly owned treatment works to apply local limits in 
        lieu of categorical pretreatment standards promulgated under 
        this section.
          ``(2) Purposes.--The publicly owned treatment works may make 
        the demonstration to the Administrator or the State, as the 
        case may be, to apply local limits in lieu of categorical 
        pretreatment standards, as the treatment works deems necessary, 
        for the purposes of--
                  ``(A) reducing the administrative burden associated 
                with the designation of an `industrial user' as a 
                `categorical industrial user'; or
                  ``(B) eliminating additional redundant or unnecessary 
                treatment by industrial users which has little or no 
                environmental benefit.
          ``(3) Limitations.--
                  ``(A) Significant noncompliance.--The publicly owned 
                treatment works may not apply local limits in lieu of 
                categorical pretreatment standards to any industrial 
                user which is in significant noncompliance (as defined 
                by the Administrator) with its approved pretreatment 
                program.
                  ``(B) Procedures.--A demonstration to the 
                Administrator or the State under paragraph (1) must be 
                made under the procedures for pretreatment program 
                modification provided under this section and section 
                402.
          ``(4) Annual review.--
                  ``(A) Demonstration relating to ability to meet 
                criteria.--As part of the annual pretreatment report of 
                the publicly owned treatment works to the Administrator 
                or State, the treatment works shall demonstrate that 
                application of local limits in lieu of categorical 
                pretreatment standards has not resulted in the 
                inability of the treatment works to meet the criteria 
                of paragraph (1).
                  ``(B) Termination of authority.--If the Administrator 
                or State determines that application of local limits in 
                lieu of categorical pretreatment standards has resulted 
                in the inability of the treatment works to meet the 
                criteria of paragraph (1), the authority of a publicly 
                owned treatment works under this section shall be 
                terminated and any affected industrial user shall have 
                a reasonable period of time to be determined by the 
                Administrator or State, but not to exceed 2 years, to 
                come into compliance with any otherwise applicable 
                requirements of this Act.''.

SEC. 312. COMPLIANCE WITH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.

  Section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
  ``(g) Compliance With Management Practices.--
          ``(1) Special rule.--The Administrator or a State with a 
        permit program approved under section 402 may allow any person 
        that introduces silver into a publicly owned treatment works to 
        comply with a code of management practices with respect to the 
        introduction of silver into the treatment works for a period 
        not to exceed 5 years beginning on the date of the enactment of 
        this subsection in lieu of complying with any pretreatment 
        requirement (including any local limit) based on an effluent 
        limitation for the treatment works derived from a water quality 
        standard for silver--
                  ``(A) if the treatment works has accepted the code of 
                management practices;
                  ``(B) if the code of management practices meets the 
                requirements of paragraph (2); and
                  ``(C) if the facility is--
                          ``(i) part of a class of facilities for which 
                        the code of management practices has been 
                        approved by the Administrator or the State;
                          ``(ii) in compliance with a mass limitation 
                        or concentration level for silver attainable 
                        with the application of the best available 
                        technology economically achievable for such 
                        facilities, as established by the Administrator 
                        after a review of the treatment and management 
                        practices of such class of facilities; and
                          ``(iii) implementing the code of management 
                        practices.
          ``(2) Code of management practices.--A code of management 
        practices meets the requirements of this paragraph if the code 
        of management practices--
                  ``(A) is developed and adopted by representatives of 
                industry and publicly owned treatment works of major 
                urban areas;
                  ``(B) is approved by the Administrator or the State, 
                as the case may be;
                  ``(C) reflects acceptable industry practices to 
                minimize the amount of silver introduced into publicly 
                owned treatment works or otherwise entering the 
                environment from the class of facilities for which the 
                code of management practices is approved; and
                  ``(D) addresses, at a minimum--
                          ``(i) the use of the best available 
                        technology economically achievable, based on a 
                        review of the current state of such technology 
                        for such class of facilities and of the 
                        effluent guidelines for such facilities;
                          ``(ii) water conservation measures available 
                        to reduce the total quantity of discharge from 
                        such facilities to publicly owned treatment 
                        works;
                          ``(iii) opportunities to recover silver (and 
                        other pollutants) from the waste stream prior 
                        to introduction into a publicly owned treatment 
                        works; and
                          ``(iv) operating and maintenance practices to 
                        minimize the amount of silver introduced into 
                        publicly owned treatment works and to assure 
                        consistent performance of the management 
                        practices and treatment technology specified 
                        under this paragraph.
          ``(3) Interim extension for potws receiving silver.--In any 
        case in which the Administrator or a State with a permit 
        program approved under section 402 allows under paragraph (1) a 
        person to comply with a code of management practices for a 
        period of not to exceed 5 years in lieu of complying with a 
        pretreatment requirement (including a local limit) for silver, 
        the Administrator or State, as applicable, shall modify the 
        permit conditions and effluent limitations for any affected 
        publicly owned treatment works to defer for such period 
        compliance with any effluent limitation derived from a water 
        quality standard for silver beyond that required by section 
        301(b)(2), notwithstanding the provisions of section 303(d)(4) 
        and 402(o), if the Administrator or the State, as applicable, 
        finds that--
                  ``(A) the quality of any affected waters and the 
                operation of the treatment works will be adequately 
                protected during such period by implementation of the 
                code of management practices and the use of best 
                technology economically achievable by persons 
                introducing silver into the treatment works;
                  ``(B) the introduction of pollutants into such 
                treatment works is in compliance with paragraphs (1) 
                and (2); and
                  ``(C) a program of enforcement by such treatment 
                works and the State ensures such compliance.''.

SEC. 313. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT.

  (a) Adjustment of Penalties.--Section 309 (33 U.S.C. 1319) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
  ``(h) Adjustment of Monetary Penalties for Inflation.--
          ``(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
        the enactment of this subsection, and at least once every 4 
        years thereafter, the Administrator shall adjust each monetary 
        penalty provided by this section in accordance with paragraph 
        (2) and publish such adjustment in the Federal Register.
          ``(2) Method.--An adjustment to be made pursuant to paragraph 
        (1) shall be determined by increasing or decreasing the maximum 
        monetary penalty or the range of maximum monetary penalties, as 
        appropriate, by multiplying the cost-of-living adjustment and 
        the amount of such penalty.
          ``(3) Cost-of-living adjustment defined.--In this subsection, 
        the term `cost-of-living' adjustment means the percentage (if 
        any) for each monetary penalty by which--
                  ``(A) the Consumer Price Index for the month of June 
                of the calendar year preceding the adjustment; is 
                greater or less than
                  ``(B) the Consumer Price Index for--
                          ``(i) with respect to the first adjustment 
                        under this subsection, the month of June of the 
                        calendar year preceding the date of the 
                        enactment of this subsection; and
                          ``(ii) with respect to each subsequent 
                        adjustment under this subsection, the month of 
                        June of the calendar year in which the amount 
                        of such monetary penalty was last adjusted 
                        under this subsection.
          ``(4) Rounding.--In making adjustments under this subsection, 
        the Administrator may round the dollar amount of a penalty, as 
        appropriate.
          ``(5) Applicability.--Any increase or decrease to a monetary 
        penalty resulting from this subsection shall apply only to 
        violations which occur after the date any such increase takes 
        effect.''.
  (b) Joining States as Parties in Actions Involving Municipalities.--
Section 309(e) (33 U.S.C. 1319(e)) is amended by striking ``shall be 
joined as a party. Such State'' and inserting ``may be joined as a 
party. Any State so joined as a party''.

SEC. 314. RESPONSE PLANS FOR DISCHARGES OF OIL OR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES.

  (a) In General.--The requirements of section 311(j)(5) of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)) shall not apply with 
respect to--
          (1) a municipal or industrial treatment works at which no 
        greater than a de minimis quantity of oil or hazardous 
        substances is stored; or
          (2) a facility that stores process water mixed with a de 
        minimis quantity of oil.
  (b) Regulations.--The President shall issue regulations clarifying 
the meaning of the term ``de minimis quantity of oil or hazardous 
substances'' as used in this section.

SEC. 315. MARINE SANITATION DEVICES.

  Section 312(c)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1322(c)(1)(A)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following: ``Not later than 2 years after the date of 
the enactment of this sentence, and at least once every 5 years 
thereafter, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of 
the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating and after 
providing notice and opportunity for public comment, shall review such 
standards and regulations to take into account improvements in 
technology relating to marine sanitation devices and based on such 
review shall make such revisions to such standards and regulations as 
may be necessary.''.

SEC. 316. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

  (a) Application of Certain Provisions.--Section 313(a) (33 U.S.C. 
1323(a)) is amended by striking all preceding subsection (b) and 
inserting the following:

``SEC. 313. FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION CONTROL.

  ``(a) Applicability of Federal, State, Interstate, and Local Laws.--
          ``(1) In general.--Each department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial 
        branches of the Federal Government--
                  ``(A) having jurisdiction over any property or 
                facility, or
                  ``(B) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may 
                result, in the discharge or runoff of pollutants,
        and each officer, agent, or employee thereof in the performance 
        of his official duties, shall be subject to, and comply with, 
        all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, 
        administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting 
        the control and abatement of water pollution in the same manner 
        and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity, including 
        the payment of reasonable service charges.
          ``(2) Types of actions covered.--Paragraph (1) shall apply--
                  ``(A) to any requirement whether substantive or 
                procedural (including any recordkeeping or reporting 
                requirement, any requirement respecting permits, and 
                any other requirement),
                  ``(B) to the exercise of any Federal, State, or local 
                administrative authority, and
                  ``(C) to any process and sanction, whether enforced 
                in Federal, State, or local courts or in any other 
                manner.
          ``(3) Penalties and fines.--The Federal, State, interstate, 
        and local substantive and procedural requirements, 
        administrative authority, and process and sanctions referred to 
        in paragraph (1) include all administrative orders and all 
        civil and administrative penalties and fines, regardless of 
        whether such penalties or fines are punitive or coercive in 
        nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or continuing 
        violations.
          ``(4) Sovereign immunity.--
                  ``(A) Waiver.--The United States hereby expressly 
                waives any immunity otherwise applicable to the United 
                States with respect to any requirement, administrative 
                authority, and process and sanctions referred to in 
                paragraph (1) (including any injunctive relief, any 
                administrative order, any civil or administrative 
                penalty or fine referred to in paragraph (3), or any 
                reasonable service charge).
                  ``(B) Processing fees.--The reasonable service 
                charges referred to in this paragraph include fees or 
                charges assessed in connection with the processing and 
                issuance of permits, renewal of permits, amendments to 
                permits, review of plans, studies, and other documents, 
                and inspection and monitoring of facilities, as well as 
                any other nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed 
                in connection with a Federal, State, interstate, or 
                local water pollution regulatory program.
          ``(5) Exemptions.--
                  ``(A) General authority of president.--The President 
                may exempt any effluent source of any department, 
                agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch from 
                compliance with any requirement to which paragraph (1) 
                applies if the President determines it to be in the 
                paramount interest of the United States to do so; 
                except that no exemption may be granted from the 
                requirements of section 306 or 307 of this Act.
                  ``(B) Limitation.--No exemptions shall be granted 
                under subparagraph (A) due to lack of appropriation 
                unless the President shall have specifically requested 
                such appropriation as a part of the budgetary process 
                and the Congress shall have failed to make available 
                such requested appropriation.
                  ``(C) Time period.--Any exemption under subparagraph 
                (A) shall be for a period not in excess of 1 year, but 
                additional exemptions may be granted for periods of not 
                to exceed 1 year upon the President's making a new 
                determination.
                  ``(D) Military property.--In addition to any 
                exemption of a particular effluent source, the 
                President may, if the President determines it to be in 
                the paramount interest of the United States to do so, 
                issue regulations exempting from compliance with the 
                requirements of this section any weaponry, equipment, 
                aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or other classes or 
                categories of property, and access to such property, 
                which are owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the 
                United States (including the Coast Guard) or by the 
                National Guard of any State and which are uniquely 
                military in nature. The President shall reconsider the 
                need for such regulations at 3-year intervals.
                  ``(E) Reports.--The President shall report each 
                January to the Congress all exemptions from the 
                requirements of this section granted during the 
                preceding calendar year, together with the President's 
                reason for granting such exemption.
          ``(6) Venue.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
        prevent any department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
        Federal Government, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof 
        in the performance of official duties, from removing to the 
        appropriate Federal district court any proceeding to which the 
        department, agency, or instrumentality or officer, agent, or 
        employee thereof is subject pursuant to this section, and any 
        such proceeding may be removed in accordance with chapter 89 of 
        title 28, United States Code.
          ``(7) Personal liability of federal employees.--No agent, 
        employee, or officer of the United States shall be personally 
        liable for any civil penalty under any Federal, State, 
        interstate, or local water pollution law with respect to any 
        act or omission within the scope of the official duties of the 
        agent, employee, or officer.
          ``(8) Criminal sanctions.--An agent, employee, or officer of 
        the United States shall be subject to any criminal sanction 
        (including any fine or imprisonment) under any Federal or State 
        water pollution law, but no department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or judicial 
        branch of the Federal Government shall be subject to any such 
        sanction.''.
  (b) Funds Collected by a State.--Section 313 (33 U.S.C. 1323) is 
further amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(c) Limitation on State Use of Funds.--Unless a State law in effect 
on the date of the enactment of this subsection or a State constitution 
requires the funds to be used in a different manner, all funds 
collected by a State from the Federal Government in penalties and fines 
imposed for the violation of a substantive or procedural requirement 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be used by a State only for 
projects designed to improve or protect the environment or to defray 
the costs of environmental protection or enforcement.''.
  (c) Enforcement.--Section 313 is further amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(d) Federal Facility Enforcement.--
          ``(1) Administrative enforcement by epa.--The Administrator 
        may commence an administrative enforcement action against any 
        department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, 
        legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government 
        pursuant to the enforcement authorities contained in this Act.
          ``(2) Procedure.--The Administrator shall initiate an 
        administrative enforcement action against a department, agency, 
        or instrumentality under this subsection in the same manner and 
        under the same circumstances as an action would be initiated 
        against any other person under this Act. The amount of any 
        administrative penalty imposed under this subsection shall be 
        determined in accordance with section 309(d) of this Act.
          ``(3) Voluntary settlement.--Any voluntary resolution or 
        settlement of an action under this subsection shall be set 
        forth in an administrative consent order.
          ``(4) Conferral with epa.--No administrative order issued to 
        a department, agency, or instrumentality under this section 
        shall become final until such department, agency, or 
        instrumentality has had the opportunity to confer with the 
        Administrator.''.
  (d) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--Section 313 is 
further amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(e) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--Any violation 
with respect to which the Administrator has commenced and is diligently 
prosecuting an action under this subsection, or for which the 
Administrator has issued a final order and the violator has either paid 
a penalty or fine assessed under this subsection or is subject to an 
enforceable schedule of corrective actions, shall not be the subject of 
an action under section 505 of this Act. In any action under this 
subsection, any citizen may intervene as a matter of right.''.
  (e) Definition of Person.--Section 502(5) (33 U.S.C. 1362(5)) is 
amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``and 
includes any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United 
States''.
  (f) Definition of Radioactive Materials.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 
1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(24) The term `radioactive materials' includes source materials, 
special nuclear materials, and byproduct materials (as such terms are 
defined under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954) which are used, produced, 
or managed at facilities not licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission; except that such term does not include any material which 
is discharged from a vessel covered by Executive Order 12344 (42 U.S.C. 
7158 note; relating to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program).''.
  (g) Conforming Amendments.--Section 313(b) (33 U.S.C. 1323(b)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and inserting the following:
  ``(b) Wastewater Facilities.--
          ``(1) Cooperation for use of wastewater control systems.--'';
          (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Limitation on 
        construction.--'' before ``Construction''; and
          (3) by moving paragraphs (1) and (2) 2 ems to the right.
  (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall only apply to 
violations occurring after such date of enactment.

SEC. 317. CLEAN LAKES.

  (a) Priority Lakes.--Section 314(d)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1324(d)(2)) is 
amended by inserting ``Paris Twin Lakes, Illinois; Otsego Lake, New 
York; Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania;'' after ``Minnesota;''.
  (b) Funding.--Section 314 (33 U.S.C. 1324) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
  ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 per fiscal year for 
each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.

SEC. 318. COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES.

  Section 316(b) (33 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended--
          (1) by inserting after ``(b)'' the following: ``Standard for 
        Cooling Water Intake Structures.--'';
          (2) by inserting before ``Any'' the following: ``(1) In 
        general.--'';
          (3) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph 
        (2) of this section, and moving such paragraph 2 ems to the 
        right; and
          (4) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(2) New point source considerations.--In establishing a 
        standard referred to in paragraph (1) for cooling water intake 
        structures located at new point sources, the Administrator 
        shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
                  ``(A) The relative technological, engineering, and 
                economic feasibility of possible technologies or 
                techniques for minimizing any such adverse 
                environmental impacts.
                  ``(B) The relative technological, engineering, and 
                economic feasibility of possible site locations, intake 
                structure designs, and cooling water flow techniques.
                  ``(C) The relative environmental, social, and 
                economic costs and benefits of possible technologies, 
                techniques, site locations, intake structure designs, 
                and cooling water flow techniques.
                  ``(D) The projected useful life of the new point 
                source.
          ``(3) Existing point sources.--For existing point sources, 
        the Administrator may require the use of best technology 
        available in the case of existing cooling water intake 
        structures if the Administrator determines such structures are 
        having or could have a significant adverse impact on the 
        aquatic environment. In establishing a standard referred to in 
        paragraph (1) for such existing point sources, the 
        Administrator shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
                  ``(A) The relative technological, engineering, and 
                economic feasibility of reasonably available retrofit 
                technologies or techniques for minimizing any such 
                adverse environmental impacts.
                  ``(B) Other mitigation measures for offsetting the 
                anticipated adverse environmental impacts resulting 
                from the withdrawal of cooling water.
                  ``(C) Relative environmental, social, and economic 
                costs and benefits of possible retrofit technologies, 
                techniques, and mitigation measures.
                  ``(D) The projected remaining useful life of the 
                existing point source.
          ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
        definitions apply:
                  ``(A) New point source.--The term `new point source' 
                means any point source the construction of which will 
                commence after the publication of proposed regulations 
                prescribing a standard for intake structures that will 
                be applicable to such source if such standard is 
                promulgated in accordance with paragraph (2).
                  ``(B) Existing point source.--The term `existing 
                point source' means any point source that is not a new 
                point source.''.

SEC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  (a) State Assessment Report.--
          (1) Contents.--Section 319(a)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1329(a)(1)(C)) 
        is amended by striking ``best management practices and''.
          (2) Information used in preparation.--Section 319(a)(2) is 
        amended--
                  (A) by inserting ``, reviewing, and revising'' after 
                ``developing''; and
                  (B) by striking ``section'' the first place it 
                appears and inserting ``subsection''.
          (3) Review and revision.--Section 319(a) is amended by adding 
        at the end the following:
          ``(3) Review and revision.--Not later than 18 months after 
        the date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 
        1995, and every 5 years thereafter, the State shall review, 
        revise, and submit to the Administrator the report required by 
        this subsection.''.
  (b) State Management Program.--
          (1) Term of program.--Section 319(b)(1) is amended by 
        striking ``four'' and inserting ``5''.
          (2) Contents.--Section 319(b)(2) is amended--
                  (A) in subparagraph (A)--
                          (i) by striking ``best'';
                          (ii) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and 
                        inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(B)''; and
                          (iii) by inserting ``and measure'' after 
                        ``practice'';
                  (B) in subparagraph (B)--
                          (i) by striking ``nonregulatory or regulatory 
                        programs for enforcement,'' and inserting ``one 
                        or more of the following: voluntary programs, 
                        incentive-based programs, regulatory programs, 
                        enforceable policies and mechanisms, State 
                        management programs approved under section 306 
                        of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,''; 
                        and
                          (ii) by striking ``achieve implementation'' 
                        and all that follows before the period and 
                        inserting ``manage categories, subcategories, 
                        or particular nonpoint sources to the degree 
                        necessary to provide for reasonable further 
                        progress toward the goal of attaining water 
                        quality standards within 15 years of approval 
                        of the State program for those waters 
                        identified under subsection (a)(1)(A)'';
                  (C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
                following:
                  ``(C) A schedule containing interim goals and 
                milestones for making reasonable progress toward the 
                attainment of standards, which may be demonstrated by 
                one or any combination of the following: improvements 
                in water quality (including biological indicators), 
                documented implementation of voluntary nonpoint source 
                control practices and measures, and adoption of 
                enforceable policies and mechanisms.'';
                  (D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``A certification 
                of'' and inserting ``After the date of the enactment of 
                the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, a certification 
                by''; and
                  (E) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(G) A description of the monitoring or other 
                assessment which will be carried out under the program 
                for the purposes of monitoring and assessing the 
                effectiveness of the program, including the attainment 
                of interim goals and milestones.
                  ``(H) An identification of activities on Federal 
                lands in the State that are inconsistent with the State 
                management program.
                  ``(I) An identification of goals and milestones for 
                progress in attaining water quality standards, 
                including a projected date for attaining such standards 
                as expeditiously as practicable but not later than 15 
                years after the date of approval of the State program 
                for each of the waters listed pursuant to subsection 
                (a).''.
          (3) Utilization of local and private experts.--Section 
        319(b)(3) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
        the following: ``, including academic institutions, private 
        industry experts, and other individual experts in water 
        resource conservation and planning''.
          (4) New technologies; use of resources; agricultural 
        programs.--Section 319(b) is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:
          ``(5) Recognition of new technologies.--In developing and 
        implementing a management program under this subsection, a 
        State may recognize and utilize new practices, technologies, 
        processes, products, and other alternatives.
          ``(6) Efficient and effective use of resources.--In 
        developing and implementing a management program under this 
        subsection, a State may recognize and provide for a methodology 
        which takes into account situations in which management 
        measures used to control one pollutant have an adverse impact 
        with respect to another pollutant. The methodology should 
        encourage the balanced combination of measures which best 
        address the various impairments on the watershed or site.
          ``(7) Recognition of agricultural programs.--Any agricultural 
        producer who has voluntarily developed and is implementing an 
        approved whole farm or ranch natural resources management plan 
        shall be considered to be in compliance with the requirements 
        of a State program developed under this section--
                  ``(A) if such plan has been developed under a program 
                subject to a memorandum of agreement between the Chief 
                of the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the 
                Governor, or their respective designees; and
                  ``(B) if such memorandum of agreement specifies--
                          ``(i) the scope and content of the Natural 
                        Resources Conservation Service program (not an 
                        individual farm or ranch plan) in the State or 
                        regions of the State;
                          ``(ii) the terms of approval, implementation, 
                        and duration of a voluntary farm or ranch plan 
                        for agricultural producers;
                          ``(iii) the responsibilities for assessing 
                        implementation of voluntary whole farm and 
                        ranch natural resource management plans; and
                          ``(iv) the duration of such memorandum of 
                        agreement.
        At a minimum, such memorandum of agreement shall be reviewed 
        and may be revised every 5 years, as part of the State review 
        of its management program under this section.''.
  (c) Submission of Management Programs.--Paragraph (2) of section 
319(c) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(2) Time period for submission of management programs.--
        Each management program shall be submitted to the Administrator 
        within 30 months of the issuance by the Administrator of the 
        final guidance under subsection (o) and every 5 years 
        thereafter. Each program submission after the initial 
        submission following the date of the enactment of the Clean 
        Water Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration of 
        reasonable further progress toward the goal of attaining water 
        quality standards within 15 years of approval of the State 
        program, including documentation of the degree to which the 
        State has achieved the interim goals and milestones contained 
        in the previous program submission. Such demonstration shall 
        take into account the adequacy of Federal funding under this 
        section.''.
  (d) Approval and Disapproval of Reports and Management Programs.--
          (1) Deadline.--Section 319(d)(1) is amended by inserting ``or 
        revised report'' after ``any report''.
          (2) Disapproval.--Section 319(d)(2) is amended--
                  (A) in subparagraph (B) by inserting before the 
                semicolon the following: ``; except that such program 
                or portion shall not be disapproved solely because the 
                program or portion does not include enforceable 
                policies or mechanisms'';
                  (B) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``are not 
                adequate'' and all that follows before the semicolon 
                and inserting the following: ``will not result in 
                reasonable further progress toward the attainment of 
                applicable water quality standards under section 303 as 
                expeditiously as possible but not later than 15 years 
                after approval of the State program''; and
                  (C) in the text following subparagraph (D)--
                          (i) by striking ``3 months'' and inserting 
                        ``6 months''; and
                          (ii) by inserting ``or portion thereof'' 
                        before ``within three months of receipt''.
          (3) Failure to submit report.--Section 319(d)(3) is amended--
                  (A) by striking ``the report'' and inserting ``a 
                report or revised report'';
                  (B) by striking ``30 months'' and inserting ``18 
                months''; and
                  (C) by striking ``of the enactment of this section'' 
                and inserting ``on which such report is required to be 
                submitted under subsection (a)''.
          (4) Program management by the administrator.--Section 319(d) 
        is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(4) Failure of state to submit program.--
                  ``(A) Program management by the administrator.--If a 
                State fails to submit a management program or revised 
                management program under subsection (b) or the 
                Administrator disapproves such management program, the 
                Administrator shall prepare and implement a management 
                program for controlling pollution added from nonpoint 
                sources to the navigable waters within the State and 
                improving the quality of such waters in accordance with 
                subsection (b).
                  ``(B) Notice and hearing.--If the Administrator 
                intends to disapprove a program submitted by a State, 
                the Administrator shall first notify the Governor of 
                the State in writing of the modifications necessary to 
                meet the requirements of this section. The 
                Administrator shall provide adequate public notice and 
                an opportunity for a public hearing for all interested 
                parties.
                  ``(C) State revision of its program.--If, after 
                taking into account the level of funding actually 
                provided as compared with the level authorized under 
                subsection (j), the Administrator determines that a 
                State has failed to demonstrate reasonable further 
                progress toward the attainment of water quality 
                standards as required, the State shall revise its 
                program within 12 months of that determination in a 
                manner sufficient to achieve attainment of applicable 
                water quality standards by the deadline established by 
                this Act. If a State fails to make such a program 
                revision or the Administrator disapproves such a 
                revision, the Administrator shall prepare and implement 
                a nonpoint source management program for the State.''.
  (e) Technical Assistance.--Section 319(f) is amended by inserting 
``and implementing'' after ``developing''.
  (f) Grant Program.--
          (1) In general.--Section 319(h)(1) is amended--
                  (A) by amending the paragraph heading to read as 
                follows: ``Grants for preparation and implementation of 
                reports and management programs.--'';
                  (B) by striking ``for which a report submitted under 
                subsection (a) and a management program submitted under 
                subsection (b) is approved under this section'';
                  (C) by striking ``the Administrator shall make 
                grants'' and inserting ``the Administrator may make 
                grants under this subsection'';
                  (D) by striking ``under this subsection to such 
                State'' and inserting ``to such State'';
                  (E) by striking ``implementing such management 
                program'' and inserting ``preparing a report under 
                subsection (a) and in preparing and implementing a 
                management program under subsection (b)'';
                  (F) by inserting after the first sentence the 
                following: ``Grants for implementation of such 
                management program may be made only after such report 
                and management program are approved under this 
                section.''; and
                  (G) by adding at the end the following: ``The 
                Administrator is authorized to provide funds to a State 
                if necessary to implement an approved portion of a 
                State program or, with the approval of the Governor of 
                the State, to implement a component of a federally 
                established program. The Administrator may continue to 
                make grants to any State with a program approved on the 
                day before the date of the enactment of the Clean Water 
                Amendments of 1995 until the Administrator withdraws 
                the approval of such program or the State fails to 
                submit a revision of such program in accordance with 
                subsection (c)(2).''.
          (2) Federal share.--Section 319(h)(3) is amended--
                  (A) by striking ``management program implemented'' 
                and inserting ``report prepared and management program 
                prepared and implemented'';
                  (B) by striking ``60 percent'' and inserting ``75 
                percent'';
                  (C) by striking ``implementing such management 
                program'' and inserting ``preparing such report and 
                preparing and implementing such management program''; 
                and
                  (D) by inserting ``of program implementation'' after 
                ``non-Federal share''.
          (3) Limitation on grant amounts.--Section 319(h)(4) is 
        amended--
                  (A) by inserting before the first sentence the 
                following: ``The Administrator shall establish, after 
                consulting with the States, maximum and minimum grants 
                for any fiscal year to promote equity between States 
                and effective nonpoint source management.''; and
                  (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The minimum 
                percentage of funds allocated to each State shall be 
                0.5 percent of the amount appropriated.''.
          (4) Allocation of grant funds.--Paragraph (5) of section 
        319(h) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(5) Allocation of grant funds.--Grants under this section 
        shall be allocated to States with approved programs in a fair 
        and equitable manner and be based upon rules and regulations 
        promulgated by the Administrator which shall take into account 
        the extent and nature of the nonpoint sources of pollution in 
        each State and other relevant factors.''.
          (5) Use of funds.--Paragraph (7) of section 319(h) is amended 
        to read as follows:
          ``(7) Use of funds.--A State may use grants made available to 
        the State pursuant to this section for activities relating to 
        nonpoint source water pollution control, including--
                  ``(A) providing financial assistance with respect to 
                those activities whose principal purpose is protecting 
                and improving water quality;
                  ``(B) assistance related to the cost of preparing or 
                implementing the State management program;
                  ``(C) providing incentive grants to individuals to 
                implement a site-specific water quality plan in amounts 
                not to exceed 75 percent of the cost of the project 
                from all Federal sources;
                  ``(D) land acquisition or conservation easements 
                consistent with a site-specific water quality plan; and
                  ``(E) restoring and maintaining the chemical, 
                physical, and biological integrity of urban and rural 
                waters and watersheds (including restoration and 
                maintenance of water quality, a balanced indigenous 
                population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, aquatic 
                and riparian vegetation, and recreational activities in 
                and on the water) and protecting designated uses, 
                including fishing, swimming, and drinking water 
                supply.''.
          (6) Compliance with state management program.--Paragraph (8) 
        of section 319(h) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(8) Compliance with state management program.--In any 
        fiscal year for which the Administrator determines that a State 
        has not made satisfactory progress in the preceding fiscal year 
        in meeting the schedule specified for such State under 
        subsection (b)(2)(C), the Administrator is authorized to 
        withhold grants pursuant to this section in whole or in part to 
        the State after adequate written notice is provided to the 
        Governor of the State.''.
          (7) Allotment study.--Section 319(h) is amended by adding at 
        the end the following:
          ``(13) Allotment study.--
                  ``(A) Study.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
                the States, shall conduct a study of whether the 
                allocation of funds under paragraph (5) appropriately 
                reflects the needs and costs of nonpoint source control 
                measures for different nonpoint source categories and 
                subcategories and of options for better reflecting such 
                needs and costs in the allotment of funds.
                  ``(B) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date 
                of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, 
                the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report 
                on the results of the study conducted under this 
                subsection, together with recommendations.''.
  (g) Grants for Protecting Ground Water Quality.--Section 319(i)(3) is 
amended by striking ``$150,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
  (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 319(j) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' before ``$130,000,000'';
          (2) by inserting after ``1991'' the following: ``, such sums 
        as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995, 
        $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, $150,000,000 for fiscal year 
        1997, $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $250,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 1999, and $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2000''; and
          (3) by striking ``$7,500,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.
  (i) Consistency of Other Programs and Projects With Management 
Programs.--Section 319(k) (33 U.S.C. 1329(k)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``allow States to review'' and inserting 
        ``require coordination with States in'';
          (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: 
        ``and the State watershed management program''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following: ``Federal agencies 
        that own or manage land, or issue licenses for activities that 
        cause nonpoint source pollution from such land, shall 
        coordinate their nonpoint source control measures with the 
        State nonpoint source management program and the State 
        watershed management program. A Federal agency and the Governor 
        of an affected State shall enter into a memorandum of 
        understanding to carry out the purposes of this paragraph. Such 
        a memorandum of understanding shall not relieve the Federal 
        agency of the agency's obligation to comply with its own 
        mandates.''.
  (j) Reports of the Administrator.--
          (1) Biennial reports.--Section 319(m)(1) is amended--
                  (A) in the paragraph heading by striking ``Annual'' 
                and inserting ``Biennial''; and
                  (B) by striking ``1988, and each January 1'' and 
                inserting ``1995, and biennially''.
          (2) Contents.--Section 319(m)(2) is amended--
                  (A) by striking the paragraph heading and all that 
                follows before ``at a minimum'' and inserting 
                ``Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph 
                (1),'';
                  (B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``best management 
                practices'' and inserting ``measures''; and
                  (C) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``best management 
                practices'' and inserting ``the measures provided by 
                States under subsection (b)''.
  (k) Set Aside for Administrative Personnel.--Section 319(n) is 
amended by striking ``less'' and inserting ``more''.
  (l) Guidance on Model Management Practices and Measures.--Section 319 
is further amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(o) Guidance on Model Management Practices and Measures.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall publish guidance 
        to identify model management practices and measures which may 
        be undertaken, at the discretion of the State or appropriate 
        entity, under a management program established pursuant to this 
        section.
          ``(2) Consultation; public notice and comment.--The 
        Administrator shall develop the model management practices and 
        measures under paragraph (1) in consultation with the National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other appropriate 
        Federal and State departments and agencies, and academic 
        institutions, private industry experts, and other individual 
        experts in water conservation and planning, and after providing 
        notice and opportunity for public comment.
          ``(3) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish proposed 
        guidance under this subsection not later than 6 months after 
        the date of the enactment of this subsection and shall publish 
        final guidance under this subsection not later than 18 months 
        after such date of enactment. The Administrator shall 
        periodically review and revise the final guidance at least once 
        every 3 years after its publication.
          ``(4) Model management practices and measures defined.--For 
        the purposes of this subsection, the term `model management 
        practices and measures' means economically achievable measures 
        for the control of the addition of pollutants from nonpoint 
        sources of pollution which reflect the greatest degree of 
        pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the 
        best available nonpoint pollution control practices, 
        technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or 
        other alternatives. The Administrator may distinguish among 
        classes, types, and sizes within any category of nonpoint 
        sources.''.
  (m) Inadequate Funding.--Section 319 is further amended by adding at 
the end the following:
  ``(p) Inadequate Funding.--For each fiscal year beginning after the 
date of the enactment of this subsection for which the total of amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section are less than the total of 
amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to subsection (j), the 
deadline for compliance with any requirement of this section, including 
any deadline relating to assessment reports or State program 
implementation or monitoring efforts, shall be postponed by 1 year, 
unless the Administrator and the State jointly certify that the amounts 
appropriated are sufficient to meet the requirements of this 
section.''.
  (n) Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.--
          (1) Repeal.--Section 6217 of the Omnibus Budget 
        Reconciliation Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1455b) is repealed.
          (2) Inclusion of coastal management provisions in nonpoint 
        program.--Section 319 is amended--
                  (A) in subsection (a)(1)--
                          (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of 
                        subparagraph (C);
                          (ii) by striking the period at the end of 
                        subparagraph (D) and inserting ``(including 
                        State management programs approved under 
                        section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act 
                        of 1972); and''; and
                          (iii) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(E) identifies critical areas, giving consideration 
                to the variety of natural, commercial, recreational, 
                ecological, industrial, and aesthetic resources of 
                immediate and potential value to the present and future 
                of the Nation's waters in the Coastal Zone.'';
                  (B) in subsection (a)(2) by inserting ``any 
                management program of the State approved under section 
                306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,'' after 
                ``314,'';
                  (C) in subsection (b)(2) by adding after subparagraph 
                (I), as added by subsection (b) of this section, the 
                following:
                  ``(J) For coastal areas, the identification of, and 
                continuing process for identifying, land uses which 
                individually or cumulatively may cause or contribute 
                significantly to degradation of--
                          ``(i) those coastal waters where there is a 
                        failure to attain or maintain applicable water 
                        quality standards or protected designated uses, 
                        as determined by the State pursuant to the 
                        State's water quality planning processes or 
                        watershed planning efforts; and
                          ``(ii) those coastal waters that are 
                        threatened by reasonably foreseeable increases 
                        in pollution loadings.''; and
                  (D) in subsection (c)(1) by inserting ``or coastal 
                zone management agencies'' after ``planning agencies''.
  (o) Agricultural Inputs.--Section 319 is further amended by adding at 
the end the following:
  ``(q) Agricultural Inputs.--For the purposes of this Act, any land 
application of livestock manure shall not be considered a point source 
and shall be subject to enforcement only under this section.''.
  (p) Purpose.--Section 319 (33 U.S.C. 1329) is further amended by 
adding at the end the following:
  ``(r) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist States in 
addressing nonpoint sources of pollution where necessary to achieve the 
goals and requirements of this Act. It is recognized that State 
nonpoint source programs need to be built upon a foundation that 
voluntary initiatives represent the approach most likely to succeed in 
achieving the objectives of this Act.''.

SEC. 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

  (a) Technical Amendment.--Section 320(a)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C. 
1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
                  ``(B) Priority consideration.--The Administrator 
                shall give priority consideration under this section to 
                Long Island Sound, New York and Connecticut; 
                Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards Bay, 
                Massachusetts; Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts 
                (including Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor); Puget 
                Sound, Washington; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York 
                and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey; 
                Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware; Albemarle Sound, North 
                Carolina; Sarasota Bay, Florida; San Francisco Bay, 
                California; Santa Monica Bay, California; Galveston 
                Bay, Texas; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, 
                Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon, Florida; Charlotte 
                Harbor, Florida; Barnegat Bay, New Jersey; and Peconic 
                Bay, New York.''.
  (b) Grants.--Section 320(g)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)(2)) is amended by 
inserting ``and implementation monitoring'' after ``development''.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(i) (33 U.S.C. 
1330(i)) is amended by striking ``1987'' and all that follows through 
``1991'' and inserting the following: ``1987 through 1991, such sums as 
may be necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and $19,000,000 
per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''.

SEC. 321. STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  (a) Establishment.--Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 321. STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  ``(a) State Watershed Management Program.--
          ``(1) Submission of program to administrator.--A State, at 
        any time, may submit a watershed management program to the 
        Administrator for approval.
          ``(2) Approval.--If the Administrator does not disapprove a 
        State watershed management program within 180 days of its 
        submittal or 240 days of a request for a public hearing 
        pursuant to paragraph (3) with respect to the program, 
        whichever is later, such program shall be deemed approved for 
        the purposes of this section. The Administrator shall approve 
        the program if the program includes, at a minimum, the 
        following elements:
                  ``(A) The identification of the State agency with 
                primary responsibility for overseeing and approving 
                watershed management plans in general.
                  ``(B) The description of any responsible entities 
                (including any appropriate State agency or substate 
                agency) to be utilized in implementing the program and 
                a description of their responsibilities.
                  ``(C) A description of the scope of the program. In 
                establishing the scope of the program, the State may 
                address one or more watersheds, or pollutants, 
                concurrently or sequentially. The scope of the State 
                program may expand over time with respect to the 
                watersheds, pollutants, and factors to be addressed 
                under the program. In developing the State program, the 
                State shall take into account all regional and local 
                government watershed management programs that are 
                consistent with the proposed State program and shall 
                consult with the regional and local governments that 
                developed such programs. The State shall consider 
                recommendations from units of general purpose 
                government, special purpose districts, local water 
                suppliers, and appropriate water management agencies in 
                the development and scope of the program.
                  ``(D) Provisions for carrying out an analysis, 
                consistent with the established scope of the program, 
                of the problems within each watershed covered under the 
                program.
                  ``(E) An identification of watershed management units 
                for which management plans will be developed, taking 
                into consideration those waters where water quality is 
                threatened or impaired or otherwise in need of special 
                protection. A watershed management unit identified 
                under the program may include waters and associated 
                land areas in more than 1 State if the Governors of the 
                States affected jointly designate the watershed 
                management unit and may include waters and associated 
                lands managed or owned by the Federal Government.
                  ``(F) A description of the activities required of 
                responsible entities (as specified under subsection 
                (e)(1)) and a description of the watershed plan 
                approval process of the State.
                  ``(G) Documentation of the public participation in 
                development of the program and description of the 
                procedures that will be used for public participation 
                in the development and implementation of watershed 
                plans.
                  ``(H) The identification of goals that will be 
                pursued in each watershed, including attainment of 
                State water quality standards (including site-specific 
                water quality standards) and the goals and objectives 
                of this Act.
                  ``(I) An exclusion from the program of federally 
                approved activities with respect to linear utility 
                facilities, such as natural gas pipelines if such 
                facilities extend to multiple watersheds and result in 
                temporary or de minimis impacts.
                  ``(J) A description of the process for consideration 
                of and achieving consistency with the purposes of 
                sections 319 and 322.
          ``(3) Disapproval process.--If the Administrator intends to 
        disapprove a program of a State submitted under this 
        subsection, the Administrator shall by a written notification 
        advise the State of the intent to disapprove and the reasons 
        for disapproval. If, within 30 days of receipt of such notice, 
        a State so requests, the Administrator shall conduct a public 
        hearing in the State on the intent to disapprove and the 
        reasons for such disapproval. A State may resubmit a revised 
        program that addresses the reasons contained in the 
        notification. If a State requests a public hearing, the 
        Administrator shall conduct the hearing in that State and issue 
        a final determination within 240 days of receipt of the State 
        watershed management program submittal.
          ``(4) Modification of program.--Each State with a watershed 
        management program that has been approved by the Administrator 
        under this section may, at any time, modify the watershed 
        management program. Any such modification shall be submitted to 
        the Administrator and shall remain in effect unless and until 
        the Administrator determines that the modified program no 
        longer meets the requirements of this section. In such event, 
        the provisions of paragraph (3) shall apply.
          ``(5) Status reports.--Each State with a watershed management 
        program that has been approved by the Administrator pursuant to 
        this subsection shall, not later than 1 year after the date of 
        approval, and annually thereafter, submit to the Administrator 
        an annual watershed program summary status report that includes 
        descriptions of any modifications to the program. The status 
        report shall include a listing of requests made for watershed 
        plan development and a listing of plans prepared and submitted 
        by local or regional entities and the actions taken by the 
        State on such plans including the reasons for those actions. In 
        consultation and coordination with the Administrator, a State 
        may use the report to satisfy, in full or in part, any 
        reporting requirements under sections 106, 303(d), 305(b), 314, 
        319, 320, 322, and 604(b).
  ``(b) Watershed Area in 2 or More States.--If a watershed management 
unit is designated to include land areas in more than 1 State, the 
Governors of States having jurisdiction over any lands within the 
watershed management unit shall jointly determine the responsible 
entity or entities.
  ``(c) Eligible Watershed Management and Planning Activities.--
          ``(1) In general.--In addition to activities eligible to 
        receive assistance under other sections of this Act as of the 
        date of the enactment of this subsection, the following 
        watershed management activities conducted by or on behalf of 
        the States pursuant to a watershed management program that is 
        approved by the Administrator under this section shall be 
        considered to be eligible to receive assistance under sections 
        106, 205(j), 319(h), 320, and 604(b):
                  ``(A) Characterizing the waters and land uses.
                  ``(B) Identifying and evaluating problems within the 
                watershed.
                  ``(C) Selecting short-term and long-term goals for 
                watershed management.
                  ``(D) Developing and implementing water quality 
                standards, including site-specific water quality 
                standards.
                  ``(E) Developing and implementing measures and 
                practices to meet identified goals.
                  ``(F) Identifying and coordinating projects and 
                activities necessary to restore or maintain water 
                quality or other related environmental objectives 
                within the watershed.
                  ``(G) Identifying the appropriate institutional 
                arrangements to carry out a watershed management plan 
                that has been approved or adopted by the State under 
                this section.
                  ``(H) Updating the plan.
                  ``(I) Conducting training and public participation 
                activities.
                  ``(J) Research to study benefits of existing 
                watershed program plans and particular aspects of the 
                plans.
                  ``(K) Implementing any other activity considered 
                appropriate by the Administrator or the Governor of a 
                State with an approved program.
          ``(2) Factors to be considered.--In selecting watershed 
        management activities to receive assistance pursuant to 
        paragraph (1), the following factors shall be considered:
                  ``(A) Whether or not the applicant has demonstrated 
                success in addressing water quality problems with 
                broadbased regional support, including public and 
                private sources.
                  ``(B) Whether the activity will promote watershed 
                problem prioritization.
                  ``(C) Whether or not the applicant can demonstrate an 
                ability to use Federal resources to leverage non-
                Federal public and private monetary and in-kind support 
                from voluntary contributions, including matching and 
                cost sharing incentives.
                  ``(D) Whether or not the applicant proposes to use 
                existing public and private programs to facilitate 
                water quality improvement with the assistance to be 
                provided pursuant to paragraph (1).
                  ``(E) Whether or not such assistance will be used to 
                promote voluntary activities, including private 
                wetlands restoration, mitigation banking, and pollution 
                prevention to achieve water quality standards.
                  ``(F) Whether or not such assistance will be used to 
                market mechanisms to enhance existing programs.
  ``(d) Public Participation.--Each State shall establish procedures to 
encourage the public to participate in its program and in developing 
and implementing comprehensive watershed management plans under this 
section. A State watershed management program shall include a process 
for public involvement in watershed management, to the maximum extent 
practicable, including the formation and participation of public 
advisory groups during State watershed program development. States must 
provide adequate public notice and an opportunity to comment on the 
State watershed program prior to submittal of the program to the 
Administrator for approval.
  ``(e) Approved or State-Adopted Plans.--
          ``(1) Requirements.--A State with a watershed management 
        program that has been approved by the Administrator under this 
        section may approve or adopt a watershed management plan if the 
        plan satisfies the following conditions:
                  ``(A) If the watershed includes waters that are not 
                meeting water quality standards at the time of 
                submission, the plan--
                          ``(i) identifies the objectives of the plan, 
                        including, at a minimum, State water quality 
                        standards (including site-specific water 
                        quality standards) and goals and objectives 
                        under this Act;
                          ``(ii) identifies pollutants, sources, 
                        activities, and any other factors causing the 
                        impairment of the waters;
                          ``(iii) identifies cost effective actions 
                        that are necessary to achieve the objectives of 
                        the plan, including reduction of pollutants to 
                        achieve any allocated load reductions 
                        consistent with the requirements of section 
                        303(d), and the priority for implementing the 
                        actions;
                          ``(iv) contains an implementation schedule 
                        with milestones and the identification of 
                        persons responsible for implementing the 
                        actions;
                          ``(v) demonstrates that water quality 
                        standards and other goals and objectives of 
                        this Act will be attained as expeditiously as 
                        practicable but not later than any applicable 
                        deadline under this Act;
                          ``(vi) contains documentation of the public 
                        participation in the development of the plan 
                        and a description of the public participation 
                        process that will be used during the plan 
                        implementation;
                          ``(vii) specifies a process to monitor and 
                        evaluate progress toward meeting of the goals 
                        of the plan; and
                          ``(viii) specifies a process to revise the 
                        plan as necessary.
                  ``(B) For waters in the watershed attaining water 
                quality standards at the time of submission (including 
                threatened waters), the plan identifies the projects 
                and activities necessary to maintain water quality 
                standards and attain or maintain other goals after the 
                date of approval or adoption of the plan.
          ``(2) Terms of approved or adopted plan.--Each plan that is 
        approved or adopted by a State under this subsection shall be 
        effective for a period of not more than 10 years and include a 
        planning and implementation schedule with milestones within 
        that period. A revised and updated plan may be approved or 
        adopted by the State prior to the expiration of the period 
        specified in the plan pursuant to the same conditions and 
        requirements that apply to an initial plan for a watershed 
        approved under this subsection.
  ``(f) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this section, the Administrator, after consultation with 
the States and other interested parties, shall issue guidance on 
provisions that States may consider for inclusion in watershed 
management programs and State-approved or State-adopted watershed 
management plans under this section.
  ``(g) Pollutant Transfer Opportunities.--
          ``(1) Pollutant transfer pilot projects.--Under an approved 
        watershed management program, any discharger or source may 
        apply to a State for approval to offset the impact of its 
        discharge or release of a pollutant by entering into 
        arrangements, including the payment of funds, for the 
        implementation of controls or measures by another discharger or 
        source through a pollution reduction credits trading program 
        established as part of the watershed management plan. The State 
        may approve such a request if appropriate safeguards are 
        included to ensure compliance with technology based controls 
        and to protect the quality of receiving waters.
          ``(2) Incentive grants.--The Administrator shall allocate 
        sums made available by appropriations to carry out pollution 
        reduction credits trading programs in selected watersheds 
        throughout the country.
          ``(3) Report.--Not later than 36 months after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to 
        Congress a report on the results of the program conducted under 
        this subsection.''.
  (b) Incentives for Watershed Management.--
          (1) Point source permits.--Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is 
        further amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(r) Watershed Management.--
          ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, a permit may be issued under this section with a 
        limitation that does not meet applicable water quality 
        standards if--
                  ``(A) the receiving water is in a watershed with a 
                watershed management plan that has been approved 
                pursuant to section 321;
                  ``(B) the plan includes assurances that water quality 
                standards will be met within the watershed by a 
                specified date; and
                  ``(C) the point source does not have a history of 
                significant noncompliance with its effluent limitations 
                under a permit issued under this section, as determined 
                by the Administrator or a State with authority to issue 
                permits under this section.
          ``(2) Synchronized permit terms.--Notwithstanding subsection 
        (b)(1)(B), the term of a permit issued under this section may 
        be extended for an additional period if the discharge is 
        located in a watershed management unit for which a watershed 
        management plan will be developed pursuant to section 321. 
        Permits extended under this paragraph shall be synchronized 
        with the approval of the watershed management plan of a State 
        adopted pursuant to section 321.''.
          (2) Multipurpose grants.--
                  (A) In general.--The Administrator may provide 
                assistance to a State with a watershed management 
                program that has been approved by the Administrator 
                under section 321 in the form of a multipurpose grant 
                that would provide for single application, work plan 
                and review, matching, oversight, and end-of-year 
                closeout requirements for grant funding under sections 
                104(b)(3), 104(g), 106, 314(b), 319, 320, and 604(b) of 
                the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
                  (B) Terms.--The Administrator may attach terms that 
                shall apply for more than 1 year to grants made 
                pursuant to this paragraph. A State that receives a 
                grant under this paragraph may focus activities funded 
                under the provisions referred to in subparagraph (A) on 
                a priority basis in a manner consistent with watershed 
                management plans approved by the State under section 
                321(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
          (3) Planning.--Section 604(b) (33 U.S.C. 1384(b)) is amended 
        by adding at the end the following: ``In any fiscal year in 
        which a State is implementing a State watershed management 
        program approved under section 321, the State may reserve up to 
        an additional 2 percent of the sums allotted to the State for 
        such fiscal year for development of watershed management plans 
        under such program or $200,000, whichever is greater, if 50 
        percent of the amount reserved under this sentence will be made 
        available to local entities.''.

SEC. 322. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  (a) State Programs.--Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) is further 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 322. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist States in 
the development and implementation of stormwater control programs in an 
expeditious and cost effective manner so as to enable the goals and 
requirements of this Act to be met in each State no later than 15 years 
after the date of approval of the stormwater management program of the 
State. It is recognized that State stormwater management programs need 
to be built on a foundation that voluntary pollution prevention 
initiatives represent an approach most likely to succeed in achieving 
the objectives of this Act.
  ``(b) State Assessment Reports.--
          ``(1) Contents.--After notice and opportunity for public 
        comment, the Governor of each State, consistent with or as part 
        of the assessment required by section 319, shall prepare and 
        submit to the Administrator for approval, a report which--
                  ``(A) identifies those navigable waters within the 
                State which, without additional action to control 
                pollution from stormwater discharges, cannot reasonably 
                be expected to attain or maintain applicable water 
                quality standards or the goals and requirements of this 
                Act;
                  ``(B) identifies those categories and subcategories 
                of stormwater discharges that add significant pollution 
                to each portion of the navigable waters identified 
                under subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute to 
                such portion not meeting such water quality standards 
                or such goals and requirements;
                  ``(C) describes the process, including 
                intergovernmental coordination and public 
                participation, for identifying measures to control 
                pollution from each category and subcategory of 
                stormwater discharges identified in subparagraph (B) 
                and to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
                level of pollution resulting from such discharges; and
                  ``(D) identifies and describes State, local, and as 
                may be appropriate, industrial programs for controlling 
                pollution added from stormwater discharges to, and 
                improving the quality of, each such portion of the 
                navigable waters.
          ``(2) Information used in preparation.--In developing, 
        reviewing, and revising the report required by this subsection, 
        the State--
                  ``(A) may rely upon information developed pursuant to 
                sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), 314, 319, 320, 
                and 321 and subsection (h) of this section, information 
                developed from the group stormwater permit application 
                process in effect under section 402(p) of this Act on 
                the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, 
                and such other information as the State determines is 
                appropriate; and
                  ``(B) may utilize appropriate elements of the waste 
                treatment management plans developed pursuant to 
                sections 208(b) and 303, to the extent such elements 
                are consistent with and fulfill the requirements of 
                this section.
          ``(3) Review and revision.--Not later than 18 months after 
        the date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 
        1995, and every 5 years thereafter, the State shall review, 
        revise, and submit to the Administrator the report required by 
        this subsection.
  ``(c) State Management Programs.--
          ``(1) In general.--In substantial consultation with local 
        governments and after notice and opportunity for public 
        comment, the Governor of each State for the State or in 
        combination with the Governors of adjacent States shall prepare 
        and submit to the Administrator for approval a stormwater 
        management program based on available information which the 
        State proposes to implement in the first 5 fiscal years 
        beginning after the date of submission of such management 
        program for controlling pollution added from stormwater 
        discharges to the navigable waters within the boundaries of the 
        State and improving the quality of such waters.
          ``(2) Specific contents.--Each management program proposed 
        for implementation under this subsection shall include the 
        following:
                  ``(A) Identification of model management practices 
                and measures.--Identification of the model management 
                practices and measures which will be undertaken to 
                reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category 
                or subcategory of stormwater discharges designated 
                under subsection (b)(1)(B), taking into account the 
                impact of the practice and measure on ground water 
                quality.
                  ``(B) Identification of programs and resources.--
                Identification of programs and resources necessary 
                (including, as appropriate, nonregulatory programs or 
                regulatory programs, enforceable policies and 
                mechanisms, technical assistance, financial assistance, 
                education, training, technology transfer, and 
                demonstration projects) to manage categories or 
                subcategories of stormwater discharges to the degree 
                necessary to provide for reasonable further progress 
                toward the goal of attainment of water quality 
                standards which contain the stormwater criteria 
                established under subsection (i) for designated uses of 
                receiving waters identified under subsection (b)(1)(A) 
                taking into consideration specific watershed 
                conditions, by not later than the last day of the 15-
                year period beginning on the date of approval of the 
                State program.
                  ``(C) Program for industrial, commercial, oil, gas, 
                and mining discharges.--A program for categories or 
                subcategories of industrial, commercial, oil, gas, and 
                mining stormwater discharges identified under 
                subsection (b)(1)(B) for the implementation of 
                management practices, measures, and programs identified 
                under subparagraphs (A) and (B). The program shall 
                include each of the following:
                          ``(i) Voluntary activities.--Voluntary 
                        stormwater pollution prevention activities for 
                        categories and subcategories of such stormwater 
                        discharges that are not contaminated by contact 
                        with material handling equipment or activities, 
                        heavy industrial machinery, raw materials, 
                        intermediate products, finished products, 
                        byproducts, or waste products at the site of 
                        the industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining 
                        activity. Such discharges may have incidental 
                        contact with buildings or motor vehicles.
                          ``(ii) Enforceable plans.--Enforceable 
                        stormwater pollution prevention plans meeting 
                        the requirements of subsection (d) for those 
                        categories and subcategories of such stormwater 
                        discharges that are not described in clause 
                        (i).
                          ``(iii) General permits.--General permits for 
                        categories and subcategories of such stormwater 
                        discharges if the State finds, based on 
                        available information and after providing 
                        notice and an opportunity for comment, that 
                        reasonable further progress toward achieving 
                        water quality standards in receiving waters 
                        identified by the State by the date referred to 
                        in subparagraph (B) cannot be made despite 
                        implementation of voluntary activities under 
                        clause (i) or prevention plans under clause 
                        (ii) due to the presence of a pollutant or 
                        pollutants identified by the State. A facility 
                        in a category or subcategory identified by the 
                        State shall not be subject to a general permit 
                        under this clause if the facility demonstrates 
                        that stormwater discharges from the facility 
                        are not contributing to a violation of a water 
                        quality standard established for designated 
                        uses of the receiving waters and are not 
                        significantly contributing the pollutant or 
                        pollutants identified by the State with respect 
                        to the receiving waters under this clause.
                          ``(iv) Site-specific permits.--Site-specific 
                        permits for categories or subcategories of such 
                        stormwater discharges or individual facilities 
                        in such categories or subcategories if the 
                        State finds, based on available information and 
                        after providing notice and an opportunity for 
                        comment, that reasonable further progress 
                        toward achieving water quality standards in 
                        receiving waters identified by the State by the 
                        date referred to in subparagraph (B) cannot be 
                        made despite implementation of voluntary 
                        activities under clause (i) or prevention plans 
                        under clause (ii) and general permits under 
                        clause (iii) due to the presence of a pollutant 
                        or pollutants identified by the State. A 
                        facility in a category or subcategory 
                        identified by the State shall not be subject to 
                        a site-specific permit under this clause if the 
                        facility demonstrates that stormwater 
                        discharges from the facility are not 
                        contributing to a violation of a water quality 
                        standard established for designated uses of the 
                        receiving waters and are not significantly 
                        contributing the pollutant or pollutants 
                        identified by the State with respect to the 
                        receiving waters under this clause.
                          ``(v) Exemption of small businesses.--An 
                        exemption for small businesses identified under 
                        subsection (b)(1)(B) from clause (iii), 
                        relating to general permits, and clause (iv), 
                        relating to site-specific permits, unless the 
                        State finds that, without the imposition of 
                        such permits, such discharges will have a 
                        significant adverse effect on water quality.
                  ``(D) Program for municipal discharges.--A program 
                for municipal stormwater discharges identified under 
                subsection (b)(1)(B) to reduce pollutant loadings from 
                categories and subcategories of municipal stormwater 
                discharges.
                  ``(E) Program for construction activities.--A program 
                for categories and subcategories of stormwater 
                discharges from construction activities identified 
                under subsection (b)(1)(B) for implementation of 
                management practices, measures, and programs identified 
                under subparagraphs (A) and (B). In developing the 
                program, the State shall consider current State and 
                local requirements, focus on pollution prevention 
                through the use of model management practices and 
                measures, and take into account the land area disturbed 
                by the construction activities. The State may require 
                effluent limits or other numerical standards to control 
                pollutants in stormwater discharges from construction 
                activities only if the State finds, after providing 
                notice and an opportunity for comment, that such 
                standards are necessary to achieve water quality 
                standards by the date referred to in subparagraph (B).
                  ``(F) Bad actor provisions.--Provisions for taking 
                any actions deemed necessary by the State to meet the 
                goals and requirements of this section with respect to 
                dischargers which the State identifies, after notice 
                and opportunity for hearing--
                          ``(i) as having a history of stormwater 
                        noncompliance under this Act, State law, or the 
                        regulations issued thereunder or the terms and 
                        conditions of permits, orders, or 
                        administrative actions issued pursuant thereto; 
                        or
                          ``(ii) as posing an imminent threat to human 
                        health and the environment.
                  ``(G) Schedule.--A schedule containing interim goals 
                and milestones for making reasonable progress toward 
                the attainment of standards as set forth in 
                subparagraph (B) established for the designated uses of 
                receiving waters, taking into account specific 
                watershed conditions, which may be demonstrated by one 
                or any combination of improvements in water quality 
                (including biological indicators), documented 
                implementation of voluntary stormwater discharge 
                control measures, or adoption of enforceable stormwater 
                discharge control measures.
                  ``(H) Certification of adequate authority.--
                          ``(i) In general.--A certification by the 
                        Attorney General of the State or States (or the 
                        chief attorney of any State water pollution 
                        control agency that has authority under State 
                        law to make such certification) that the laws 
                        of the State or States, as the case may be, 
                        provide adequate authority to implement such 
                        management program or, if there is not such 
                        adequate authority, a list of such additional 
                        authorities as will be necessary to implement 
                        such management program.
                          ``(ii) Commitment.--A schedule for seeking, 
                        and a commitment by the State or States to 
                        seek, such additional authorities as 
                        expeditiously as practicable.
                  ``(I) Identification of federal financial assistance 
                programs.--An identification of Federal financial 
                assistance programs and Federal development projects 
                for which the State will review individual assistance 
                applications or development projects for their effect 
                on water quality pursuant to the procedures set forth 
                in Executive Order 12372 as in effect on September 17, 
                1983, to determine whether such assistance applications 
                or development projects would be consistent with the 
                program prepared under this subsection; for the 
                purposes of this subparagraph, identification shall not 
                be limited to the assistance programs or development 
                projects subject to Executive Order 12372 but may 
                include any programs listed in the most recent Catalog 
                of Federal Domestic Assistance which may have an effect 
                on the purposes and objectives of the State's 
                stormwater management program.
                  ``(J) Monitoring.--A description of the monitoring of 
                navigable waters or other assessment which will be 
                carried out under the program for the purposes of 
                monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the 
                program, including the attainment of interim goals and 
                milestones.
                  ``(K) Identification of certain inconsistent federal 
                activities.--An identification of activities on Federal 
                lands in the State that are inconsistent with the State 
                management program.
                  ``(L) Identification of goals and milestones.--An 
                identification of goals and milestones for progress in 
                attaining water quality standards, including a 
                projected date for attaining such standards as 
                expeditiously as practicable but not later than 15 
                years after the date of approval of the State program 
                for each of the waters listed pursuant to subsection 
                (b).
          ``(3) Utilization of local and private experts.--In 
        developing and implementing a management program under this 
        subsection, a State shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
        involve local public and private agencies and organizations 
        which have expertise in stormwater management.
          ``(4) Development on watershed basis.--A State shall, to the 
        maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a stormwater 
        management program under this subsection on a watershed-by-
        watershed basis within such State.
          ``(5) Regulations defining small businesses.--The 
        Administrator shall propose, not later than 6 months after the 
        date of the enactment of this section, and issue, not later 
        than 1 year after the date of such enactment, regulations to 
        define small businesses for purposes of this section.
  ``(d) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans.--
          ``(1) Implementation deadline.--Each stormwater pollution 
        prevention plan required under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall 
        be implemented not later than 180 days after the date of its 
        development and shall be annually updated.
          ``(2) Plan contents.--Each stormwater pollution prevention 
        plan required under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall include the 
        following components:
                  ``(A) Establishment and appointment of a stormwater 
                pollution prevention team.
                  ``(B) Description of potential pollutant sources.
                  ``(C) An annual site inspection evaluation.
                  ``(D) An annual visual stormwater discharge 
                inspection.
                  ``(E) Measures and controls for reducing stormwater 
                pollution, including, at a minimum, model management 
                practices and measures that are flexible, 
                technologically feasible, and economically practicable. 
                For purposes of this paragraph, the term `model 
                management practices and measures' means preventive 
                maintenance, good housekeeping, spill prevention and 
                response, employee training, and sediment and erosion 
                control.
                  ``(F) Prevention of illegal discharges of 
                nonstormwater through stormwater outfalls.
          ``(3) Certification.--Each facility subject to subsection 
        (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall certify to the State that it has 
        implemented a stormwater pollution prevention plan or a State 
        or local equivalent and that the plan is intended to reduce 
        possible pollutants in the facility's stormwater discharges. 
        The certification must be signed by a responsible officer of 
        the facility and must be affixed to the plan subject to review 
        by the appropriate State program authority. If a facility makes 
        such a certification, such facility shall not be subject to 
        permit or permit application requirements, mandatory model 
        management practices and measures, analytical monitoring, 
        effluent limitations or other numerical standards or guidelines 
        under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii).
          ``(4) Plan adequacy.--The State stormwater management program 
        shall set forth the basis upon which the adequacy of a plan 
        prepared by a facility subject to subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) will 
        be determined. In making such determination, the State shall 
        consider benefits to the environment, physical requirements, 
        technological feasibility and economic costs, human health or 
        safety, and nature of the activity at the facility or site.
  ``(e) Administrative Provisions.--
          ``(1) Cooperation requirement.--Any report required by 
        subsection (b) and any management program and report required 
        by subsection (c) shall be developed in cooperation with local, 
        substate, regional, and interstate entities which are 
        responsible for implementing stormwater management programs.
          ``(2) Time period for submission of management programs.--
        Each management program shall be submitted to the Administrator 
        within 30 months of the issuance by the Administrator of the 
        final guidance under subsection (l) and every 5 years 
        thereafter. Each program submission after the initial 
        submission following the date of the enactment of the Clean 
        Water Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration of 
        reasonable further progress toward the goal of attaining water 
        quality standards as set forth in subsection (c)(2) established 
        for designated uses of receiving waters taking into account 
        specific watershed conditions by not later than the date 
        referred to in subsection (b)(2)(B), including a documentation 
        of the degree to which the State has achieved the interim goals 
        and milestones contained in the previous program submission. 
        Such demonstration shall take into account the adequacy of 
        Federal funding under this section.
          ``(3) Transition.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Permits, including group and 
                general permits, issued pursuant to section 402(p), as 
                in effect on the day before the date of the enactment 
                of this section, shall remain in effect until the 
                effective date of a State stormwater management program 
                under this section. Stormwater dischargers shall 
                continue to implement any stormwater management 
                practices and measures required under such permits 
                until such practices and measures are modified pursuant 
                to this subparagraph or pursuant to a State stormwater 
                management program. Prior to the effective date of a 
                State stormwater management program, stormwater 
                dischargers may submit for approval proposed revised 
                stormwater management practices and measures to the 
                State, in the case of a State with an approved program 
                under section 402, or the Administrator. Upon notice of 
                approval by the State or the Administrator, the 
                stormwater discharger shall implement the revised 
                stormwater management practices and measures which, for 
                discharges subject to subsection (c)(2)(C)(i), 
                (c)(2)(D), (c)(2)(E), or (c)(2)(F), may be voluntary 
                pollution prevention activities. A stormwater 
                discharger operating under a permit continued in effect 
                under this subparagraph shall not be subject to 
                citizens suits under section 505.
                  ``(B) New facilities.--A new nonmunicipal source of 
                stormwater discharge subject to a group or general 
                permit continued in effect under subparagraph (A) shall 
                notify the State or the Administrator, as appropriate, 
                of the source's intent to be covered by and shall 
                continue to comply with such permit. Until the 
                effective date of a State stormwater management program 
                under this section, the State may impose enforceable 
                stormwater management measures and practices on a new 
                nonmunicipal source of stormwater discharge not subject 
                to such a permit if the State finds that the stormwater 
                discharge is likely to pose an imminent threat to human 
                health and the environment or to pose significant 
                impairment of water quality standards.
                  ``(C) Special rule.--Industrial facilities included 
                in a Part 1 group stormwater permit application 
                approved by the Administrator pursuant to section 
                122.26(c)(2) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 
                as in effect on the date of the enactment of this 
                section, may, in lieu of continued operation under 
                existing permits, certify to the State or the 
                Administrator, as appropriate, that such facilities are 
                implementing a stormwater pollution prevention plan 
                consistent with subsection (d). Upon such 
                certification, the facility will no longer be subject 
                to such permit.
                  ``(D) Pre-1987 permits.--Notwithstanding the repeal 
                of section 402(p) by the Clean Water Amendments Act of 
                1995 or any other amendment made to section 402 on or 
                before the date of the enactment of such Act, a 
                discharge with respect to which a permit has been 
                issued under section 402 before February 4, 1987, shall 
                not be subject to the provisions of this section.
                  ``(E) Antibacksliding.--Section 402(o) shall not 
                apply to any activity carried out in accordance with 
                this paragraph.
  ``(f) Approval or Disapproval of Reports or Management Programs.--
          ``(1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 180 
        days after the date of submission to the Administrator of any 
        report or revised report or management program under this 
        section, the Administrator shall either approve or disapprove 
        such report or management program, as the case may be. The 
        Administrator may approve a portion of a management program 
        under this subsection. If the Administrator does not disapprove 
        a report, management program, or portion of a management 
        program in such 180-day period, such report, management 
        program, or portion shall be deemed approved for purposes of 
        this section.
          ``(2) Procedure for disapproval.--If, after notice and 
        opportunity for public comment and consultation with 
        appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested 
        persons, the Administrator determines that--
                  ``(A) the proposed management program or any portion 
                thereof does not meet the requirements of subsection 
                (b) of this section or is not likely to satisfy, in 
                whole or in part, the goals and requirements of this 
                Act;
                  ``(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate 
                resources are not available, to implement such program 
                or portion; or
                  ``(C) the practices and measures proposed in such 
                program or portion will not result in reasonable 
                progress toward the goal of attainment of applicable 
                water quality standards as set forth in subsection 
                (c)(2) established for designated uses of receiving 
                waters taking into consideration specific watershed 
                conditions as expeditiously as possible but not later 
                than 15 years after approval of a State stormwater 
                management program under this section;
        the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt of the 
        proposed program notify the State of any revisions or 
        modifications necessary to obtain approval. The State shall 
        have an additional 6 months to submit its revised management 
        program, and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove such 
        revised program within 3 months of receipt.
          ``(3) Failure of state to submit report.--If a Governor of a 
        State does not submit a report or revised report required by 
        subsection (b) within the period specified by subsection 
        (e)(2), the Administrator shall, within 18 months after the 
        date on which such report is required to be submitted under 
        subsection (b), prepare a report for such State which makes the 
        identifications required by paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) of 
        subsection (b). Upon completion of the requirement of the 
        preceding sentence and after notice and opportunity for a 
        comment, the Administrator shall report to Congress of the 
        actions of the Administrator under this section.
          ``(4) Failure of state to submit management program.--
                  ``(A) Program management by administrator.--Subject 
                to paragraph (5), if a State fails to submit a 
                management program or revised management program under 
                subsection (c) or the Administrator does not approve 
                such management program, the Administrator shall 
                prepare and implement a management program for 
                controlling pollution added from stormwater discharges 
                to the navigable waters within the State and improving 
                the quality of such waters in accordance with 
                subsection (c).
                  ``(B) Notice and hearing.--If the Administrator 
                intends to disapprove a program submitted by a State 
                the Administrator shall first notify the Governor of 
                the State, in writing, of the modifications necessary 
                to meet the requirements of this section. The 
                Administrator shall provide adequate public notice and 
                an opportunity for a public hearing for all interested 
                parties.
                  ``(C) State revision of its program.--If, after 
                taking into account the level of funding actually 
                provided as compared with the level authorized, the 
                Administrator determines that a State has failed to 
                demonstrate reasonable further progress toward the 
                attainment of water quality standards as required, the 
                State shall revise its program within 12 months of that 
                determination in a manner sufficient to achieve 
                attainment of applicable water quality standards by the 
                deadline established by this section. If a State fails 
                to make such a program revision or the Administrator 
                does not approve such a revision, the Administrator 
                shall prepare and implement a stormwater management 
                program for the State.
          ``(5) Local Management Programs; Technical Assistance.--If a 
        State fails to submit a management program under subsection (c) 
        or the Administrator does not approve such a management 
        program, a local public agency or organization which has 
        expertise in, and authority to, control water pollution 
        resulting from nonpoint sources in any area of such State which 
        the Administrator determines is of sufficient geographic size 
        may, with approval of such State, request the Administrator to 
        provide, and the Administrator shall provide, technical 
        assistance to such agency or organization in developing for 
        such area a management program which is described in subsection 
        (c) and can be approved pursuant to this subsection. After 
        development of such management program, such agency or 
        organization shall submit such management program to the 
        Administrator for approval.
  ``(g) Interstate Management Conference.--
          ``(1) Convening of conference; notification; purpose.--
                  ``(A) Convening of conference.--If any portion of the 
                navigable waters in any State which is implementing a 
                management program approved under this section is not 
                meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals 
                and requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or 
                in part, of pollution from stormwater in another State, 
                such State may petition the Administrator to convene, 
                and the Administrator shall convene, a management 
                conference of all States which contribute significant 
                pollution resulting from stormwater to such portion.
                  ``(B) Notification.--If, on the basis of information 
                available, the Administrator determines that a State is 
                not meeting applicable water quality standards or the 
                goals and requirements of this Act as a result, in 
                whole or in part, of significant pollution from 
                stormwater in another State, the Administrator shall 
                notify such States.
                  ``(C) Time limit.--The Administrator may convene a 
                management conference under this paragraph not later 
                than 180 days after giving such notification under 
                subparagraph (B), whether or not the State which is not 
                meeting such standards requests such conference.
                  ``(D) Purpose.--The purpose of the conference shall 
                be to develop an agreement among the States to reduce 
                the level of pollution resulting from stormwater in the 
                portion of the navigable waters and to improve the 
                water quality of such portion.
                  ``(E) Protection of water rights.--Nothing in the 
                agreement shall supersede or abrogate rights to 
                quantities of water which have been established by 
                interstate water compacts, Supreme Court decrees, or 
                State water laws.
                  ``(F) Limitations.--This subsection shall not apply 
                to any pollution which is subject to the Colorado River 
                Basin Salinity Control Act. The requirement that the 
                Administrator convene a management conference shall not 
                be subject to the provisions of section 505 of this 
                Act.
          ``(2) State management program requirement.--To the extent 
        that the States reach agreement through such conference, the 
        management programs of the States which are parties to such 
        agreements and which contribute significant pollution to the 
        navigable waters or portions thereof not meeting applicable 
        water quality standards or goals and requirements of this Act 
        will be revised to reflect such agreement. Such management 
        programs shall be consistent with Federal and State law.
  ``(h) Grants for Stormwater Research.--
          ``(1) In general.--To determine the most cost-effective and 
        technologically feasible means of improving the quality of the 
        navigable waters and to develop the criteria required pursuant 
        to subsection (i) of this Act, the Administrator shall 
        establish an initiative through which the Administrator shall 
        fund State and local demonstration programs and research to--
                  ``(A) identify adverse impacts of stormwater 
                discharges on receiving waters;
                  ``(B) identify the pollutants in stormwater which 
                cause impact; and
                  ``(C) test innovative approaches to address the 
                impacts of source controls and model management 
                practices and measures for runoff from municipal storm 
                sewers.
        Persons conducting demonstration programs and research funded 
        under this subsection shall also take into account the physical 
        nature of episodic stormwater flows, the varying pollutants in 
        stormwater, the actual risk the flows pose to the designated 
        beneficial uses, and the ability of natural ecosystems to 
        accept temporary stormwater events.
          ``(2) Award of funds.--The Administrator shall award the 
        demonstration and research program funds taking into account 
        regional and population variations.
          ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
        to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $20,000,000 per 
        fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000. Such sums shall 
        remain available until expended.
          ``(4) Inadequate funding.--For each fiscal year beginning 
        after the date of the enactment of this subsection for which 
        the total amounts appropriated to carry out this subsection are 
        less than the total amounts authorized to be appropriated 
        pursuant to this subsection, any deadlines established under 
        subsection (c)(2)(L) for compliance with water quality 
        standards shall be postponed by 1 year.
  ``(i) Development of Stormwater Criteria.--
          ``(1) In general.--To reflect the episodic character of 
        stormwater which results in significant variances in the 
        volume, hydraulics, hydrology, and pollutant load associated 
        with stormwater discharges, the Administrator shall establish, 
        as an element of the water quality standards established for 
        the designated uses of the navigable waters, stormwater 
        criteria which protect the navigable waters from impairment of 
        the designated beneficial uses caused by stormwater discharges. 
        The criteria shall be technologically and financially feasible 
        and may include performance standards, guidelines, guidance, 
        and model management practices and measures and treatment 
        requirements, as appropriate, and as identified in subsection 
        (h)(1).
          ``(2) Information to be used in development.--The stormwater 
        discharge criteria to be established under this subsection--
                  ``(A) shall be developed from--
                          ``(i) the findings and conclusions of the 
                        demonstration programs and research conducted 
                        under subsection (h);
                          ``(ii) the findings and conclusions of the 
                        research and monitoring activities of 
                        stormwater dischargers performed in compliance 
                        with permit requirements of this Act; and
                          ``(iii) other relevant information, including 
                        information submitted to the Administrator 
                        under the industrial group permit application 
                        process in effect under section 402 of this Act 
                        on the day before the date of the enactment of 
                        this section;
                  ``(B) shall be developed in consultation with persons 
                with expertise in the management of stormwater 
                (including officials of State and local government, 
                industrial and commercial stormwater dischargers, and 
                public interest groups); and
                  ``(C) shall be established as an element of the water 
                quality standards that are developed and implemented 
                under this Act by not later than December 31, 2008.
  ``(j) Collection of Information.--The Administrator shall collect and 
make available, through publications and other appropriate means, 
information pertaining to model management practices and measures and 
implementation methods, including, but not limited to--
          ``(1) information concerning the costs and relative 
        efficiencies of model management practices and measures for 
        reducing pollution from stormwater discharges; and
          ``(2) available data concerning the relationship between 
        water quality and implementation of various management 
        practices to control pollution from stormwater discharges.
  ``(k) Reports of Administrator.--
          ``(1) Biennial reports.--Not later than January 1, 1996, and 
        biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit to the 
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
        Works of the Senate, a report for the preceding fiscal year on 
        the activities and programs implemented under this section and 
        the progress made in reducing pollution in the navigable waters 
        resulting from stormwater discharges and improving the quality 
        of such waters.
          ``(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1), 
        at a minimum shall--
                  ``(A) describe the management programs being 
                implemented by the States by types of affected 
                navigable waters, categories and subcategories of 
                stormwater discharges, and types of measures being 
                implemented;
                  ``(B) describe the experiences of the States in 
                adhering to schedules and implementing the measures 
                under subsection (c);
                  ``(C) describe the amount and purpose of grants 
                awarded pursuant to subsection (h);
                  ``(D) identify, to the extent that information is 
                available, the progress made in reducing pollutant 
                loads and improving water quality in the navigable 
                waters;
                  ``(E) indicate what further actions need to be taken 
                to attain and maintain in those navigable waters (i) 
                applicable water quality standards, and (ii) the goals 
                and requirements of this Act;
                  ``(F) include recommendations of the Administrator 
                concerning future programs (including enforcement 
                programs) for controlling pollution from stormwater; 
                and
                  ``(G) identify the activities and programs of 
                departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the 
                United States that are inconsistent with the stormwater 
                management programs implemented by the States under 
                this section and recommended modifications so that such 
                activities and programs are consistent with and assist 
                the States in implementation of such management 
                programs.
  ``(l) Guidance on Model Stormwater Management Practices and 
Measures.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
        appropriate Federal, State, and local departments and agencies, 
        and after providing notice and opportunity for public comment, 
        shall publish guidance to identify model management practices 
        and measures which may be undertaken, at the discretion of the 
        State or appropriate entity, under a management program 
        established pursuant to this section. In preparing such 
        guidance, the Administrator shall consider integration of a 
        stormwater management program of a State with, and the 
        relationship of such program to, the nonpoint source management 
        program of the State under section 319.
          ``(2) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish proposed 
        guidance under this subsection not later than 6 months after 
        the date of the enactment of this subsection and shall publish 
        final guidance under this subsection not later than 18 months 
        after such date of enactment. The Administrator shall 
        periodically review and revise the final guidance upon adequate 
        notice and opportunity for public comment at least once every 3 
        years after its publication.
          ``(3) Model management practices and measures defined.--For 
        the purposes of this subsection, the term ``model management 
        practices and measures'' means economically achievable measures 
        for the control of pollutants from stormwater discharges which 
        reflect the most cost-effective degree of pollutant reduction 
        achievable through the application of the best available 
        practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating 
        methods, or other alternatives.
  ``(m) Enforcement With Respect to Stormwater Dischargers Violating 
State Management Programs.--Stormwater dischargers that do not comply 
with State management program requirements under subsection (c) are 
subject to applicable enforcement actions under sections 309 and 505 of 
this Act.
  ``(n) Entry and Inspection.--In order to carry out the objectives of 
this section, an authorized representative of a State, upon 
presentation of his or her credentials, shall have a right of entry to, 
upon, or through any property at which a stormwater discharge or 
records required to be maintained under the State stormwater management 
program are located.
  ``(o) Limitation on Discharges Regulated Under Watershed Management 
Program.--Stormwater discharges regulated under section 321 in a manner 
consistent with this section shall not be subject to this section.
  ``(p) Mineral Exploration and Mining Sites.--
          ``(1) Exploration sites.--For purposes of subsection 
        (c)(2)(F), stormwater discharges from construction activities 
        shall include stormwater discharges from mineral exploration 
        activities; except that, for exploration at abandoned mined 
        lands, the stormwater program under subsection (c)(2)(F) shall 
        be limited to the control of pollutants added to stormwater by 
        contact with areas disturbed by the exploration activity.
          ``(2) Mining sites.--Stormwater discharges at ore mining and 
        dressing sites shall be subject to this section. If any such 
        discharge is commingled with mine drainage or process 
        wastewater from mining operations, such discharge shall be 
        treated as a discharge from a point source for purposes of this 
        Act.
          ``(3) Abandoned mined lands.--Stormwater discharges from 
        abandoned mined lands shall be subject to section 319; except 
        that if the State, after notice and an opportunity for comment, 
        finds that regulation of such stormwater discharges under this 
        section is necessary to make reasonable further progress toward 
        achieving water quality standards by the date referred to in 
        subsection (c)(2)(B), such discharges shall be subject to this 
        section.
          ``(4) Surface mining control and reclamation act sites.--
        Notwithstanding paragraph (3), stormwater discharges from 
        abandoned mined lands site which are subject to the Surface 
        Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201-
        1328) shall be subject to section 319.
          ``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
        following definitions apply:
                  ``(A) Abandoned mined lands.--The term `abandoned 
                mined lands' means lands which were used for mineral 
                activities and abandoned or left in an inadequate 
                reclamation status and for which there is no continuing 
                reclamation responsibility under State or Federal laws.
                  ``(B) Process waste water.--The term `process waste 
                water' means any water other than stormwater which 
                comes into contact with any raw material, intermediate 
                product, finished product, byproduct, or waste product 
                as part of any mineral beneficiation processes employed 
                at the site.
                  ``(C) Mine drainage.--The term `mine drainage' means 
                any water drained, pumped, or siphoned from underground 
                mine workings or mine pits, but such term shall not 
                include stormwater runoff from tailings dams, dikes, 
                overburden, waste rock piles, haul roads, access roads, 
                and ancillary facility areas.''.
  (b) Repeal of Limitation on Permit Requirement.--Section 402(l) (33 
U.S.C. 1342(l)) is repealed.
  (c) Repeal of Municipal and Industrial Stormwater Discharges 
Program.--Section 402(p) (33 U.S.C. 1342(p)) is repealed.
  (d) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended--
          (1) by adding at the end of paragraph (14) the following: 
        ``The term does not include a stormwater discharge.''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(25) The term `stormwater' means runoff from rain, snow melt, or 
any other precipitation-generated surface runoff.
  ``(26) The term `stormwater discharge' means a discharge from any 
conveyance which is used for the collecting and conveying of stormwater 
to navigable waters and which is associated with a municipal storm 
sewer system or industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining activities 
or construction activities.''.

SEC. 323. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

  Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is further amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``SEC. 323. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

  ``(a) General Rule.--The Administrator or the Secretary of the Army 
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Secretary'), as 
appropriate, shall develop and publish a risk assessment before 
issuing--
          ``(1) any standard, effluent limitation, water quality 
        criterion, water quality based requirement, or other regulatory 
        requirement under this Act (other than a permit or a purely 
        procedural requirement); or
          ``(2) any guidance under this Act which, if issued as a 
        regulatory requirement, would result in an annual increase in 
        cost of $25,000,000 or more.
  ``(b) Contents of Risk Assessments.--A risk assessment developed 
under subsection (a), at a minimum, shall--
          ``(1) identify and use all relevant and readily obtainable 
        data and information of sufficient quality, including data and 
        information submitted to the Agency in a timely fashion;
          ``(2) identify and discuss significant assumptions, 
        inferences, or models used in the risk assessment;
          ``(3) measure the sensitivity of the results to the 
        significant assumptions, inferences, or models that the risk 
        assessment relies upon;
          ``(4) with respect to significant assumptions, inferences, or 
        models that the results are sensitive to, identify and 
        discuss--
                  ``(A) credible alternatives and the basis for the 
                rejection of such alternatives;
                  ``(B) the scientific or policy basis for the 
                selection of such assumptions, inferences, or models; 
                and
                  ``(C) the extent to which any such assumptions, 
                inferences, or models have been validated or conflict 
                with empirical data;
          ``(5) to the maximum extent practical, provide a description 
        of the risk, including, at minimum, best estimates or other 
        unbiased representation of the most plausible level of risk and 
        a description of the specific populations or natural resources 
        subject to the assessment;
          ``(6) to the maximum extent practical, provide a quantitative 
        estimate of the uncertainty inherent in the risk assessment; 
        and
          ``(7) compare the nature and extent of the risk identified in 
        the risk assessment to other risks to human health and the 
        environment.
  ``(c) Risk Assessment Guidance.--Not later than 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this section, and after providing notice and 
opportunity for public comment, the Administrator, in consultation with 
the Secretary, shall issue, and thereafter revise, as appropriate, 
guidance for conducting risk assessments under subsection (a).
  ``(d) Margin of Safety.--When establishing a margin of safety for use 
in developing a regulatory requirement described in subsection (a)(1) 
or guidance described in subsection (a)(2), the Administrator or the 
Secretary, as appropriate, shall provide, as part of the risk 
assessment under subsection (a), an explicit and, to the extent 
practical, quantitative description of the margin of safety relative to 
an unbiased estimate of the risk being addressed.
  ``(e) Discretionary Exemptions.--The Administrator or the Secretary, 
as appropriate, may exempt from the requirements of this section any 
risk assessment prepared in support of a regulatory requirement 
described in subsection (a)(1) which is likely to result in annual 
increase in cost of less than $25,000,000. Such exemptions may be made 
for specific risk assessments or classes of risk assessments.
  ``(f) General Rule on Applicability.--The requirements of this 
section shall apply to any regulatory requirement described in 
subsection (a)(1) or guidance described in subsection (a)(2) that is 
issued after the last day of the 1-year period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this section.
  ``(g) Significant Regulatory Actions and Guidance.--
          ``(1) Applicability of requirements.--In addition to the 
        regulatory requirements and guidance referred to in subsection 
        (f), the requirements of this section shall apply to--
                  ``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, water 
                quality criterion, water quality based requirement, or 
                other regulatory requirement issued under this Act 
                during the period described in paragraph (2) which is 
                likely to result in an annual increase in cost of 
                $100,000,000 or more; and
                  ``(B) any guidance issued under this Act during the 
                period described in paragraph (2) which, if issued as a 
                regulatory requirement, would be likely to result in 
                annual increase in cost of $100,000,000 or more.
          ``(2) Covered period.--The period described in this paragraph 
        is the period beginning on February 15, 1995, and ending on the 
        last day of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
          ``(3) Review.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
        paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) 
        which was issued before the date of the enactment of this 
        section shall be reviewed and, with respect to each such 
        requirement or guidance, the Administrator or the Secretary, as 
        appropriate, shall based on such review--
                  ``(A) certify that the requirement or guidance meets 
                the requirements of this section without revision; or
                  ``(B) reissue the requirement or guidance, after 
                providing notice and opportunity for public comment, 
                with such revisions as may be necessary for compliance 
                with the requirements of this section.
          ``(4) Deadline.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
        paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) for 
        which the Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate, does 
        not issue a certification or revisions under paragraph (3) on 
        or before the last day of the 18-month period beginning on the 
        date of the enactment of this section shall cease to be 
        effective after such last day until the date on which such 
        certification or revisions are issued.''.

SEC. 324. BENEFIT AND COST CRITERION.

  Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is further amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``SEC. 324. BENEFIT AND COST CRITERION.

  ``(a) Decision Criterion.--
          ``(1) Certification.--The Administrator or the Secretary of 
        the Army (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
        `Secretary'), as appropriate, shall not issue--
                  ``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, or other 
                regulatory requirement under this Act; or
                  ``(B) any guidance under this Act which, if issued as 
                a regulatory requirement, would result in an annual 
                increase in cost of $25,000,000 or more,
        unless the Administrator or the Secretary certifies that the 
        requirement or guidance maximizes net benefits to society. Such 
        certification shall be based on an analysis meeting the 
        requirements of subsection (b).
          ``(2) Effect of criterion.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of this Act, the decision criterion of paragraph (1) 
        shall supplement and, to the extent there is a conflict, 
        supersede the decision criteria otherwise applicable under this 
        Act; except that the resulting regulatory requirement or 
        guidance shall be economically achievable.
          ``(3) Substantial evidence.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of this Act, no regulation or guidance subject to 
        this subsection shall be issued by the Administrator or the 
        Secretary unless the requirement of paragraph (1) is met and 
        the certification is supported by substantial evidence.
  ``(b) Benefit and Cost Analysis Guidance.--
          ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this section, and after providing notice and 
        opportunity for public comment, the Administrator, in 
        concurrence with the Administrator of the Office of Information 
        and Regulatory Affairs, shall issue, and thereafter revise, as 
        appropriate, guidance for conducting benefit and cost analyses 
        in support of making certifications required by subsection (a).
          ``(2) Contents.--Guidance issued under paragraph (1), at a 
        minimum, shall--
                  ``(A) require the identification of available policy 
                alternatives, including the alternative of not 
                regulating and any alternatives proposed during periods 
                for public comment;
                  ``(B) provide methods for estimating the incremental 
                benefits and costs associated with plausible 
                alternatives, including the use of quantitative and 
                qualitative measures;
                  ``(C) require an estimate of the nature and extent of 
                the incremental risk avoided by the standard, effluent 
                limitation, or other regulatory requirement, including 
                a statement that places in context the nature and 
                magnitude of the estimated risk reduction; and
                  ``(D) require an estimate of the total social, 
                environmental, and economic costs of implementing the 
                standard, effluent limitation, or other regulatory 
                requirement.
  ``(c) Exemptions.--The following shall not be subject to the 
requirements of this section:
          ``(1) The issuance of a permit.
          ``(2) The implementation of any purely procedural 
        requirement.
          ``(3) Water quality criteria established under section 304.
          ``(4) Water quality based standards established under section 
        303.
  ``(d) Discretionary Exemptions.--The Administrator or the Secretary, 
as appropriate, may exempt from this section any regulatory requirement 
that is likely to result in an annual increase in costs of less than 
$25,000,000. Such exemptions may be made for specific regulatory 
requirements or classes of regulatory requirements.
  ``(e) General Rule on Applicability.--The requirements of this 
section shall apply to any regulatory requirement described in 
subsection (a)(1)(A) or guidance described in subsection (a)(1)(B) that 
is issued after the last day of the 1-year period beginning on the date 
of the enactment of this section.
  ``(f) Significant Regulatory Actions and Guidance.--
          ``(1) Applicability of requirements.--In addition to the 
        regulatory requirements and guidance referred to in subsection 
        (e), this section shall apply to--
                  ``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, or other 
                regulatory requirement issued under this Act during the 
                period described in paragraph (2) which is likely to 
                result in an annual increase in cost of $100,000,000 or 
                more; and
                  ``(B) any guidance issued under this Act during the 
                period described in paragraph (2) which, if issued as a 
                regulatory requirement, would be likely to result in 
                annual increase in cost of $100,000,000 or more.
          ``(2) Covered period.--The period described in this paragraph 
        is the period beginning on February 15, 1995, and ending on the 
        last day of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
          ``(3) Review.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
        paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) 
        which was issued before the date of the enactment of this 
        section shall be reviewed and, with respect to each such 
        requirement or guidance, the Administrator or the Secretary, as 
        appropriate, shall, based on such review--
                  ``(A) certify that the requirement or guidance meets 
                the requirements of this section without revision; or
                  ``(B) reissue the requirement or guidance, after 
                providing notice and opportunity for public comment, 
                with such revisions as may be necessary for compliance 
                with the requirements of this section.
          ``(4) Deadline.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
        paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) for 
        which the Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate, does 
        not issue a certification or revisions under paragraph (3) on 
        or before the last day of the 18-month period beginning on the 
        date of the enactment of this section shall cease to be 
        effective after such last day until the date on which such 
        certification or revisions are issued.
  ``(g) Study.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment 
of this section, the Administrator, in consultation with the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
shall publish an analysis regarding the precision and accuracy of 
benefit and cost estimates prepared under this section. Such study, at 
a minimum, shall--
          ``(1) compare estimates of the benefits and costs prepared 
        under this section to actual costs and benefits achieved after 
        implementation of regulations or other requirements;
          ``(2) examine and assess alternative analytic methods for 
        conducting benefit and cost analysis, including health-health 
        analysis; and
          ``(3) make recommendations for the improvement of benefit and 
        cost analyses conducted under this section.''.

                     TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES

SEC. 401. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING 
                    OPERATIONS.

  Section 402(a) is amended by adding the following new paragraph:
          ``(6) Concentrated animal feeding operations.--For purposes 
        of this section, waste treatment systems, including retention 
        ponds or lagoons, used to meet the requirements of this Act for 
        concentrated animal feeding operations, are not waters of the 
        United States. An existing concentrated animal feeding 
        operation that uses a natural topographic impoundment or 
        structure on the effective date of this Act, which is not 
        hydrologically connected to any other waters of the United 
        States, as a waste treatment system or wastewater retention 
        facility may continue to use that natural topographic feature 
        for waste storage regardless of its size, capacity, or previous 
        use.''.

SEC. 402. PERMIT REFORM.

  (a) Duration and Reopeners.--Section 402(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)) 
is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``five'' and inserting 
        ``10'' and by striking ``and'';
          (2) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
        subparagraph (D); and
          (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                  ``(E) can be modified as necessary to address a 
                significant threat to human health and the 
                environment;''.
  (b) Review of Effluent Limitations.--Section 301(d) (33 U.S.C. 
1311(d)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(d) Review of Effluent Limitations.--Any effluent limitation 
required by subsection (b)(2) that is established in a permit under 
section 402 shall be reviewed at least every 10 years when the permit 
is reissued, and, if appropriate, revised.''.
  (c) Discharge Limit.--Section 402(b)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)(A)) 
is amended by inserting after the semicolon at the end the following: 
``except that in no event shall a discharge limit in a permit under 
this section be set at a level below the lowest level that the 
pollutant can be reliably quantified on an interlaboratory basis for a 
particular test method, as determined by the Administrator using 
approved analytical methods under section 304(h);''.

SEC. 403. REVIEW OF STATE PROGRAMS AND PERMITS.

  (a) Review of State Programs.--Section 402(c) (33 U.S.C. 1342(c)) is 
amended by inserting before the first sentence the following: ``Upon 
approval of a State program under this section, the Administrator shall 
review administration of the program by the State once every 3 
years.''.
  (b) Review of State Permits.--Section 402(d)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
1342(d)(2)) is amended--
          (1) in the first sentence by striking ``as being outside the 
        guidelines and requirements of this Act'' and inserting ``as 
        presenting a substantial risk to human health and the 
        environment''; and
          (2) in the second sentence by striking ``and the effluent 
        limitations'' and all that follows before the period.
  (c) Court Proceedings to Prohibit Introduction of Pollutants into 
Treatment Works.--Section 402(h) (33 U.S.C. 1342(h)) is amended by 
inserting after ``approved or where'' the following: ``the discharge 
involves a significant source of pollutants to the waters of the United 
States and''.

SEC. 404. STATISTICAL NONCOMPLIANCE.

  (a) Number of Excursions.--Section 402(k) (33 U.S.C. 1342(k)) is 
amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ``In any 
enforcement action or citizen suit under section 309 or 505 of this Act 
or applicable State law alleging noncompliance with a technology-based 
effluent limitation established pursuant to section 301, a permittee 
shall be deemed in compliance with the technology-based effluent 
limitation if the permittee demonstrates through reference to 
information contained in the applicable rulemaking record that the 
number of excursions from the technology-based effluent limitation are 
no greater, on an annual basis, than the number of excursions expected 
from the technology on which the limit is based and that the discharges 
do not violate an applicable water-quality based limitation or 
standard.''.
  (b) Pretreatment Standards.--Section 307(d) (33 U.S.C. 1317(d)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``In any enforcement action 
or citizen suit under section 309 or 505 of this Act or applicable 
State law alleging noncompliance with a categorical pretreatment 
standard or local pretreatment limit established pursuant to this 
section, a person who demonstrates through reference to information 
contained in the applicable rulemaking record--
          ``(1) that the number of excursions from the categorical 
        pretreatment standard or local pretreatment limit are no 
        greater, on an annual basis, than the number of excursions 
        expected from the technology on which the pretreatment standard 
        or local pretreatment limit is based, and
          ``(2) that the introduction of pollutants into a publicly 
        owned treatment works does not cause interference with such 
        works or cause a violation by such works of an applicable 
        water-quality based limitation or standard,
shall be deemed in compliance with the standard under the Act.''.

SEC. 405. ANTI-BACKSLIDING REQUIREMENTS.

  Section 402(o) (33 U.S.C. 1343(o)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
          ``(4) Nonapplicability to publicly owned treatment works.--
        The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to 
        permitted discharges from a publicly owned treatment works if 
        the treatment works demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
        Administrator that--
                  ``(A) the increase in pollutants is a result of 
                conditions beyond the control of the treatment works 
                (such as fluctuations in normal source water 
                availabilities due to sustained drought conditions); 
                and
                  ``(B) effluent quality does not result in impairment 
                of water quality standards established for the 
                receiving waters.''.

SEC. 406. INTAKE CREDITS.

  Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by inserting after 
subsection (k) the following:
  ``(l) Intake Credits.--
          ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, 
        in any effluent limitation or other limitation imposed under 
        the permit program established by the Administrator under this 
        section, any State permit program approved under this section 
        (including any program for implementation under section 
        118(c)(2)), any standards established under section 307(a), or 
        any program for industrial users established under section 
        307(b), the Administrator, as applicable, shall or the State, 
        as applicable, may provide credits for pollutants present in or 
        caused by intake water such that an owner or operator of a 
        point source is not required to remove, reduce, or treat the 
        amount of any pollutant in an effluent below the amount of such 
        pollutant that is present in or caused by the intake water for 
        such facility--
                  ``(A)(i) if the source of the intake water and the 
                receiving waters into which the effluent is ultimately 
                discharged are the same;
                  ``(ii) if the source of the intake water meets the 
                maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques for 
                drinking water contaminants established pursuant to the 
                Safe Drinking Water Act for the pollutant of concern; 
                or
                  ``(iii) if, at the time the limitation or standard is 
                established, the level of the pollutant in the intake 
                water is the same as or lower than the amount of the 
                pollutant in the receiving waters, taking into account 
                analytical variability; and
                  ``(B) if, for conventional pollutants, the 
                constituents of the conventional pollutants in the 
                intake water are the same as the constituents of the 
                conventional pollutants in the effluent.
          ``(2) Allowance for incidental amounts.--In determining 
        whether the condition set forth in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is being 
        met, the Administrator shall or the State may, as appropriate, 
        make allowance for incidental amounts of intake water from 
        sources other than the receiving waters.
          ``(3) Credit for nonqualifying pollutants.--The Administrator 
        shall or a State may provide point sources an appropriate 
        credit for pollutants found in intake water that does not meet 
        the requirement of paragraph (1).
          ``(4) Monitoring.--Nothing in this section precludes the 
        Administrator or a State from requiring monitoring of intake 
        water, effluent, or receiving waters to assist in the 
        implementation of this section.''.

SEC. 407. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.

  Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(s) Combined Sewer Overflows.--
          ``(1) Requirement for permits.--Each permit issued pursuant 
        to this section for a discharge from a combined storm and 
        sanitary sewer shall conform with the combined sewer overflow 
        control policy signed by the Administrator on April 11, 1994.
          ``(2) Term of permit.--
                  ``(A) Compliance deadline.--Notwithstanding any 
                compliance schedule under section 301(b), or any permit 
                limitation under section 402(b)(1)(B), the 
                Administrator (or a State with a program approved under 
                subsection (b)) may issue a permit pursuant to this 
                section for a discharge from a combined storm and 
                sanitary sewer, that includes a schedule for compliance 
                with a long-term control plan under the control policy 
                referred to in paragraph (1), for a term not to exceed 
                15 years.
                  ``(B) Extension.--Notwithstanding the compliance 
                deadline specified in subparagraph (A), the 
                Administrator or a State with a program approved under 
                subsection (b) shall extend, on request of an owner or 
                operator of a combined storm and sanitary sewer and 
                subject to subparagraph (C), the period of compliance 
                beyond the last day of the 15-year period--
                          ``(i) if the Administrator or the State 
                        determines that compliance by such last day is 
                        not within the economic capability of the owner 
                        or operator; and
                          ``(ii) if the owner or operator demonstrates 
                        to the satisfaction of the Administrator or the 
                        State reasonable further progress towards 
                        compliance with a long-term control plan under 
                        the control policy referred to in paragraph 
                        (1).
                  ``(C) Limitations on extensions.--
                          ``(i) Extension not appropriate.--
                        Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the 
                        Administrator or the State need not grant an 
                        extension of the compliance deadline specified 
                        in subparagraph (A) if the Administrator or the 
                        State determines that such an extension is not 
                        appropriate.
                          ``(ii) New York-New Jersey.--Prior to 
                        granting an extension under subparagraph (B) 
                        with respect to a combined sewer overflow 
                        discharge originating in the State of New York 
                        or New Jersey and affecting the other of such 
                        States, the Administrator or the State from 
                        which the discharge originates, as the case may 
                        be, shall provide written notice of the 
                        proposed extension to the other State and shall 
                        not grant the extension unless the other State 
                        approves the extension or does not disapprove 
                        the extension within 90 days of receiving such 
                        written notice.
          ``(3) Savings clause.--Any consent decree or court order 
        entered by a United States district court, or administrative 
        order issued by the Administrator, before the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection establishing any deadlines, 
        schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines, 
        schedules, or timetables, for the evaluation, design, or 
        construction of treatment works for control or elimination of 
        any discharge from a municipal combined storm and sanitary 
        sewer system shall be modified upon motion or request by any 
        party to such consent decree or court order, to extend to 
        December 31, 2009, at a minimum, any such deadlines, schedules, 
        or timetables, including any interim deadlines, schedules, or 
        timetables as is necessary to conform to the policy referred to 
        in paragraph (1) or otherwise achieve the objectives of this 
        subsection. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the period 
        of compliance with respect to a discharge referred to in 
        paragraph (2)(C)(ii) may only be extended in accordance with 
        paragraph (2)(C)(ii).''.

SEC. 408. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS.

  Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(t) Sanitary Sewer Overflows.--
          ``(1) Development of policy.--Not later than 2 years after 
        the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
        Administrator, in consultation with State and local governments 
        and water authorities, shall develop and publish a national 
        control policy for municipal separate sanitary sewer overflows. 
        The national policy shall recognize and address regional and 
        economic factors.
          ``(2) Issuance of permits.--Each permit issued pursuant to 
        this section for a discharge from a municipal separate sanitary 
        sewer shall conform with the policy developed under paragraph 
        (1).
          ``(3) Compliance deadline.--Notwithstanding any compliance 
        schedule under section 301(b), or any permit limitation under 
        subsection (b)(1)(B), the Administrator or a State with a 
        program approved under subsection (b) may issue a permit 
        pursuant to this section for a discharge from a municipal 
        separate sanitary sewer due to stormwater inflows or 
        infiltration. The permit shall include at a minimum a schedule 
        for compliance with a long-term control plan under the policy 
        developed under paragraph (1), for a term not to exceed 15 
        years.
          ``(4) Extension.--Notwithstanding the compliance deadline 
        specified in paragraph (3), the Administrator or a State with a 
        program approved under subsection (b) shall extend, on request 
        of an owner or operator of a municipal separate sanitary sewer, 
        the period of compliance beyond the last day of such 15-year 
        period if the Administrator or the State determines that 
        compliance by such last day is not within the economic 
        capability of the owner or operator, unless the Administrator 
        or the State determines that the extension is not appropriate.
          ``(5) Effect on other actions.--Before the date of 
        publication of the policy under paragraph (1), the 
        Administrator or Attorney General shall not initiate any 
        administrative or judicial civil penalty action in response to 
        a municipal separate sanitary sewer overflow due to stormwater 
        inflows or infiltration.
          ``(6) Savings clause.--Any consent decree or court order 
        entered by a United States district court, or administrative 
        order issued by the Administrator, before the date of the 
        enactment of this subsection establishing any deadlines, 
        schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines, 
        schedules, or timetables, for the evaluation, design, or 
        construction of treatment works for control or elimination of 
        any discharge from a municipal separate sanitary sewer shall be 
        modified upon motion or request by any party to such consent 
        decree or court order, to extend to December 31, 2009, at a 
        minimum, any such deadlines, schedules, or timetables, 
        including any interim deadlines, schedules, or timetables as is 
        necessary to conform to the policy developed under paragraph 
        (1) or otherwise achieve the objectives of this subsection.''.

SEC. 409. ABANDONED MINES.

  Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by inserting after 
subsection (o) the following:
  ``(p) Permits for Remediating Party on Abandoned or Inactive Mined 
Lands.--
          ``(1) Applicability.--Subject to this subsection, including 
        the requirements of paragraph (3), the Administrator, with the 
        concurrence of the concerned State or Indian tribe, may issue a 
        permit to a remediating party under this section for discharges 
        associated with remediation activity at abandoned or inactive 
        mined lands which modifies any otherwise applicable requirement 
        of sections 301(b), 302, and 403, or any subsection of this 
        section (other than this subsection).
          ``(2) Application for a permit.--A remediating party who 
        desires to conduct remediation activities on abandoned or 
        inactive mined lands from which there is or may be a discharge 
        of pollutants to waters of the United States or from which 
        there could be a significant addition of pollutants from 
        nonpoint sources may submit an application to the 
        Administrator. The application shall consist of a remediation 
        plan and any other information requested by the Administrator 
        to clarify the plan and activities.
          ``(3) Remediation Plan.--The remediation plan shall include 
        (as appropriate and applicable) the following:
                  ``(A) Identification of the remediating party, 
                including any persons cooperating with the concerned 
                State or Indian tribe with respect to the plan, and a 
                certification that the applicant is a remediating party 
                under this section.
                  ``(B) Identification of the abandoned or inactive 
                mined lands addressed by the plan.
                  ``(C) Identification of the waters of the United 
                States impacted by the abandoned or inactive mined 
                lands.
                  ``(D) A description of the physical conditions at the 
                abandoned or inactive mined lands that are causing 
                adverse water quality impacts.
                  ``(E) A description of practices, including system 
                design and construction plans and operation and 
                maintenance plans, proposed to reduce, control, 
                mitigate, or eliminate the adverse water quality 
                impacts and a schedule for implementing such practices 
                and, if it is an existing remediation project, a 
                description of practices proposed to improve the 
                project, if any.
                  ``(F) An analysis demonstrating that the identified 
                practices are expected to result in a water quality 
                improvement for the identified waters.
                  ``(G) A description of monitoring or other assessment 
                to be undertaken to evaluate the success of the 
                practices during and after implementation, including an 
                assessment of baseline conditions.
                  ``(H) A schedule for periodic reporting on progress 
                in implementation of major elements of the plan.
                  ``(I) A budget and identified funding to support the 
                activities described in the plan.
                  ``(J) Remediation goals and objectives.
                  ``(K) Contingency plans.
                  ``(L) A description of the applicant's legal right to 
                enter and conduct activities.
                  ``(M) The signature of the applicant.
                  ``(N) Identification of the pollutant or pollutants 
                to be addressed by the plan.
          ``(4) Permits.--
                  ``(A) Contents.--Permits issued by the Administrator 
                pursuant to this subsection shall--
                          ``(i) provide for compliance with and 
                        implementation of a remediation plan which, 
                        following issuance of the permit, may be 
                        modified by the applicant after providing 
                        notification to and opportunity for review by 
                        the Administrator;
                          ``(ii) require that any modification of the 
                        plan be reflected in a modified permit;
                          ``(iii) require that if, at any time after 
                        notice to the remediating party and opportunity 
                        for comment by the remediating party, the 
                        Administrator determines that the remediating 
                        party is not implementing the approved 
                        remediation plan in substantial compliance with 
                        its terms, the Administrator shall notify the 
                        remediating party of the determination together 
                        with a list specifying the concerns of the 
                        Administrator;
                          ``(iv) provide that, if the identified 
                        concerns are not resolved or a compliance plan 
                        approved within 180 days of the date of the 
                        notification, the Administrator may take action 
                        under section 309 of this Act;
                          ``(v) provide that clauses (iii) and (iv) not 
                        apply in the case of any action under section 
                        309 to address violations involving gross 
                        negligence (including reckless, willful, or 
                        wanton misconduct) or intentional misconduct by 
                        the remediating party or any other person;
                          ``(vi) not require compliance with any 
                        limitation issued under sections 301(b), 302, 
                        and 403 or any requirement established by the 
                        Administrator under any subsection of this 
                        section (other than this subsection); and
                          ``(vii) provide for termination of coverage 
                        under the permit without the remediating party 
                        being subject to enforcement under sections 309 
                        and 505 of this Act for any remaining 
                        discharges--
                                  ``(I) after implementation of the 
                                remediation plan;
                                  ``(II) if a party obtains a permit to 
                                mine the site; or
                                  ``(III) upon a demonstration by the 
                                remediating party that the surface 
                                water quality conditions due to 
                                remediation activities at the site, 
                                taken as a whole, are equal to or 
                                superior to the surface water qualities 
                                that existed prior to initiation of 
                                remediation.
                  ``(B) Limitations.--The Administrator shall only 
                issue a permit under this section, consistent with the 
                provisions of this subsection, to a remediating party 
                for discharges associated with remediation action at 
                abandoned or inactive mined lands if the remediation 
                plan demonstrates with reasonable certainty that the 
                actions will result in an improvement in water quality.
                  ``(C) Public participation.--The Administrator may 
                only issue a permit or modify a permit under this 
                section after complying with subsection (b)(3).
                  ``(D) Effect of failure to comply with permit.--
                Failure to comply with terms of a permit issued 
                pursuant to this subsection shall not be deemed to be a 
                violation of an effluent standard or limitation issued 
                under this Act.
                  ``(E) Limitations on statutory construction.--This 
                subsection shall not be construed--
                          ``(i) to limit or otherwise affect the 
                        Administrator's powers under section 504; or
                          ``(ii) to preclude actions pursuant to 
                        section 309 or 505 for any violations of 
                        sections 301(a), 302, 402, and 403 that may 
                        have existed for the abandoned or inactive 
                        mined land prior to initiation of remediation 
                        covered by a permit issued under this 
                        subsection, unless such permit covers 
                        remediation activities implemented by the 
                        permit holder prior to issuance of the permit.
          ``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection the following 
        definitions apply:
                  ``(A) Remediating party.--The term `remediating 
                party' means--
                          ``(i) the United States (on non-Federal 
                        lands), a State or its political subdivisions, 
                        or an Indian tribe or officers, employees, or 
                        contractors thereof; and
                          ``(ii) any person acting in cooperation with 
                        a person described in clause (i), including a 
                        government agency that owns abandoned or 
                        inactive mined lands for the purpose of 
                        conducting remediation of the mined lands or 
                        that is engaging in remediation activities 
                        incidental to the ownership of the lands.
                Such term does not include any person who, before or 
                following issuance of a permit under this section, 
                directly benefited from or participated in any mining 
                operation (including exploration) associated with the 
                abandoned or inactive mined lands.
                  ``(B) Abandoned or inactive mined lands.--The term 
                `abandoned or inactive mined lands' means lands that 
                were formerly mined and are not actively mined or in 
                temporary shutdown at the time of submission of the 
                remediation plan and issuance of a permit under this 
                section.
                  ``(C) Mined lands.--The term `mined lands' means the 
                surface or subsurface of an area where mining 
                operations, including exploration, extraction, 
                processing, and beneficiation, have been conducted. 
                Such term includes private ways and roads appurtenant 
                to such area, land excavations, underground mine 
                portals, adits, and surface expressions associated with 
                underground workings, such as glory holes and 
                subsidence features, mining waste, smelting sites 
                associated with other mined lands, and areas where 
                structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or 
                other material or property which result from or have 
                been used in the mining operation are located.
          ``(6) Regulations.--The Administrator may issue regulations 
        establishing more specific requirements that the Administrator 
        determines would facilitate implementation of this subsection. 
        Before issuance of such regulations, the Administrator may 
        establish, on a case-by-case basis after notice and opportunity 
        for public comment as provided by subsection (b)(3), more 
        specific requirements that the Administrator determines would 
        facilitate implementation of this subsection in an individual 
        permit issued to the remediating party.''.

SEC. 410. BENEFICIAL USE OF BIOSOLIDS.

  (a) References.--Section 405(a) (33 U.S.C. 1345(a)) is amended by 
inserting ``(also referred to as `biosolids')'' after ``sewage sludge'' 
the first place it appears.
  (b) Approval of State Programs.--Section 405(f) (33 U.S.C. 1345(f)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) Approval of state programs.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law, the Administrator shall approve for purposes 
        of this subsection State programs that meet the standards for 
        final use or disposal of sewage sludge established by the 
        Administrator pursuant to subsection (d).''.
  (c) Studies and Projects.--Section 405(g) (33 U.S.C. 1345(g)) is 
amended--
          (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by inserting 
        ``building materials,'' after ``agricultural and horticultural 
        uses,'';
          (2) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following: 
        ``Not later than January 1, 1997, and after providing notice 
        and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall 
        issue guidance on the beneficial use of sewage sludge.''; and
          (3) in paragraph (2) by striking ``September 30, 1986,'' and 
        inserting ``September 30, 1995,''.

SEC. 411. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS DEFINED.

  Title IV (33 U.S.C. 1341-1345) is further amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``SEC. 406. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS DEFINED.

  ``(a) Issuance of Regulations.--Not later than 1 year of the date of 
the enactment of this section, the Administrator, after consultation 
with State officials, shall issue a regulation defining `waste 
treatment systems'.
  ``(b) Inclusion of Areas.--
          ``(1) Areas which may be included.--In defining the term 
        `waste treatment systems' under subsection (a), the 
        Administrator may include areas used for the treatment of 
        wastes if the Administrator determines that such inclusion will 
        not interfere with the goals of this Act.
          ``(2) Areas which shall be included.--In defining the term 
        `waste treatment systems' under subsection (a), the 
        Administrator shall include, at a minimum, areas used for 
        detention, retention, treatment, settling, conveyance, or 
        evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water 
        unless--
                  ``(A) the area was created in or resulted from the 
                impoundment or other modification of navigable waters 
                and construction of the area commenced after the date 
                of the enactment of this section;
                  ``(B) on or after February 15, 1995, the owner or 
                operator allows the area to be used by interstate or 
                foreign travelers for recreational purposes; or
                  ``(C) on or after February 15, 1995, the owner or 
                operator allows the taking of fish or shellfish from 
                the area for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
  ``(c) Interim Period.--Before the date of issuance of regulations 
under subsection (a), the Administrator or the State (in the case of a 
State with an approved permit program under section 402) shall not 
require a new permit under section 402 or section 404 for any discharge 
into any area used for detention, retention, treatment, settling, 
conveyance, or evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water 
unless the area is an area described in subsection (b)(2)(A), 
(b)(2)(B), or (b)(2)(C).
  ``(d) Savings Clause.--Any area which the Administrator or the State 
(in the case of a State with an approved permit program under section 
402) determined, before February 15, 1995, is a water of the United 
States and for which, pursuant to such determination, the Administrator 
or State issued, before February 15, 1995, a permit under section 402 
for discharges into such area shall remain a water of the United 
States.
  ``(e) Regulation of Other Areas.--With respect to areas constructed 
for detention, retention, treatment, settling, conveyance, or 
evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water that are not 
waste treatment systems as defined by the Administrator pursuant to 
this section and that the Administrator determines are navigable waters 
under this Act, the Administrator or the States, in establishing 
standards pursuant to section 303(c) of this Act or implementing other 
requirements of this Act, shall give due consideration to the uses for 
which such areas were designed and constructed, and need not establish 
standards or other requirements that will impede such uses.''.

SEC. 412. THERMAL DISCHARGES.

  A municipal utility that before the date of the enactment of this 
section has been issued a permit under section 402 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act for discharges into the Upper Greater Miami 
River, Ohio, shall not be required under such Act to construct a 
cooling tower or operate under a thermal management plan unless--
          (1) the Administrator or the State of Ohio determines based 
        on scientific evidence that such discharges result in harm to 
        aquatic life; or
          (2) the municipal utility has applied for and been denied a 
        thermal discharge variance under section 316(a) of such Act.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. CONSULTATION WITH STATES.

  Section 501 (33 U.S.C. 1361) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
  ``(g) Consultation With States.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall consult with and 
        substantially involve State governments and their 
        representative organizations and, to the extent that they 
        participate in the administration of this Act, tribal and local 
        governments, in the Environmental Protection Agency's 
        decisionmaking, priority setting, policy and guidance 
        development, and implementation under this Act.
          ``(2) Inapplicability of federal advisory committee act.--The 
        Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply 
        to meetings held to carry out paragraph (1)--
                  ``(A) if such meetings are held exclusively between 
                Federal officials and elected officers of State, local, 
                and tribal governments (or their designated employees 
                with authority to act on their behalf) acting in their 
                official capacities; and
                  ``(B) if such meetings are solely for the purposes of 
                exchanging views, information, or advice relating to 
                the management or implementation of this Act.
          ``(3) Implementing guidelines.--No later than 6 months after 
        the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator 
        shall issue guidelines for appropriate implementation of this 
        subsection consistent with applicable laws and regulations.''.

SEC. 502. NAVIGABLE WATERS DEFINED.

  Section 502(7) (33 U.S.C. 1362(7)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following: ``Such term does not include `waste treatment systems', 
as defined under section 406.''.

SEC. 503. CAFO DEFINITION CLARIFICATION.

  Section 502(14) (33 U.S.C. 1362(14)) is further amended--
          (1) by inserting ``(other than an intermittent nonproducing 
        livestock operation such as a stockyard or a holding and 
        sorting facility)'' after ``feeding operation''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following: ``The term does 
        include an intermittent nonproducing livestock operation if the 
        average number of animal units that are fed or maintained in 
        any 90-day period exceeds the number of animal units determined 
        by the Administrator or the State (in the case of a State with 
        an approved permit program under section 402) to constitute a 
        concentrated animal feeding operation or if the operation is 
        designated by the Administrator or State as a significant 
        contributor of pollution.''.

SEC. 504. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.

  Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is further amended by adding at the end 
the following:
  ``(27) The term `publicly owned treatment works' means a treatment 
works, as defined in section 212, located at other than an industrial 
facility, which is designed and constructed principally, as determined 
by the Administrator, to treat domestic sewage or a mixture of domestic 
sewage and industrial wastes of a liquid nature. In the case of such a 
facility that is privately owned, such term includes only those 
facilities that, with respect to such industrial wastes, are carrying 
out a pretreatment program meeting all the requirements established 
under section 307 and paragraphs (8) and (9) of section 402(b) for 
pretreatment programs (whether or not the treatment works would be 
required to implement a pretreatment program pursuant to such 
sections).''.

SEC. 505. STATE WATER QUANTITY RIGHTS.

  (a) Policy.--Section 101(g) (33 U.S.C. 1251(g)) is amended by 
inserting before the period at the end of the last sentence ``and in 
accordance with section 510(b) of this Act''.
  (b) State Authority.--Section 510 (33 U.S.C. 1370) is amended--
          (1) by striking the section heading and ``Sec. 510. Except'' 
        and inserting the following:

``SEC. 510. STATE AUTHORITY.

  ``(a) In General.--Except''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(b) Water Rights.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair any right or authority of a 
State to allocate quantities of water (including boundary waters). 
Nothing in this Act shall be implemented, enforced, or construed to 
allow any officer or agency of the United States to utilize directly or 
indirectly the authorities established under this Act to impose any 
requirement not imposed by the State which would supersede, abrogate, 
or otherwise impair rights to the use of water resources allocated 
under State law, interstate water compact, or Supreme Court decree, or 
held by the United States for use by a State, its political 
subdivisions, or its citizens. No water rights arise in the United 
States or any other person under the provisions of this Act. This 
subsection shall not be construed as limiting any State's authority 
under section 401 of this Act, as excusing any person from obtaining a 
permit under section 402 or 404 of this Act, or as excusing any 
obligation to comply with requirements established by a State to 
implement section 319.''.

SEC. 506. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER POLLUTION LAWS WITH RESPECT TO 
                    VEGETABLE OIL.

  (a) Differentiation Among Fats, Oils, and Greases.--
          (1) In general.--In issuing or enforcing a regulation, an 
        interpretation, or a guideline relating to a fat, oil, or 
        grease under a Federal law related to water pollution control, 
        the head of a Federal agency shall--
                  (A) differentiate between and establish separate 
                classes for--
                          (i)(I) animal fats; and
                          (II) vegetable oils; and
                          (ii) other oils, including petroleum oil; and
                  (B) apply different standards and reporting 
                requirements (including reporting requirements based on 
                quantitative amounts) to different classes of fat and 
                oil as provided in paragraph (2).
          (2) Considerations.--In differentiating between the classes 
        of animal fats and vegetable oils referred to in paragraph 
        (1)(A)(i) and the classes of oils described in paragraph 
        (1)(A)(ii), the head of the Federal agency shall consider 
        differences in physical, chemical, biological, and other 
        properties, and in the environmental effects, of the classes.
  (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Animal fat.--The term ``animal fat'' means each type of 
        animal fat, oil, or grease, including fat, oil, or grease from 
        fish or a marine mammal and any fat, oil, or grease referred to 
        in section 61(a)(2) of title 13, United States Code.
          (2) Vegetable oil.--The term ``vegetable oil'' means each 
        type of vegetable oil, including vegetable oil from a seed, 
        nut, or kernel and any vegetable oil referred to in section 
        61(a)(1) of title 13, United States Code.

SEC. 507. NEEDS ESTIMATE.

  Section 516(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1375(b)(1)) is amended--
          (1) in the first sentence by striking ``biennially revised'' 
        and inserting ``quadrennially revised''; and
          (2) in the second sentence by striking ``February 10 of each 
        odd-numbered year'' and inserting ``December 31, 1997, and 
        December 31 of every 4th calendar year thereafter''.

SEC. 508. GENERAL PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS.

  Section 517 (33 U.S.C. 1376) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' before ``$135,000,000''; and
          (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: 
        ``, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
        1991 through 2000''.

SEC. 509. INDIAN TRIBES.

  (a) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 518(d) (33 U.S.C. 1377(d)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``In exercising the review 
and approval provided in this paragraph, the Administrator shall 
respect the terms of any cooperative agreement that addresses the 
authority or responsibility of a State or Indian tribe to administer 
the requirements of this Act within the exterior boundaries of a 
Federal Indian reservation, so long as that agreement otherwise 
provides for the adequate administration of this Act.''.
  (b) Dispute Resolution.--Section 518 is amended--
          (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (j); and
          (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new 
        subsection:
  ``(h) Dispute Resolution.--The Administrator shall promulgate, in 
consultation with States and Indian tribes, regulations which provide 
for the resolution of any unreasonable consequences that may arise as a 
result of differing water quality standards that may be set by States 
and Indian tribes located on common bodies of water. Such mechanism 
shall provide, in a manner consistent with the objectives of this Act, 
that persons who are affected by differing tribal or State water 
quality permit requirements have standing to utilize the dispute 
resolution process, and for the explicit consideration of relevant 
factors, including the effects of differing water quality permit 
requirements on upstream and downstream dischargers, economic impacts, 
and present and historical uses and quality of the waters subject to 
such standards.''.
  (c) Petitions for Review.--Section 518 (33 U.S.C. 1377) is amended by 
inserting after subsection (h) (as added by subsection (b) of this 
section) the following:
  ``(i) District Courts; Petition for Review; Standard of Review.--
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 509, the United States 
district courts shall have jurisdiction over actions brought to review 
any determination of the Administrator under section 518. Such an 
action may be brought by a State or an Indian tribe and shall be filed 
with the court within the 90-day period beginning on the date of the 
determination of the Administrator is made. In any such action, the 
district court shall review the Administrator's determination de 
novo.''.
  (d) Definitions.--Section 518(j)(1), as redesignated by subsection 
(b) of this section, is amended by inserting before the semicolon at 
the end the following: ``, and, in the State of Oklahoma, such term 
includes lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an 
Indian tribe or an individual member of an Indian tribe, lands which 
are subject to Federal restrictions against alienation, and lands which 
are located within a dependent Indian community, as defined in section 
1151 of title 18, United States Code''.
  (e) Reservation of Funds.--Section 518(c) (33 U.S.C. 1377(c)) is 
amended in the first sentence--
          (1) by striking ``beginning after September 30, 1986,'';
          (2) by striking ``section 205(e)'' and inserting ``section 
        604(a)'';
          (3) by striking ``one-half of''; and
          (4) by striking ``section 207'' and inserting ``sections 607 
        and 608''.

SEC. 510. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.

  Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is amended by redesignating section 519 
as section 521 and by inserting after section 518 the following:

``SEC. 519. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.

  ``In developing any effluent guideline under section 304(b), 
pretreatment standard under section 307(b), or new source performance 
standard under section 306 that is applicable to the food processing 
industry, the Administrator shall consult with and consider the 
recommendations of the Food and Drug Administration, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, and Department of 
Commerce. The recommendations of such departments and agencies and a 
description of the Administrator's response to those recommendations 
shall be made part of the rulemaking record for the development of such 
guidelines and standards. The Administrator's response shall include an 
explanation with respect to food safety, including a discussion of 
relative risks, of any departure from a recommendation by any such 
department or agency.''.

SEC. 511. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

  Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is further amended by inserting before 
section 521, as redesignated by section 510 of this Act, the following:

``SEC. 520. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

  ``(a) Establishment of Board.--The Administrator shall establish an 
independent Board of Audit Appeals (hereinafter in this section 
referred to as the `Board') in accordance with the requirements of this 
section.
  ``(b) Duties.--The Board shall have the authority to review and 
decide contested audit determinations related to grant and contract 
awards under this Act. In carrying out such duties, the Board shall 
consider only those regulations, guidance, policies, facts, and 
circumstances in effect at the time of the grant or contract award.
  ``(c) Prior Eligibility Decisions.--The Board shall not reverse 
project cost eligibility determinations that are supported by an 
decision document of the Environmental Protection Agency, including 
grant or contract approvals, plans and specifications approval forms, 
grant or contract payments, change order approval forms, or similar 
documents approving project cost eligibility, except upon a showing 
that such decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of law in 
effect at the time of such decision.
  ``(d) Membership.--
          ``(1) Appointment.--The Board shall be composed of 7 members 
        to be appointed by the Administrator not later than 90 days 
        after the date of the enactment of this section.
          ``(2) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for a term of 3 
        years.
          ``(3) Qualifications.--The Administrator shall appoint as 
        members of the Board individuals who are specially qualified to 
        serve on the Board by virtue of their expertise in grant and 
        contracting procedures. The Administrator shall make every 
        effort to ensure that individuals appointed as members of the 
        Board are free from conflicts of interest in carrying out the 
        duties of the Board.
  ``(e) Basic Pay and Travel Expenses.--
          ``(1) Rates of pay.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
        members shall each be paid at a rate of basic pay, to be 
        determined by the Administrator, for each day (including travel 
        time) during which they are engaged in the actual performance 
        of duties vested in the Board.
          ``(2) Prohibition of compensation of federal employees.--
        Members of the Board who are full-time officers or employees of 
        the United States may not receive additional pay, allowances, 
        or benefits by reason of their service on the Board.
          ``(3) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive travel 
        expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
        accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
        States Code.
  ``(f) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of the 
Board, the Administrator shall provide to the Board the administrative 
support services necessary for the Board to carry out its 
responsibilities under this section.
  ``(g) Disputes Eligible for Review.--The authority of the Board under 
this section shall extend to any contested audit determination that on 
the date of the enactment of this section has yet to be formally 
concluded and accepted by either the grantee or the Administrator.''.

        TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

SEC. 601. GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR CAPITALIZATION GRANTS.

  Section 601(a) (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended by striking ``(1) for 
construction'' and all that follows through the period and inserting 
``to accomplish the purposes of this Act.''.

SEC. 602. CAPITALIZATION GRANT AGREEMENTS.

  (a) Requirements For Construction of Treatment Works.--Section 
602(b)(6) (33 U.S.C. 1382(b)(6)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``before fiscal year 1995''; and
          (2) by striking ``201(b)'' and all that follows through 
        ``218'' and inserting ``211''.
  (b) Compliance With Other Federal Laws.--Section 602 (33 U.S.C. 1382) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(c) Other Federal Laws.--
          ``(1) Compliance with other federal laws.--If a State 
        provides assistance from its water pollution control revolving 
        fund established in accordance with this title and in 
        accordance with a statute, rule, executive order, or program of 
        the State which addresses the intent of any requirement or any 
        Federal executive order or law other than this Act, as 
        determined by the State, the State in providing such assistance 
        shall be treated as having met the Federal requirements.
          ``(2) Limitation on applicability of other federal laws.--If 
        a State does not meet a requirement of a Federal executive 
        order or law other than this Act under paragraph (1), such 
        Federal law shall only apply to Federal funds deposited in the 
        water pollution control revolving fund established by the State 
        in accordance with this title the first time such funds are 
        used to provide assistance from the revolving fund.''.
  (c) Guidance for Small Systems.--Section 602 (33 U.S.C. 1382) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(d) Guidance for Small Systems.--
          ``(1) Simplified procedures.--Not later than 1 year after the 
        date of the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator 
        shall assist the States in establishing simplified procedures 
        for small systems to obtain assistance under this title.
          ``(2) Publication of manual.--Not later than 1 year after the 
        date of the enactment of this subsection, and after providing 
        notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator 
        shall publish a manual to assist small systems in obtaining 
        assistance under this title and publish in the Federal Register 
        notice of the availability of the manual.
          ``(3) Small system defined.--For purposes of this title, the 
        term `small system' means a system for which a municipality or 
        intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency seeks assistance 
        under this title and which serves a population of 20,000 or 
        less.''.

SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.

  (a) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--Section 603(c) (33 U.S.C. 
1383(c)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(c) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--
          ``(1) In general.--The amounts of funds available to each 
        State water pollution control revolving fund shall be used only 
        for providing financial assistance to activities which have as 
        a principal benefit the improvement or protection of water 
        quality to a municipality, intermunicipal agency, interstate 
        agency, State agency, or other person. Such activities may 
        include the following:
                  ``(A) Construction of a publicly owned treatment 
                works if the recipient of such assistance is a 
                municipality.
                  ``(B) Implementation of lake protection programs and 
                projects under section 314.
                  ``(C) Implementation of a management program under 
                section 319.
                  ``(D) Implementation of a conservation and management 
                plan under section 320.
                  ``(E) Implementation of a watershed management plan 
                under section 321.
                  ``(F) Implementation of a stormwater management 
                program under section 322.
                  ``(G) Acquisition of property rights for the 
                restoration or protection of publicly or privately 
                owned riparian areas.
                  ``(H) Implementation of measures to improve the 
                efficiency of public water use.
                  ``(I) Development and implementation of plans by a 
                public recipient to prevent water pollution.
                  ``(J) Acquisition of lands necessary to meet any 
                mitigation requirements related to construction of a 
                publicly owned treatment works.
          ``(2) Fund amounts.--The water pollution control revolving 
        fund of a State shall be established, maintained, and credited 
        with repayments, and the fund balance shall be available in 
        perpetuity for providing financial assistance described in 
        paragraph (1). Fees charged by a State to recipients of such 
        assistance may be deposited in the fund for the sole purpose of 
        financing the cost of administration of this title.''.
  (b) Extended Repayment Period for Disadvantaged Communities.--Section 
603(d)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)) is amended--
          (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting after ``20 years'' the 
        following: ``or, in the case of a disadvantaged community, the 
        lesser of 40 years or the expected life of the project to be 
        financed with the proceeds of the loan''; and
          (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``not later than 20 years 
        after project completion'' and inserting ``upon the expiration 
        of the term of the loan''.
  (c) Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technology.--Section 603(d)(5) (33 
U.S.C. 1383(d)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(5) to provide loan guarantees for--
                  ``(A) similar revolving funds established by 
                municipalities or intermunicipal agencies; and
                  ``(B) developing and implementing innovative 
                technologies.''.
  (d) Administrative Expenses.--Section 603(d)(7) (33 U.S.C. 
1383(d)(7)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
following: ``or $400,000 per year, whichever is greater, plus the 
amount of any fees collected by the State for such purpose under 
subsection (c)(2)''.
  (e) Technical and Planning Assistance for Small Systems.--Section 
603(d) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
          ``(8) to provide to small systems technical and planning 
        assistance and assistance in financial management, user fee 
        analysis, budgeting, capital improvement planning, facility 
        operation and maintenance, repair schedules, and other 
        activities to improve wastewater treatment plant operations; 
        except that such amounts shall not exceed 2 percent of all 
        grant awards to such fund under this title.''.
  (f) Consistency With Planning Requirements.--Section 603(f) (33 
U.S.C. 1383(f)) is amended by striking ``and 320'' and inserting ``320, 
321, and 322''.
  (g) Limitations on Construction Assistance.--Section 603(g) (33 
U.S.C. 1383(g)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(g) Limitations on Construction Assistance.--The State may provide 
financial assistance from its water pollution control revolving fund 
with respect to a project for construction of a treatment works only 
if--
          ``(1) such project is on the State's priority list under 
        section 216 of this Act; and
          ``(2) the recipient of such assistance is a municipality in 
        any case in which the treatment works is privately owned.''.
  (h) Interest Rates.--Section 603 is further amended by adding at the 
end the following:
  ``(i) Interest Rates.--In any case in which a State makes a loan 
pursuant to subsection (d)(1) to a disadvantaged community, the State 
may charge a negative interest rate of not to exceed 2 percent to 
reduce the unpaid principal of the loan. The aggregate amount of all 
such negative interest rate loans the State makes in a fiscal year 
shall not exceed 20 percent of the aggregate amount of all loans made 
by the State from its revolving loan fund in such fiscal year.
  ``(j) Disadvantaged Community Defined.--As used in this section, the 
term `disadvantaged community' means the service area of a publicly 
owned treatment works with respect to which the average annual 
residential sewage treatment charges for a user of the treatment works 
meet affordability criteria established by the State in which the 
treatment works is located (after providing for public review and 
comment) in accordance with guidelines to be established by the 
Administrator, in cooperation with the States.''.
  (i) Sale of Treatment Works.--Section 603 is further amended by 
adding at the end the following:
  ``(k) Sale of Treatment Works.--
          ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of 
        this Act, any State, municipality, intermunicipality, or 
        interstate agency may transfer by sale to a qualified private 
        sector entity all or part of a treatment works that is owned by 
        such agency and for which it received Federal financial 
        assistance under this Act if the transfer price will be 
        distributed, as amounts are received, in the following order:
                  ``(A) First reimbursement of the agency of the 
                unadjusted dollar amount of the costs of construction 
                of the treatment works or part thereof plus any 
                transaction and fix-up costs incurred by the agency 
                with respect to the transfer less the amount of such 
                Federal financial assistance provided with respect to 
                such costs.
                  ``(B) If proceeds from the transfer remain after such 
                reimbursement, repayment of the Federal Government of 
                the amount of such Federal financial assistance less 
                the applicable share of accumulated depreciation on 
                such treatment works (calculated using Internal Revenue 
                Service accelerated depreciation schedule applicable to 
                treatment works).
                  ``(C) If any proceeds of such transfer remain after 
                such reimbursement and repayment, retention of the 
                remaining proceeds by such agency.
          ``(2) Release of condition.--Any requirement imposed by 
        regulation or policy for a showing that the treatment works are 
        no longer needed to serve their original purpose shall not 
        apply.
          ``(3) Selection of buyer.--A State, municipality, 
        intermunicipality, or interstate agency exercising the 
        authority granted by this subsection shall select a qualified 
        private sector entity on the basis of total net cost and other 
        appropriate criteria and shall utilize such competitive 
        bidding, direct negotiation, or other criteria and procedures 
        as may be required by State law.
  ``(l) Private Ownership of Treatment Works.--
          ``(1) Regulatory review.--The Administrator shall review the 
        law and any regulations, policies, and procedures of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency affecting the construction, 
        improvement, replacement, operation, maintenance, and transfer 
        of ownership of current and future treatment works owned by a 
        State, municipality, intermunicipality, or interstate agency. 
        If permitted by law, the Administrator shall modify such 
        regulations, policies, and procedures to eliminate any 
        obstacles to the construction, improvement, replacement, 
        operation, and maintenance of such treatment works by qualified 
        private sector entities.
          ``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
        enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit to 
        Congress a report identifying any provisions of law that must 
        be changed in order to eliminate any obstacles referred to in 
        paragraph (1).
          ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
        `qualified private sector entity' means any nongovernmental 
        individual, group, association, business, partnership, 
        organization, or privately or publicly held corporation that--
                  ``(A) has sufficient experience and expertise to 
                discharge successfully the responsibilities associated 
                with construction, operation, and maintenance of a 
                treatment works and to satisfy any guarantees that are 
                agreed to in connection with a transfer of treatment 
                works under subsection (k);
                  ``(B) has the ability to assure protection against 
                insolvency and interruption of services through 
                contractual and financial guarantees; and
                  ``(C) with respect to subsection (k), to the extent 
                consistent with the North American Free Trade Agreement 
                and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--
                          ``(i) is majority-owned and controlled by 
                        citizens of the United States; and
                          ``(ii) does not receive subsidies from a 
                        foreign government.''.

SEC. 604. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

  (a) In General.--Section 604(a) (33 U.S.C. 1384(a)) is amended to 
read as follows:
  ``(a) Formula for Fiscal Years 1996-2000.--Sums authorized to be 
appropriated pursuant to section 607 for each of fiscal years 1996, 
1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall be allotted for such year by the 
Administrator not later than the 10th day which begins after the date 
of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. Sums authorized 
for each such fiscal year shall be allotted in accordance with the 
following table:
                                                     Percentage of sums
``States:                                                 authorized:  
    Alabama.......................................              1.0110 
    Alaska........................................              0.5411 
    Arizona.......................................              0.7464 
    Arkansas......................................              0.5914 
    California....................................              7.9031 
    Colorado......................................              0.7232 
    Connecticut...................................              1.3537 
    Delaware......................................              0.4438 
    District of Columbia..........................              0.4438 
    Florida.......................................              3.4462 
    Georgia.......................................              1.8683 
    Hawaii........................................              0.7002 
    Idaho.........................................              0.4438 
    Illinois......................................              4.9976 
    Indiana.......................................              2.6631 
    Iowa..........................................              1.2236 
    Kansas........................................              0.8690 
    Kentucky......................................              1.3570 
    Louisiana.....................................              1.0060 
    Maine.........................................              0.6999 
    Maryland......................................              2.1867 
    Massachusetts.................................              3.7518 
    Michigan......................................              3.8875 
    Minnesota.....................................              1.6618 
    Mississippi...................................              0.8146 
    Missouri......................................              2.5063 
    Montana.......................................              0.4438 
    Nebraska......................................              0.4624 
    Nevada........................................              0.4438 
    New Hampshire.................................              0.9035 
    New Jersey....................................              4.5156 
    New Mexico....................................              0.4438 
    New York......................................             12.1969 
    North Carolina................................              1.9943 
    North Dakota..................................              0.4438 
    Ohio..........................................              5.0898 
    Oklahoma......................................              0.7304 
    Oregon........................................              1.2399 
    Pennsylvania..................................              4.2145 
    Rhode Island..................................              0.6071 
    South Carolina................................              0.9262 
    South Dakota..................................              0.4438 
    Tennessee.....................................              1.4668 
    Texas.........................................              4.6458 
    Utah..........................................              0.4764 
    Vermont.......................................              0.4438 
    Virginia......................................              2.2615 
    Washington....................................              1.9217 
    West Virginia.................................              1.4249 
    Wisconsin.....................................              2.4442 
    Wyoming.......................................              0.4438 
    Puerto Rico...................................              1.1792 
    Northern Marianas.............................              0.0377 
    American Samoa................................              0.0812 
    Guam..........................................              0.0587 
    Pacific Islands Trust Territory...............              0.1158 
    Virgin Islands................................           0.0576.''.

  (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 604(c)(2) is amended by striking 
``title II of this Act'' and inserting ``this title''.

SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  Section 607 (33 U.S.C. 1387(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(6) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1995;
          ``(7) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
          ``(8) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
          ``(9) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
          ``(10) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
          ``(11) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.

SEC. 606. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING 
                    FUNDS.

  Title VI (33 U.S.C. 1381-1387) is amended--
          (1) in section 607 by inserting after ``title'' the 
        following: ``(other than section 608)''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 608. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING 
                    FUNDS.

  ``(a) General Authority.--The Administrator shall make capitalization 
grants to each State for the purpose of establishing a nonpoint source 
water pollution control revolving fund for providing assistance--
          ``(1) to persons for carrying out management practices and 
        measures under the State management program approved under 
        section 319; and
          ``(2) to agricultural producers for the development and 
        implementation of the water quality components of a whole farm 
        or ranch resource management plan and for implementation of 
        management practices and measures under such a plan.
A State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving fund shall be 
separate from any other State water pollution control revolving fund; 
except that the chief executive officer of the State may transfer funds 
from one fund to the other fund.
  ``(b) Applicability of Other Requirements of This Title.--Except to 
the extent the Administrator, in consultation with the chief executive 
officers of the States, determines that a provision of this title is 
not consistent with a provision of this section, the provisions of 
sections 601 through 606 of this title shall apply to grants made under 
this section in the same manner and to the same extent as they apply to 
grants made under section 601 of this title. Paragraph (5) of section 
602(b) shall apply to all funds in a State revolving fund established 
under this section as a result of capitalization grants made under this 
section; except that such funds shall first be used to assure 
reasonable progress toward attainment of the goals of section 319, as 
determined by the Governor of the State. Paragraph (7) of section 
603(d) shall apply to a State revolving fund established under this 
section, except that the 4-percent limitation contained in such section 
shall not apply to such revolving fund.
  ``(c) Apportionment of Funds.--Funds made available to carry out this 
section for any fiscal year shall be allotted among the States by the 
Administrator in the same manner as funds are allotted among the States 
under section 319 in such fiscal year.
  ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 per fiscal year for 
each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 701. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Section 118.--Section 118(c)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(1)(A)) is 
amended by striking the last comma.
  (b) Section 120.--Section 120(d) (33 U.S.C. 1270(d)) is amended by 
striking ``(1)''.
  (c) Section 204.--Section 204(a)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1284(a)(3)) is amended 
by striking the final period and inserting a semicolon.
  (d) Section 205.--Section 205 (33 U.S.C. 1285) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``and 1985'' and 
        inserting ``1985, and 1986'';
          (2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``through 1985'' and 
        inserting ``through 1986'';
          (3) in subsection (g)(1) by striking the period following ``4 
        per centum''; and
          (4) in subsection (m)(1)(B) by striking ``this'' the last 
        place it appears and inserting ``such''.
  (e) Section 208.--Section 208 (33 U.S.C. 1288) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ``designed'' and 
        inserting ``designated''; and
          (2) in subsection (j)(1) by striking ``September 31, 1988'' 
        and inserting ``September 30, 1988''.
  (f) Section 301.--Section 301(j)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1311(j)(1)(A)) is 
amended by striking ``that'' the first place it appears and inserting 
``than''.
  (g) Section 309.--Section 309(d) (33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) is amended by 
striking the second comma following ``Act by a State''.
  (h) Section 311.--Section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (b) by moving paragraph (12) (including 
        subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C)) 2 ems to the right; and
          (2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ``The'' and inserting 
        ``the''.
  (i) Section 505.--Section 505(f) (33 U.S.C. 1365(f)) is amended by 
striking the last comma.
  (j) Section 516.--Section 516 (33 U.S.C. 1375) is amended by 
redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f).
  (k) Section 518.--Section 518(f) (33 U.S.C. 1377(f)) is amended by 
striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(e)''.

SEC. 702. JOHN A. BLATNIK NATIONAL FRESH WATER QUALITY RESEARCH 
                    LABORATORY.

  (a) Designation.--The laboratory and research facility established 
pursuant to section 104(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1254(e)) that is located in Duluth, Minnesota, shall be 
known and designated as the ``John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water 
Quality Research Laboratory''.
  (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the laboratory and 
research facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality 
Research Laboratory''.

SEC. 703. WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR COLONIAS.

  (a) Grant Assistance.--The Administrator may make grants to States 
along the United States-Mexico border to provide assistance for 
planning, design, and construction of treatment works to provide 
wastewater service to the communities along such border commonly known 
as ``colonias''.
  (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
carried out using funds made available under subsection (a) shall be 50 
percent. The non-Federal share of such cost shall be provided by the 
State receiving the grant.
  (c) Treatment Works Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``treatment works'' has the meaning such term has under section 212 of 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for making grants under subsection (a) $50,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 704. SAVINGS IN MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER COSTS.

  (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, shall review, analyze, and compile information on the annual 
savings that municipalities realize in the construction, operation, and 
maintenance of drinking water facilities as a result of actions taken 
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  (b) Contents.--The study conducted under subsection (a), at a 
minimum, shall contain an examination of the following elements:
          (1) Savings to municipalities in the construction of drinking 
        water filtration facilities resulting from actions taken under 
        the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
          (2) Savings to municipalities in the operation and 
        maintenance of drinking water facilities resulting from actions 
        taken under such Act.
          (3) Savings to municipalities in health expenditures 
        resulting from actions taken under such Act.
  (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report 
containing the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

            TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation 
and Management Act of 1995''.

SEC. 802. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

  (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
          (1) wetlands play an integral role in maintaining the quality 
        of life through material contributions to our national economy, 
        food supply, water supply and quality, flood control, and fish, 
        wildlife, and plant resources, and thus to the health, safety, 
        recreation and economic well-being of citizens throughout the 
        Nation;
          (2) wetlands serve important ecological and natural resource 
        functions, such as providing essential nesting and feeding 
        habitat for waterfowl, other wildlife, and many rare and 
        endangered species, fisheries habitat, the enhancement of water 
        quality, and natural flood control;
          (3) much of the Nation's resource has sustained significant 
        degradation, resulting in the need for effective programs to 
        limit the loss of ecologically significant wetlands and to 
        provide for long-term restoration and enhancement of the 
        wetlands resource base;
          (4) most of the loss of wetlands in coastal Louisiana is not 
        attributable to human activity;
          (5) because 75 percent of the Nation's wetlands in the lower 
        48 States are privately owned and because the majority of the 
        Nation's population lives in or near wetlands areas, an 
        effective wetlands conservation and management program must 
        reflect a balanced approach that conserves and enhances 
        important wetlands values and functions while observing private 
        property rights, recognizing the need for essential public 
        infrastructure, such as highways, ports, airports, pipelines, 
        sewer systems, and public water supply systems, and providing 
        the opportunity for sustained economic growth;
          (6) while wetlands provide many varied economic and 
        environmental benefits, they also present health risks in some 
        instances where they act as breeding grounds for insects that 
        are carriers of human and animal diseases;
          (7) the Federal permit program established under section 404 
        of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not originally 
        conceived as a wetlands regulatory program and is insufficient 
        to ensure that the Nation's wetlands resource base will be 
        conserved and managed in a fair and environmentally sound 
        manner; and
          (8) navigational dredging plays a vital role in the Nation's 
        economy and, while adequate safeguards for aquatic resources 
        must be maintained, it is essential that the regulatory process 
        be streamlined.
  (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to establish a new Federal 
regulatory program for certain wetlands and waters of the United 
States--
          (1) to assert Federal regulatory jurisdiction over a broad 
        category of specifically identified activities that result in 
        the degradation or loss of wetlands;
          (2) to provide that each Federal agency, officer, and 
        employee exercise Federal authority under section 404 of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act to ensure that agency 
        action under such section will not limit the use of privately 
        owned property so as to diminish its value;
          (3) to account for variations in wetlands functions in 
        determining the character and extent of regulation of 
        activities occurring in wetlands areas;
          (4) to provide sufficient regulatory incentives for 
        conservation, restoration, or enhancement activities;
          (5) to encourage conservation of resources on a watershed 
        basis to the fullest extent practicable;
          (6) to protect public safety and balance public and private 
        interests in determining the conditions under which activity in 
        wetlands areas may occur; and
          (7) to streamline the regulatory mechanisms relating to 
        navigational dredging in the Nation's waters.

SEC. 803. WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT.

  Title IV (33 U.S.C. 1341 et seq.) is further amended by striking 
section 404 and inserting the following new section:

``SEC. 404. PERMITS FOR ACTIVITIES IN WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE UNITED 
                    STATES.

  ``(a) Prohibited Activities.--No person shall undertake an activity 
in wetlands or waters of the United States unless such activity is 
undertaken pursuant to a permit issued by the Secretary or is otherwise 
authorized under this section.
  ``(b) Authorized Activities.--
          ``(1) Permits.--The Secretary is authorized to issue permits 
        authorizing an activity in wetlands or waters of the United 
        States in accordance with the requirements of this section.
          ``(2) Nonpermit activities.--An activity in wetlands or 
        waters of the United States may be undertaken without a permit 
        from the Secretary if that activity is authorized under 
        subsection (e)(6) or (e)(8) or is exempt from the requirements 
        of this section under subsection (f) or other provisions of 
        this section.
  ``(c) Wetlands Classification.--
          ``(1) Regulations; applications.--
                  ``(A) Deadline for issuance of regulations.--Not 
                later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
                the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management 
                Act of 1995, the Secretary shall issue regulations to 
                classify wetlands as type A, type B, or type C wetlands 
                depending on the relative ecological significance of 
                the wetlands.
                  ``(B) Application requirement.--Any person seeking to 
                undertake activities in wetlands or waters of the 
                United States for which a permit is required under this 
                section shall make application to the Secretary 
                identifying the site of such activity and requesting 
                that the Secretary determine, in accordance with 
                paragraph (3) of this subsection, the classification of 
                the wetlands in which such activity is proposed to 
                occur. The applicant may also provide such additional 
                information regarding such proposed activity as may be 
                necessary or appropriate for purposes of determining 
                the classification of such wetlands or whether and 
                under what conditions the proposed activity may be 
                permitted to occur.
          ``(2) Deadlines for classifications.--
                  ``(A) General rule.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, within 90 days 
                following the receipt of an application under paragraph 
                (1), the Secretary shall provide notice to the 
                applicant of the classification of the wetlands that 
                are the subject of such application and shall state in 
                writing the basis for such classification. The 
                classification of the wetlands that are the subject of 
                the application shall be determined by the Secretary in 
                accordance with the requirements for classification of 
                wetlands under paragraph (3) and subsection (i).
                  ``(B) Rule for advance classifications.--In the case 
                of an application proposing activities located in 
                wetlands that are the subject of an advance 
                classification under subsection (h), the Secretary 
                shall provide notice to the applicant of such 
                classification within thirty days following the receipt 
                of such application, and shall provide an opportunity 
                for review of such classification under paragraph (5) 
                and subsection (i).
          ``(3) Classification system.--Upon application under this 
        subsection, the Secretary shall--
                  ``(A) classify as type A wetlands those wetlands that 
                are of critical significance to the long-term 
                conservation of the aquatic environment of which such 
                wetlands are a part and which meet the following 
                requirements:
                          ``(i) such wetlands serve critical wetlands 
                        functions, including the provision of critical 
                        habitat for a concentration of avian, aquatic, 
                        or wetland dependent wildlife;
                          ``(ii) such wetlands consist of or may be a 
                        portion of ten or more contiguous acres and 
                        have an inlet or outlet for relief of water 
                        flow; except that this requirement shall not 
                        operate to preclude the classification as type 
                        A wetlands lands containing prairie pothole 
                        features, playa lakes, or vernal pools if such 
                        lands otherwise meet the requirements for type 
                        A classification under this paragraph;
                          ``(iii) there exists a scarcity within the 
                        watershed or aquatic environment of identified 
                        functions served by such wetlands such that the 
                        use of such wetlands for an activity in 
                        wetlands or waters of the United States would 
                        seriously jeopardize the availability of these 
                        identified wetlands functions; and
                          ``(iv) there is unlikely to be an overriding 
                        public interest in the use of such wetlands for 
                        purposes other than conservation;
                  ``(B) classify as type B wetlands those wetlands that 
                provide habitat for a significant population of wetland 
                dependent wildlife or provide other significant 
                wetlands functions, including significant enhancement 
                or protection of water quality or significant natural 
                flood control; and
                  ``(C) classify as type C wetlands all wetlands that--
                          ``(i) serve limited wetlands functions;
                          ``(ii) serve marginal wetlands functions but 
                        which exist in such abundance that regulation 
                        of activities in such wetlands is not necessary 
                        for conserving important wetlands functions;
                          ``(iii) are prior converted cropland;
                          ``(iv) are fastlands; or
                          ``(v) are wetlands within industrial, 
                        commercial, or residential complexes or other 
                        intensely developed areas that do not serve 
                        significant wetlands functions as a result of 
                        such location.
          ``(4) Request for determination of jurisdiction.--
                  ``(A) In general.--A person who holds an ownership 
                interest in property, or who has written authorization 
                from such a person, may submit a request to the 
                Secretary identifying the property and requesting the 
                Secretary to make one or more of the following 
                determinations with respect to the property:
                          ``(i) Whether the property contains waters of 
                        the United States.
                          ``(ii) If the determination under clause (i) 
                        is made, whether any portion of the waters 
                        meets the requirements for delineation as 
                        wetland under subsection (g).
                          ``(iii) If the determination under clause 
                        (ii) is made, the classification of each 
                        wetland on the property under this subsection.
                  ``(B) Provision of information.--The person shall 
                provide such additional information as may be necessary 
                to make each determination requested under subparagraph 
                (A).
                  ``(C) Determination and notification by the 
                secretary.--Not later than 90 days after receipt of a 
                request under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall--
                          ``(i) notify the person submitting the 
                        request of each determination made by the 
                        Secretary pursuant to the request; and
                          ``(ii) provide written documentation of each 
                        determination and the basis for each 
                        determination.
                  ``(D) Authority to seek immediate review.--Any person 
                authorized under this paragraph to request a 
                jurisdictional determination may seek immediate 
                judicial review of any such jurisdictional 
                determination or may proceed under subsection (i).
          ``(5) De novo determination after advance classification.--
        Within 30 days of receipt of notice of an advance 
        classification by the Secretary under paragraph (2)(B) of this 
        subsection, an applicant may request the Secretary to make a de 
        novo determination of the classification of wetlands that are 
        the subject of such notice.
  ``(d) Right to Compensation.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Federal Government shall compensate an 
        owner of property whose use of any portion of that property has 
        been limited by an agency action under this section that 
        diminishes the fair market value of that portion by 20 percent 
        or more. The amount of the compensation shall equal the 
        diminution in value that resulted from the agency action. If 
        the diminution in value of a portion of that property is 
        greater than 50 percent, at the option of the owner, the 
        Federal Government shall buy that portion of the property for 
        its fair market value.
          ``(2) Duration of limitation on use.--Property with respect 
        to which compensation has been paid under this section shall 
        not thereafter be used contrary to the limitation imposed by 
        the agency action, even if that action is later rescinded or 
        otherwise vitiated. However, if that action is later rescinded 
        or otherwise vitiated, and the owner elects to refund the 
        amount of the compensation, adjusted for inflation, to the 
        Treasury of the United States, the property may be so used.
          ``(3) Effect of state law.--If a use is a nuisance as defined 
        by the law of a State or is already prohibited under a local 
        zoning ordinance, no compensation shall be made under this 
        section with respect to a limitation on that use.
          ``(4) Exceptions.--
                  ``(A) Prevention of hazard to health or safety or 
                damage to specific property.--No compensation shall be 
                made under this section with respect to an agency 
                action the primary purpose of which is to prevent an 
                identifiable--
                          ``(i) hazard to public health or safety; or
                          ``(ii) damage to specific property other than 
                        the property whose use is limited.
                  ``(B) Navigation servitude.--No compensation shall be 
                made under this section with respect to an agency 
                action pursuant to the Federal navigation servitude, as 
                defined by the courts of the United States, except to 
                the extent such servitude is interpreted to apply to 
                wetlands.
          ``(5) Procedure.--
                  ``(A) Request of owner.--An owner seeking 
                compensation under this section shall make a written 
                request for compensation to the agency whose agency 
                action resulted in the limitation. No such request may 
                be made later than 180 days after the owner receives 
                actual notice of that agency action.
                  ``(B) Negotiations.--The agency may bargain with that 
                owner to establish the amount of the compensation. If 
                the agency and the owner agree to such an amount, the 
                agency shall promptly pay the owner the amount agreed 
                upon.
                  ``(C) Choice of remedies.--If, not later than 180 
                days after the written request is made, the parties do 
                not come to an agreement as to the right to and amount 
                of compensation, the owner may choose to take the 
                matter to binding arbitration or seek compensation in a 
                civil action.
                  ``(D) Arbitration.--The procedures that govern the 
                arbitration shall, as nearly as practicable, be those 
                established under title 9, United States Code, for 
                arbitration proceedings to which that title applies. An 
                award made in such arbitration shall include a 
                reasonable attorney's fee and other arbitration costs 
                (including appraisal fees). The agency shall promptly 
                pay any award made to the owner.
                  ``(E) Civil action.--An owner who does not choose 
                arbitration, or who does not receive prompt payment 
                when required by this section, may obtain appropriate 
                relief in a civil action against the agency. An owner 
                who prevails in a civil action under this section shall 
                be entitled to, and the agency shall be liable for, a 
                reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs 
                (including appraisal fees). The court shall award 
                interest on the amount of any compensation from the 
                time of the limitation.
                  ``(F) Source of payments.--Any payment made under 
                this section to an owner and any judgment obtained by 
                an owner in a civil action under this section shall, 
                notwithstanding any other provision of law, be made 
                from the annual appropriation of the agency whose 
                action occasioned the payment or judgment. If the 
                agency action resulted from a requirement imposed by 
                another agency, then the agency making the payment or 
                satisfying the judgment may seek partial or complete 
                reimbursement from the appropriated funds of the other 
                agency. For this purpose the head of the agency 
                concerned may transfer or reprogram any appropriated 
                funds available to the agency. If insufficient funds 
                exist for the payment or to satisfy the judgment, it 
                shall be the duty of the head of the agency to seek the 
                appropriation of such funds for the next fiscal year.
          ``(6) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law, any obligation of the United States to make any payment 
        under this section shall be subject to the availability of 
        appropriations.
          ``(7) Duty of notice to owners.--Whenever an agency takes an 
        agency action limiting the use of private property, the agency 
        shall give appropriate notice to the owners of that property 
        directly affected explaining their rights under this section 
        and the procedures for obtaining any compensation that may be 
        due to them under this section.
          ``(8) Rules of construction.--
                  ``(A) Effect on constitutional right to 
                compensation.--Nothing in this section shall be 
                construed to limit any right to compensation that 
                exists under the Constitution, laws of the United 
                States, or laws of any State.
                  ``(B) Effect of payment.--Payment of compensation 
                under this section (other than when the property is 
                bought by the Federal Government at the option of the 
                owner) shall not confer any rights on the Federal 
                Government other than the limitation on use resulting 
                from the agency action.
          ``(9) Treatment of certain actions.--A diminution in value 
        under this subsection shall apply to surface interests in lands 
        only or water rights allocated under State law; except that--
                  ``(A) if the Secretary determines that the 
                exploration for or development of oil and gas or 
                mineral interests is not compatible with limitations on 
                use related to the surface interests in lands that have 
                been classified as type A or type B wetlands located 
                above such oil and gas or mineral interests (or located 
                adjacent to such oil and gas or mineral interests where 
                such adjacent lands are necessary to provide reasonable 
                access to such interests), the Secretary shall notify 
                the owner of such interests that the owner may elect to 
                receive compensation for such interests under paragraph 
                (1); and
                  ``(B) the failure to provide reasonable access to oil 
                and gas or mineral interests located beneath or 
                adjacent to surface interests of type A or type B 
                wetlands shall be deemed a diminution in value of such 
                oil and gas or mineral interests.
          ``(10) Jurisdiction.--The arbitrator or court under paragraph 
        (5)(D) or (5)(E) of this subsection, as the case may be, shall 
        have jurisdiction, in the case of oil and gas or mineral 
        interests, to require the United States to provide reasonable 
        access in, across, or through lands that may be the subject of 
        a diminution in value under this subsection solely for the 
        purpose of undertaking activity necessary to determine the 
        value of the interests diminished and to provide other 
        equitable remedies deemed appropriate.
          ``(11) Limitations on statutory construction.--No action 
        under this subsection shall be construed--
                  ``(A) to impose any obligation on any State or 
                political subdivision thereof to compensate any person, 
                even in the event that the Secretary has approved a 
                land management plan under subsection (f)(2) or an 
                individual and general permit program under subsection 
                (l); or
                  ``(B) to alter or supersede requirements governing 
                use of water applicable under State law.
  ``(e) Requirements Applicable to Permitted Activity.--
          ``(1) Issuance or denial of permits.--Following the 
        determination of wetlands classification pursuant to subsection 
        (c) if applicable, and after compliance with the requirements 
        of subsection (d) if applicable, the Secretary may issue or 
        deny permits for authorization to undertake activities in 
        wetlands or waters of the United States in accordance with the 
        requirements of this subsection.
          ``(2) Type a wetlands.--
                  ``(A) Sequential analysis.--The Secretary shall 
                determine whether to issue a permit for an activity in 
                waters of the United States classified under subsection 
                (c) as type A wetlands based on a sequential analysis 
                that seeks, to the maximum extent practicable, to--
                          ``(i) avoid adverse impact on the wetlands;
                          ``(ii) minimize such adverse impact on 
                        wetlands functions that cannot be avoided; and
                          ``(iii) compensate for any loss of wetland 
                        functions that cannot be avoided or minimized.
                  ``(B) Mitigation terms and conditions.--Any permit 
                issued authorizing activities in type A wetlands may 
                contain such terms and conditions concerning mitigation 
                (including those applicable under paragraph (3) for 
                type B wetlands) that the Secretary deems appropriate 
                to prevent the unacceptable loss or degradation of type 
                A wetlands. The Secretary shall deem the mitigation 
                requirement of this section to be met with respect to 
                activities in type A wetlands if such activities (i) 
                are carried out in accordance with a State-approved 
                reclamation plan or permit which requires recontouring 
                and revegetation following mining, and (ii) will result 
                in overall environmental benefits being achieved.
          ``(3) Type b wetlands.--
                  ``(A) General rule.--The Secretary may issue a permit 
                authorizing activities in type B wetlands if the 
                Secretary finds that issuance of the permit is in the 
                public interest, balancing the reasonably foreseeable 
                benefits and detriments resulting from the issuance of 
                the permit. The permit shall be subject to such terms 
                and conditions as the Secretary finds are necessary to 
                carry out the purposes of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
                Conservation and Management Act of 1995. In determining 
                whether or not to issue the permit and whether or not 
                specific terms and conditions are necessary to avoid a 
                significant loss of wetlands functions, the Secretary 
                shall consider the following factors:
                          ``(i) The quality and quantity of significant 
                        functions served by the areas to be affected.
                          ``(ii) The opportunities to reduce impacts 
                        through cost effective design to minimize use 
                        of wetlands areas.
                          ``(iii) The costs of mitigation requirements 
                        and the social, recreational, and economic 
                        benefits associated with the proposed activity, 
                        including local, regional, or national needs 
                        for improved or expanded infrastructure, 
                        minerals, energy, food production, or 
                        recreation.
                          ``(iv) The ability of the permittee to 
                        mitigate wetlands loss or degradation as 
                        measured by wetlands functions.
                          ``(v) The environmental benefit, measured by 
                        wetlands functions, that may occur through 
                        mitigation efforts, including restoring, 
                        preserving, enhancing, or creating wetlands 
                        values and functions.
                          ``(vi) The marginal impact of the proposed 
                        activity on the watershed of which such 
                        wetlands are a part.
                          ``(vii) Whether the impact on the wetlands is 
                        temporary or permanent.
                  ``(B) Determination of project purpose.--In 
                considering an application for activities on type B 
                wetlands, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that 
                the project purpose as defined by the applicant shall 
                be binding upon the Secretary. The definition of 
                project purpose for projects sponsored by public 
                agencies shall be binding upon the Secretary, subject 
                to the authority of the Secretary to impose mitigation 
                requirements to minimize impacts on wetlands values and 
                functions, including cost effective redesign of 
                projects on the proposed project site.
                  ``(C) Mitigation requirements.--Except as otherwise 
                provided in this section, requirements for mitigation 
                shall be imposed when the Secretary finds that 
                activities undertaken under this section will result in 
                the loss or degradation of type B wetlands functions 
                where such loss or degradation is not a temporary or 
                incidental impact. When determining mitigation 
                requirements in any specific case, the Secretary shall 
                take into consideration the type of wetlands affected, 
                the character of the impact on wetland functions, 
                whether any adverse effects on wetlands are of a 
                permanent or temporary nature, and the cost 
                effectiveness of such mitigation and shall seek to 
                minimize the costs of such mitigation. Such mitigation 
                requirement shall be calculated based upon the specific 
                impact of a particular project. The Secretary shall 
                deem the mitigation requirement of this section to be 
                met with respect to activities in type B wetlands if 
                such activities (i) are carried out in accordance with 
                a State-approved reclamation plan or permit which 
                requires recontouring and revegetation following 
                mining, and (ii) will result in overall environmental 
                benefits being achieved.
                  ``(D) Rules governing mitigation.--In accordance with 
                subsection (j), the Secretary shall issue rules 
                governing requirements for mitigation for activities 
                occurring in wetlands that allow for--
                          ``(i) minimization of impacts through project 
                        design in the proposed project site consistent 
                        with the project's purpose, provisions for 
                        compensatory mitigation, if any, and other 
                        terms and conditions necessary and appropriate 
                        in the public interest;
                          ``(ii) preservation or donation of type A 
                        wetlands or type B wetlands (where title has 
                        not been acquired by the United States and no 
                        compensation under subsection (d) for such 
                        wetlands has been provided) as mitigation for 
                        activities that alter or degrade wetlands;
                          ``(iii) enhancement or restoration of 
                        degraded wetlands as compensation for wetlands 
                        lost or degraded through permitted activity;
                          ``(iv) creation of wetlands as compensation 
                        for wetlands lost or degraded through permitted 
                        activity if conditions are imposed that have a 
                        reasonable likelihood of being successful;
                          ``(v) compensation through contribution to a 
                        mitigation bank program established pursuant to 
                        paragraph (4);
                          ``(vi) offsite compensatory mitigation if 
                        such mitigation contributes to the restoration, 
                        enhancement or creation of significant wetlands 
                        functions on a watershed basis and is balanced 
                        with the effects that the proposed activity 
                        will have on the specific site; except that 
                        offsite compensatory mitigation, if any, shall 
                        be required only within the State within which 
                        the proposed activity is to occur, and shall, 
                        to the extent practicable, be within the 
                        watershed within which the proposed activity is 
                        to occur, unless otherwise consistent with a 
                        State wetlands management plan;
                          ``(vii) contribution of in-kind value 
                        acceptable to the Secretary and otherwise 
                        authorized by law;
                          ``(viii) in areas subject to wetlands loss, 
                        the construction of coastal protection and 
                        enhancement projects;
                          ``(ix) contribution of resources of more than 
                        one permittee toward a single mitigation 
                        project; and
                          ``(x) other mitigation measures, including 
                        contributions of other than in-kind value 
                        referred to in clause (vii), determined by the 
                        Secretary to be appropriate in the public 
                        interest and consistent with the requirements 
                        and purposes of this Act.
                  ``(E) Limitations on requiring mitigation.--
                Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (C), the 
                Secretary may determine not to impose requirements for 
                compensatory mitigation if the Secretary finds that--
                          ``(i) the adverse impacts of a permitted 
                        activity are limited;
                          ``(ii) the failure to impose compensatory 
                        mitigation requirements is compatible with 
                        maintaining wetlands functions;
                          ``(iii) no practicable and reasonable means 
                        of mitigation are available;
                          ``(iv) there is an abundance of similar 
                        significant wetlands functions and values in or 
                        near the area in which the proposed activity is 
                        to occur that will continue to serve the 
                        functions lost or degraded as a result of such 
                        activity, taking into account the impacts of 
                        such proposed activity and the cumulative 
                        impacts of similar activity in the area;
                          ``(v) the temporary character of the impacts 
                        and the use of minimization techniques make 
                        compensatory mitigation unnecessary to protect 
                        significant wetlands values; or
                          ``(vi) a waiver from requirements for 
                        compensatory mitigation is necessary to prevent 
                        special hardship.
          ``(4) Mitigation banks.--
                  ``(A) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months after 
                the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, after 
                providing notice and opportunity for public review and 
                comment, the Secretary shall issue regulations for the 
                establishment, use, maintenance, and oversight of 
                mitigation banks. The regulations shall be developed in 
                consultation with the heads of other appropriate 
                Federal agencies.
                  ``(B) Provisions and requirements.--The regulations 
                issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall ensure that 
                each mitigation bank--
                          ``(i) provides for the chemical, physical, 
                        and biological functions of wetlands or waters 
                        of the United States which are lost as a result 
                        of authorized adverse impacts to wetlands or 
                        other waters of the United States;
                          ``(ii) to the extent practicable and 
                        environmentally desirable, provides in-kind 
                        replacement of lost wetlands functions and be 
                        located in, or in proximity to, the same 
                        watershed or designated geographic area as the 
                        affected wetlands or waters of the United 
                        States;
                          ``(iii) be operated by a public or private 
                        entity which has the financial capability to 
                        meet the requirements of this paragraph, 
                        including the deposit of a performance bond or 
                        other appropriate demonstration of financial 
                        responsibility to support the long-term 
                        maintenance of the bank, fulfill 
                        responsibilities for long-term monitoring, 
                        maintenance, and protection, and provide for 
                        the long-term security of ownership interests 
                        of wetlands and uplands on which projects are 
                        conducted to protect the wetlands functions 
                        associated with the mitigation bank;
                          ``(iv) employ consistent and scientifically 
                        sound methods to determine debits by evaluating 
                        wetlands functions, project impacts, and 
                        duration of the impact at the sites of proposed 
                        permits for authorized activities pursuant to 
                        this section and to determine credits based on 
                        wetlands functions at the site of the 
                        mitigation bank;
                          ``(v) provide for the transfer of credits for 
                        mitigation that has been performed and for 
                        mitigation that shall be performed within a 
                        designated time in the future, provided that 
                        financial bonds shall be posted in sufficient 
                        amount to ensure that the mitigation will be 
                        performed in the case of default; and
                          ``(vi) provide opportunity for public notice 
                        of and comment on proposals for the mitigation 
                        banks; except that any process utilized by a 
                        mitigation bank to obtain a permit authorizing 
                        operations under this section before the date 
                        of the enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
                        Conservation and Management Act of 1995 
                        satisfies the requirement for such public 
                        notice and comment.
          ``(5) Procedures and deadlines for final action.--
                  ``(A) Opportunity for public comment.--Not later than 
                15 days after receipt of a complete application for a 
                permit under this section, together with information 
                necessary to consider such application, the Secretary 
                shall publish notice that the application has been 
                received and shall provide opportunity for public 
                comment and, to the extent appropriate, opportunity for 
                a public hearing on the issuance of the permit.
                  ``(B) General procedures.--In the case of any 
                application for authorization to undertake activities 
                in wetlands or waters of the United States that are not 
                eligible for treatment on an expedited basis pursuant 
                to paragraph (8), final action by the Secretary shall 
                occur within 90 days following the date such 
                application is filed, unless--
                          ``(i) the Secretary and the applicant agree 
                        that such final action shall occur within a 
                        longer period of time;
                          ``(ii) the Secretary determines that an 
                        additional, specified period of time is 
                        necessary to permit the Secretary to comply 
                        with other applicable Federal law; except that 
                        if the Secretary is required under the National 
                        Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
                        4321 et seq.) to prepare an environmental 
                        impact statement, with respect to the 
                        application, the final action shall occur not 
                        later than 45 days following the date such 
                        statement is filed; or
                          ``(iii) the Secretary, within 15 days from 
                        the date such application is received, notifies 
                        the applicant that such application does not 
                        contain all information necessary to allow the 
                        Secretary to consider such application and 
                        identifies any necessary additional 
                        information, in which case, the provisions of 
                        subparagraph (C) shall apply.
                  ``(C) Special rule when additional information is 
                required.--Upon the receipt of a request for additional 
                information under subparagraph (B)(iii), the applicant 
                shall supply such additional information and shall 
                advise the Secretary that the application contains all 
                requested information and is therefore complete. The 
                Secretary may--
                          ``(i) within 30 days of the receipt of notice 
                        of the applicant that the application is 
                        complete, determine that the application does 
                        not contain all requested additional 
                        information and, on that basis, deny the 
                        application without prejudice to resubmission; 
                        or
                          ``(ii) within 90 days from the date that the 
                        applicant provides notification to the 
                        Secretary that the application is complete, 
                        review the application and take final action.
                  ``(D) Effect of not meeting deadline.--If the 
                Secretary fails to take final action on an application 
                under this paragraph within 90 days from the date that 
                the applicant provides notification to the Secretary 
                that such application is complete, a permit shall be 
                presumed to be granted authorizing the activities 
                proposed in such application under such terms and 
                conditions as are stated in such completed application.
          ``(6) Type c wetlands.--Activities in wetlands that have been 
        classified as type C wetlands by the Secretary may be 
        undertaken without authorization required under subsection (a) 
        of this section.
          ``(7) States with substantial conserved wetlands.--
                  ``(A) In general.--With respect to type A and type B 
                wetlands in States with substantial conserved wetlands 
                areas, at the option of the permit applicant, the 
                Secretary shall issue permits authorizing activities in 
                such wetlands pursuant to this paragraph. Final action 
                on issuance of such permits shall be in accordance with 
                the procedures and deadlines of paragraph (5). The 
                Secretary may include conditions or requirements for 
                minimization of adverse impacts to wetlands functions 
                when minimization is economically practicable. No 
                permit to which this paragraph applies shall include 
                conditions, requirements, or standards for mitigation 
                to compensate for adverse impacts to wetlands or waters 
                of the United States or conditions, requirements, or 
                standards for avoidance of adverse impacts to wetlands 
                or waters of the United States.
                  ``(B) Economic base lands.--Upon application by the 
                owner of economic base lands in a State with 
                substantial conserved wetlands areas, the Secretary 
                shall issue individual and general permits to owners of 
                such lands for activities in wetlands or waters of the 
                United States. The Secretary shall reduce the 
                requirements of subparagraph (A)--
                          ``(i) to allow economic base lands to be 
                        beneficially used to create and sustain 
                        economic activity; and
                          ``(ii) in the case of lands owned by Alaska 
                        Native entities, to reflect the social and 
                        economic needs of Alaska Natives to utilize 
                        economic base lands.
                The Secretary shall consult with and provide assistance 
                to the Alaska Natives (including Alaska Native 
                Corporations) in promulgation and administration of 
                policies and regulations under this section.
          ``(8) General permits.--
                  ``(A) General authority.--The Secretary may issue, by 
                rule in accordance with subsection (j), general permits 
                on a programmatic, State, regional, or nationwide basis 
                for any category of activities involving an activity in 
                wetlands or waters of the United States if the 
                Secretary determines that such activities are similar 
                in nature and that such activities, when performed 
                separately and cumulatively, will not result in the 
                significant loss of ecologically significant wetlands 
                values and functions.
                  ``(B) Procedures.--Permits issued under this 
                paragraph shall include procedures for expedited review 
                of eligibility for such permits (if such review is 
                required) and may include requirements for reporting 
                and mitigation. To the extent that a proposed activity 
                requires a determination by the Secretary as to the 
                eligibility to qualify for a general permit under this 
                subsection, such determination shall be made within 30 
                days of the date of submission of the application for 
                such qualification, or the application shall be treated 
                as being approved.
                  ``(C) Compensatory mitigation.--Requirements for 
                compensatory mitigation for general permits may be 
                imposed where necessary to offset the significant loss 
                or degradation of significant wetlands functions where 
                such loss or degradation is not a temporary or 
                incidental impact. Such compensatory mitigation shall 
                be calculated based upon the specific impact of a 
                particular project.
                  ``(D) Grandfather of existing general permits.--
                General permits in effect on day before the date of the 
                enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation 
                and Management Act of 1995 shall remain in effect until 
                otherwise modified by the Secretary.
                  ``(E) States with substantial conserved lands.--Upon 
                application by a State or local authority in a State 
                with substantial conserved wetlands areas, the 
                Secretary shall issue a general permit applicable to 
                such authority for activities in wetlands or waters of 
                the United States. No permit issued pursuant to this 
                subparagraph shall include conditions, requirements, or 
                standards for mitigation to compensate for adverse 
                impacts to wetlands or waters of the United States or 
                shall include conditions, requirements, or standards 
                for avoidance of adverse impacts of wetlands or waters 
                of the United States.
          ``(9) Other waters of the united states.--The Secretary may 
        issue a permit authorizing activities in waters of the United 
        States (other than those classified as type A, B, or C wetlands 
        under this section) if the Secretary finds that issuance of the 
        permit is in the public interest, balancing the reasonably 
        foreseeable benefits and detriments resulting from the issuance 
        of the permit. The permit shall be subject to such terms and 
        conditions as the Secretary finds are necessary to carry out 
        the purposes of the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and 
        Management Act of 1995. In determining whether or not to issue 
        the permit and whether or not specific terms and conditions are 
        necessary to carry out such purposes, the Secretary shall 
        consider the factors set forth in paragraph (3)(A) as they 
        apply to nonwetlands areas and such other provisions of 
        paragraph (3) as the Secretary determines are appropriate to 
        apply to nonwetlands areas.
  ``(f) Activities not Requiring Permit.--
          ``(1) In general.--Activities undertaken in any wetlands or 
        waters of the United States are exempt from the requirements of 
        this section and are not prohibited by or otherwise subject to 
        regulation under this section or section 301 or 402 of this Act 
        (except effluent standards or prohibitions under section 307 of 
        this Act) if such activities--
                  ``(A) result from normal farming, silviculture, 
                aquaculture, and ranching activities and practices, 
                including but not limited to plowing, seeding, 
                cultivating, haying, grazing, normal maintenance 
                activities, minor drainage, burning of vegetation in 
                connection with such activities, harvesting for the 
                production of food, fiber, and forest products, or 
                upland soil and water conservation practices;
                  ``(B) are for the purpose of maintenance, including 
                emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of 
                currently serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, 
                levees, flood control channels or other engineered 
                flood control facilities, water control structures, 
                water supply reservoirs (where such maintenance 
                involves periodic water level drawdowns) which provide 
                water predominantly to public drinking water systems, 
                groins, riprap, breakwaters, utility distribution and 
                transmission lines, causeways, and bridge abutments or 
                approaches, and transportation structures;
                  ``(C) are for the purpose of construction or 
                maintenance of farm, stock or aquaculture ponds, 
                wastewater retention facilities (including dikes and 
                berms) that are used by concentrated animal feeding 
                operations, or irrigation canals and ditches or the 
                maintenance of drainage ditches;
                  ``(D) are for the purpose of construction of 
                temporary sedimentation basins on a construction site, 
                or the construction of any upland dredged material 
                disposal area, which does not include placement of fill 
                material into the navigable waters;
                  ``(E) are for the purpose of construction or 
                maintenance of farm roads or forest roads, railroad 
                lines of up to 10 miles in length, or temporary roads 
                for moving mining equipment, access roads for utility 
                distribution and transmission lines if such roads or 
                railroad lines are constructed and maintained, in 
                accordance with best management practices, to assure 
                that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and 
                biological characteristics of the waters are not 
                impaired, that the reach of the waters is not reduced, 
                and that any adverse effect on the aquatic environment 
                will be otherwise minimized;
                  ``(F) are undertaken on farmed wetlands, except that 
                any change in use of such land for the purpose of 
                undertaking activities that are not exempt from 
                regulation under this subsection shall be subject to 
                the requirements of this section to the extent that 
                such farmed wetlands are `wetlands' under this section;
                  ``(G) result from any activity with respect to which 
                a State has an approved program under section 208(b)(4) 
                of this Act which meets the requirements of 
                subparagraphs (B) and (C) of such section;
                  ``(H) are consistent with a State or local land 
                management plan submitted to the Secretary and approved 
                pursuant to paragraph (2);
                  ``(I) are undertaken in connection with a marsh 
                management and conservation program in a coastal parish 
                in the State of Louisiana where such program has been 
                approved by the Governor of such State or the designee 
                of the Governor;
                  ``(J) are undertaken on lands or involve activities 
                within a State's coastal zone which are excluded from 
                regulation under a State coastal zone management 
                program approved under the Coastal Zone Management Act 
                of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq.);
                  ``(K) are undertaken in incidentally created 
                wetlands, unless such incidentally created wetlands 
                have exhibited wetlands functions and values for more 
                than 5 years in which case activities undertaken in 
                such wetlands shall be subject to the requirements of 
                this section;
                  ``(L) are for the purpose of preserving and enhancing 
                aviation safety or are undertaken in order to prevent 
                an airport hazard;
                  ``(M) result from aggregate or clay mining activities 
                in wetlands conducted pursuant to a State or Federal 
                permit that requires the reclamation of such affected 
                wetlands if such reclamation will be completed within 5 
                years of the commencement of activities at the site 
                and, upon completion of such reclamation, the wetlands 
                will support wetlands functions equivalent to the 
                functions supported by the wetlands at the time of 
                commencement of such activities;
                  ``(N) are for the placement of a structural member 
                for a pile-supported structure, such as a pier or dock, 
                or for a linear project such as a bridge, transmission 
                or distribution line footing, powerline structure, or 
                elevated or other walkway;
                  ``(O) are for the placement of a piling in waters of 
                the United States in a circumstance that involves--
                          ``(i) a linear project described in 
                        subparagraph (N); or
                          ``(ii) a structure such as a pier, boathouse, 
                        wharf, marina, lighthouse, or individual house 
                        built on stilts solely to reduce the potential 
                        of flooding;
                  ``(P) are for the clearing (including mechanized 
                clearing) of vegetation within a right-of-way 
                associated with the development and maintenance of a 
                transmission or distribution line or other powerline 
                structure or for the maintenance of water supply 
                reservoirs which provide water predominantly to public 
                drinking water systems;
                  ``(Q) are undertaken in or affecting waterfilled 
                depressions created in uplands incidental to 
                construction activity, or are undertaken in or 
                affecting pits excavated in uplands for the purpose of 
                obtaining fill, sand, gravel, aggregates, or minerals, 
                unless and until the construction or excavation 
                operation is abandoned; or
                  ``(R) are undertaken in a State with substantial 
                conserved wetlands areas and--
                          ``(i) are for purposes of providing critical 
                        infrastructure, including water and sewer 
                        systems, airports, roads, communication sites, 
                        fuel storage sites, landfills, housing, 
                        hospitals, medical clinics, schools, and other 
                        community infrastructure;
                          ``(ii) are for construction and maintenance 
                        of log transfer facilities associated with log 
                        transportation activities;
                          ``(iii) are for construction of tailings 
                        impoundments utilized for treatment facilities 
                        (as determined by the development document) for 
                        the mining subcategory for which the tailings 
                        impoundment is constructed; or
                          ``(iv) are for construction of ice pads and 
                        ice roads and for purposes of snow storage and 
                        removal.
          ``(2) State or local management plan.--Any State or political 
        subdivision thereof acting pursuant to State authorization may 
        develop a land management plan with respect to lands that 
        include identified wetlands. The State or local government 
        agency may submit any such plan to the Secretary for review and 
        approval. The Secretary shall, within 60 days, notify in 
        writing the designated State or local official of approval or 
        disapproval of any such plan. The Secretary shall approve any 
        plan that is consistent with the purposes of this section. No 
        person shall be entitled to judicial review of the decision of 
        the Secretary to approve or disapprove a land management plan 
        under this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
        construed to alter, limit, or supersede the authority of a 
        State or political subdivision thereof to establish land 
        management plans for purposes other than the provisions of this 
        subsection.
  ``(g) Rules for Delineating Wetlands.--
          ``(1) Standards.--
                  ``(A) Issuance of rule.--The Secretary is authorized 
                and directed to establish standards, by rule in 
                accordance with subsection (j), that shall govern the 
                delineation of lands as `wetlands' for purposes of this 
                section. Such rules shall be established after 
                consultation with the heads of other appropriate 
                Federal agencies and shall be binding on all Federal 
                agencies in connection with the administration or 
                implementation of any provision of this section. The 
                standards for delineation of wetlands and any decision 
                of the Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture (in the 
                case of agricultural lands and associated 
                nonagricultural lands), or any other Federal officer or 
                agency made in connection with the administration of 
                this section shall comply with the requirements for 
                delineation of wetlands set forth in subparagraphs (B) 
                and (C).
                  ``(B) Exceptions.--The standards established by rule 
                or applied in any case for purposes of this section 
                shall ensure that lands are delineated as wetlands only 
                if such lands are found to be `wetlands' under section 
                502 of this Act; except that such standards may not--
                          ``(i) result in the delineation of lands as 
                        wetlands unless clear evidence of wetlands 
                        hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric 
                        soil are found to be present during the period 
                        in which such delineation is made, which 
                        delineation shall be conducted during the 
                        growing season unless otherwise requested by 
                        the applicant;
                          ``(ii) result in the classification of 
                        vegetation as hydrophytic if such vegetation is 
                        equally adapted to dry or wet soil conditions 
                        or is more typically adapted to dry soil 
                        conditions than to wet soil conditions;
                          ``(iii) result in the classification of lands 
                        as wetlands unless some obligate wetlands 
                        vegetation is found to be present during the 
                        period of delineation; except that if such 
                        vegetation has been removed for the purpose of 
                        evading jurisdiction under this section, this 
                        clause shall not apply;
                          ``(iv) result in the conclusion that wetlands 
                        hydrology is present unless water is found to 
                        be present at the surface of such lands for 21 
                        consecutive days in the growing seasons in a 
                        majority of the years for which records are 
                        available; and
                          ``(v) result in the classification of lands 
                        as wetlands that are temporarily or 
                        incidentally created as a result of adjacent 
                        development activity.
                  ``(C) Normal circumstances.--In addition to the 
                requirements of subparagraph (B), any standards 
                established by rule or applied to delineate wetlands 
                for purposes of this section shall provide that `normal 
                circumstances' shall be determined on the basis of the 
                factual circumstances in existence at the time a 
                classification is made under subsection (h) or at the 
                time of application under subsection (e), whichever is 
                applicable, if such circumstances have not been altered 
                by an activity prohibited under this section.
          ``(2) Land area cap for type a wetlands.--No more than 20 
        percent of any county, parish, or borough shall be classified 
        as type A wetlands. Type A wetlands in Federal or State 
        ownership (including type A wetlands in units of the National 
        Wildlife Refuge System, the National Park System, and lands 
        held in conservation easements) shall be included in 
        calculating the percent of type A wetlands in a county, parish, 
        or borough.
          ``(3) Agricultural lands.--
                  ``(A) Delineation by secretary of agriculture.--For 
                purposes of this section, wetlands located on 
                agricultural lands and associated nonagricultural lands 
                shall be delineated solely by the Secretary of 
                Agriculture in accordance with section 1222(j) of the 
                Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3822(j)).
                  ``(B) Exemption of lands exempted under food security 
                act.--Any area of agricultural land or any activities 
                related to the land determined to be exempt from the 
                requirements of subtitle C of title XII of the Food 
                Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) shall 
                also be exempt from the requirements of this section 
                for such period of time as those lands are used as 
                agricultural lands.
                  ``(C) Effect of appeal determination pursuant to food 
                security act.--Any area of agricultural land or any 
                activities related to the land determined to be exempt 
                pursuant to an appeal taken pursuant to subtitle C of 
                title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
                3821 et seq.) shall be exempt under this section for 
                such period of time as those lands are used as 
                agricultural lands.
  ``(h) Mapping and Public Notice Requirements.--
          ``(1) Provision of public notice.--Not later than 90 days 
        after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
        Conservation and Management Act of 1995, the Secretary shall 
        provide the court of each county, parish, or borough in which 
        the wetland subject to classification under subsection (c) is 
        located, a notice for posting near the property records of the 
        county, parish, or borough. The notice shall--
                  ``(A) state that wetlands regulated under this 
                section may be located in the county, parish, or 
                borough;
                  ``(B) provide an explanation understandable to the 
                general public of how wetlands are delineated and 
                classified;
                  ``(C) describe the requirements and restrictions of 
                the regulatory program under this section; and
                  ``(D) provide instructions on how to obtain a 
                delineation and classification of wetlands under this 
                section.
          ``(2) Provision of delineation determinations.--On completion 
        under this section of a delineation and classification of 
        property that contains wetlands or a delineation of property 
        that contains waters of the United States that are not 
        wetlands, the Secretary of Agriculture, in the case of wetlands 
        located on agricultural lands and associated nonagricultural 
        lands, and the Secretary, in the case of other lands, shall--
                  ``(A) file a copy of the delineation, including the 
                classification of any wetland located on the property, 
                with the records of the property in the local 
                courthouse; and
                  ``(B) serve a copy of the delineation determination 
                on every owner of the property on record and any person 
                with a recorded mortgage or lien on the property.
          ``(3) Notice of enforcement actions.--The Secretary shall 
        file notice of each enforcement action under this section taken 
        with respect to private property with the records of the 
        property in the local courthouse.
          ``(4) Wetlands identification and classification project.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The Secretary and the Secretary of 
                Agriculture shall undertake a project to identify and 
                classify wetlands in the United States that are 
                regulated under this section. The Secretaries shall 
                complete such project not later than 10 years after the 
                date of the enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
                Conservation and Management Act of 1995.
                  ``(B) Applicability of delineation standards.--In 
                conducting the project under this section, the 
                Secretaries shall identify and classify wetlands in 
                accordance with standards for delineation of wetlands 
                established by the Secretaries under subsection (g).
                  ``(C) Public hearings.--In conducting the project 
                under this section, the Secretaries shall provide 
                notice and an opportunity for a public hearing in each 
                county, parish or borough of a State before completion 
                of identification and classification of wetlands in 
                such county, parish, or borough.
                  ``(D) Publication.--Promptly after completion of 
                identification and classification of wetlands in a 
                county, parish, or borough under this section, the 
                Secretaries shall have published information on such 
                identification and classification in the Federal 
                Register and in publications of wide circulation and 
                take other steps reasonably necessary to ensure that 
                such information is available to the public.
                  ``(E) Reports.--The Secretaries shall report to 
                Congress on implementation of the project to be 
                conducted under this section not later than 2 years 
                after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive 
                Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995 and 
                annually thereafter.
                  ``(F) Recordation.--Any classification of lands as 
                wetlands under this section shall, to the maximum 
                extent practicable, be recorded on the property records 
                in the county, parish, or borough in which such 
                wetlands are located.
  ``(i) Administrative Appeals.--
          ``(1) Regulations establishing procedures.--Not later than 1 
        year after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive 
        Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, the Secretary 
        shall, after providing notice and opportunity for public 
        comment, issue regulations establishing procedures pursuant to 
        which--
                  ``(A) a landowner may appeal a determination of 
                regulatory jurisdiction under this section with respect 
                to a parcel of the landowner's property;
                  ``(B) a landowner may appeal a wetlands 
                classification under this section with respect to a 
                parcel of the landowner's property;
                  ``(C) any person may appeal a determination that the 
                proposed activity on the landowner's property is not 
                exempt under subsection (f);
                  ``(D) a landowner may appeal a determination that an 
                activity on the landowner's property does not qualify 
                under a general permit issued under this section;
                  ``(E) an applicant for a permit under this section 
                may appeal a determination made pursuant to this 
                section to deny issuance of the permit or to impose a 
                requirement under the permit; and
                  ``(F) a landowner or any other person required to 
                restore or otherwise alter a parcel of property 
                pursuant to an order issued under this section may 
                appeal such order.
          ``(2) Deadline for filing appeal.--An appeal brought pursuant 
        to this subsection shall be filed not later than 30 days after 
        the date on which the decision or action on which the appeal is 
        based occurs.
          ``(3) Deadline for decision.--An appeal brought pursuant to 
        this subsection shall be decided not later than 90 days after 
        the date on which the appeal is filed.
          ``(4) Participation in appeals process.--Any person who 
        participated in the public comment process concerning a 
        decision or action that is the subject of an appeal brought 
        pursuant to this subsection may participate in such appeal with 
        respect to those issues raised in the person's written public 
        comments.
          ``(5) Decisionmaker.--An appeal brought pursuant to this 
        subsection shall be heard and decided by an appropriate and 
        impartial official of the Federal Government, other than the 
        official who made the determination or carried out the action 
        that is the subject of the appeal.
          ``(6) Stay of penalties and mitigation.--A landowner or any 
        other person who has filed an appeal under this subsection 
        shall not be required to pay a penalty or perform mitigation or 
        restoration assessed under this section or section 309 until 
        after the appeal has been decided.
  ``(j) Administrative Provisions.--
          ``(1) Final regulations for issuance of permits.--Not later 
        than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the 
        Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, 
        the Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity for comment, 
        issue (in accordance with section 553 of title 5 of the United 
        States Code and this section) final regulations for 
        implementation of this section. Such regulations shall, in 
        accordance with this section, provide--
                  ``(A) standards and procedures for the classification 
                and delineation of wetlands and procedures for 
                administrative review of any such classification or 
                delineation;
                  ``(B) standards and procedures for the review of 
                State or local land management plans and State programs 
                for the regulation of wetlands;
                  ``(C) for the issuance of general permits, including 
                programmatic, State, regional, and nationwide permits;
                  ``(D) standards and procedures for the individual 
                permit applications under this section;
                  ``(E) for enforcement of this section;
                  ``(F) guidelines for the specification of sites for 
                the disposal of dredged or fill material for 
                navigational dredging; and
                  ``(G) any other rules and regulations that the 
                Secretary deems necessary or appropriate to implement 
                the requirements of this section.
          ``(2) Navigational dredging guidelines.--Guidelines developed 
        under paragraph (1)(F) shall--
                  ``(A) be based upon criteria comparable to the 
                criteria applicable to the territorial seas, the 
                contiguous zone, and the oceans under section 403(c); 
                and
                  ``(B) ensure that with respect to the issuance of 
                permits under this section--
                          ``(i) the least costly, environmentally 
                        acceptable disposal alternative will be 
                        selected, taking into consideration cost, 
                        existing technology, short term and long term 
                        dredging requirements, and logistics;
                          ``(ii) a disposal site will be specified 
                        after comparing reasonably available upland, 
                        confined aquatic, beneficial use, and open 
                        water disposal alternatives on the basis of 
                        relative risk, environmental acceptability, 
                        economics, practicability, and current 
                        technological feasibility;
                          ``(iii) a disposal site will be specified 
                        after comparing the reasonably anticipated 
                        environmental and economic benefits of 
                        undertaking the underlying project to the 
                        status quo; and
                          ``(iv) in comparing alternatives and 
                        selection of a disposal site, management 
                        measures may be considered and utilized to 
                        limit, to the extent practicable, adverse 
                        environmental effects by employing suitable 
                        chemical, biological, or physical techniques to 
                        prevent unacceptable adverse impacts on the 
                        environment.
          ``(3) Judicial review of final regulations.--Any judicial 
        review of final regulations issued pursuant to this section and 
        the Secretary's denial of any petition for the issuance, 
        amendment, or repeal of any regulation under this section shall 
        be in accordance with sections 701 through 706 of title 5 of 
        the United States Code; except that a petition for review of 
        action of the Secretary in issuing any regulation or 
        requirement under this section or denying any petition for the 
        issuance, amendment, or repeal of any regulation under this 
        section may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals 
        for the District of Columbia, and such petition shall be filed 
        within 90 days from the date of such issuance or denial or 
        after such date if such petition for review is based solely on 
        grounds arising after such ninetieth day. Action of the 
        Secretary with respect to which review could have been obtained 
        under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review 
        in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.
          ``(4) Interim regulations.--The Secretary shall, within 90 
        days after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive 
        Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, issue interim 
        regulations consistent with this section to take effect 
        immediately. Notice of the interim regulations shall be 
        published in the Federal Register, and such regulations shall 
        be binding until the issuance of final regulations pursuant to 
        paragraph (1); except that the Secretary shall provide adequate 
        procedures for waiver of any provisions of such interim 
        regulations to avoid special hardship, inequity, or unfair 
        distribution of burdens or to advance the purposes of this 
        section.
          ``(5) Administration by secretary.--Except where otherwise 
        expressly provided in this section, the Secretary shall 
        administer this section. The Secretary or any other Federal 
        officer or agency in which any function under this section is 
        vested or delegated is authorized to perform any and all acts 
        (including appropriate enforcement activity), and to prescribe, 
        issue, amend, or rescind such rules or orders as such officer 
        or agency may find necessary or appropriate with this 
        subsection, subject to the requirements of this subsection.
  ``(k) Enforcement.--
          ``(1) Compliance order.--Whenever, on the basis of reliable 
        and substantial information and after reasonable inquiry, the 
        Secretary finds that any person is or may be in violation of 
        this section or of any condition or limitation set forth in a 
        permit issued by the Secretary under this section, the 
        Secretary shall issue an order requiring such persons to comply 
        with this section or with such condition or limitation.
          ``(2) Notice and other procedural requirements relating to 
        orders.--A copy of any order issued under this subsection shall 
        be sent immediately by the Secretary to the Governor of the 
        State in which the violation occurs and the Governors of other 
        affected States. The person committing the asserted violation 
        that results in issuance of the order shall be notified of the 
        issuance of the order by personal service made to the 
        appropriate person or corporate officer. The notice shall state 
        with reasonable specificity the nature of the asserted 
        violation and specify a time for compliance, not to exceed 30 
        days, which the Secretary determines is reasonable taking into 
        account the seriousness of the asserted violation and any good 
        faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements. If the 
        person receiving the notice disputes the Secretary's 
        determination, the person may file an appeal as provided in 
        subsection (i). Within 60 days of a decision which denies an 
        appeal, or within 150 days from the date of notification of 
        violation by the Secretary if no appeal is filed, the Secretary 
        shall prosecute a civil action in accordance with paragraph (3) 
        or rescind such order and be estopped from any further 
        enforcement proceedings for the same asserted violation.
          ``(3) Civil action enforcement.--The Secretary is authorized 
        to commence a civil action for appropriate relief, including a 
        permanent or temporary injunction, for any violation for which 
        the Secretary is authorized to issue a compliance order under 
        paragraph (1). Any action under this paragraph may be brought 
        in the district court of the United States for the district in 
        which the defendant is located or resides or is doing business, 
        and such court shall have jurisdiction to restrain such 
        violation and to require compliance. Notice of the commencement 
        of such action shall be given immediately to the appropriate 
        State.
          ``(4) Civil penalties.--Any person who violates any condition 
        or limitation in a permit issued by the Secretary under this 
        section and any person who violates any order issued by the 
        Secretary under paragraph (1) shall be subject to a civil 
        penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation 
        commencing on expiration of the compliance period if no appeal 
        is filed or on the 30th day following the date of the denial of 
        an appeal of such violation. The amount of the penalty imposed 
        per day shall be in proportion to the scale or scope of the 
        project. In determining the amount of a civil penalty, the 
        court shall consider the seriousness of the violation or 
        violations, the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the 
        violation, any history of such violations, any good-faith 
        efforts to comply with the applicable requirements, the 
        economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and such other 
        matters as justice may require.
          ``(5) Criminal penalties.--If any person knowingly and 
        willfully violates any condition or limitation in a permit 
        issued by the Secretary under this section or knowingly and 
        willfully violates an order issued by the Secretary under 
        paragraph (1) and has been notified of the issuance of such 
        order under paragraph (2) and if such violation has resulted in 
        actual degradation of the environment, such person shall be 
        punished by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than 
        $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more 
        than 3 years, or by both. If a conviction of a person is for a 
        violation committed after a first conviction of such person 
        under this paragraph, punishment shall be by a fine of not more 
        than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more 
        than 6 years, or by both. An action for imposition of a 
        criminal penalty under this paragraph may only be brought by 
        the Attorney General.
  ``(l) State Regulation.--
          ``(1) Submission of proposed state program.--The Governor of 
        any State desiring to administer its own individual or general 
        permit program for some or all of the activities covered by 
        this section within any geographical region within its 
        jurisdiction may submit to the Secretary a description of the 
        program it proposes to establish and administer under State law 
        or under an interstate compact. In addition, such State shall 
        submit a statement from the chief legal officer in the case of 
        the State or interstate agency, that the laws of such State, or 
        the interstate compact, as the case may be, provide adequate 
        authority to carry out the described program.
          ``(2) State authorities required for approval.--Not later 
        than 1 year after the date of the receipt by the Secretary of a 
        program and statement submitted by any State under paragraph 
        (1), the Secretary shall determine whether such State has the 
        following authority with respect to the issuance of permits 
        pursuant to such program:
                  ``(A) to issue permits which--
                          ``(i) apply, and assure compliance with, any 
                        applicable requirements of this section; and
                          ``(ii) can be terminated or modified for 
                        cause, including--
                                  ``(I) violation of any condition of 
                                the permit;
                                  ``(II) obtaining a permit by 
                                misrepresentation, or failure to 
                                disclose fully all relevant facts; or
                                  ``(III) change in any condition that 
                                requires either a temporary or 
                                permanent reduction or elimination of 
                                the permitted activity;
                  ``(B) to issue permits which apply, and ensure 
                compliance with, all applicable requirements of section 
                308 of this Act or to inspect, monitor, enter, and 
                require reports to at least the same extent as required 
                in section 308 of this Act;
                  ``(C) to ensure that the public, and any other State 
                the waters of which may be affected, receive notice of 
                each application for a permit and to provide an 
                opportunity for public hearing before a ruling on each 
                such application;
                  ``(D) to ensure that the Secretary receives notice of 
                each application for a permit and that, prior to any 
                action by the State, both the applicant for the permit 
                and the State have received from the Secretary 
                information with respect to any advance classification 
                applicable to wetlands that are the subject of such 
                application;
                  ``(E) to ensure that any State (other than the 
                permitting State) whose waters may be affected by the 
                issuance of a permit may submit written recommendation 
                to the permitting State with respect to any permit 
                application and, if any part of such written 
                recommendations are not accepted by the permitting 
                State, that the permitting State will notify such 
                affected State (and the Secretary) in writing of its 
                failure to so accept such recommendations together with 
                its reasons for doing so; and
                  ``(F) to abate violations of the permit or the permit 
                program, including civil and criminal penalties and 
                other ways and means of enforcement.
          ``(3) Approval; resubmission.--If, with respect to a State 
        program submitted under paragraph (1) of this section, the 
        Secretary determines that the State--
                  ``(A) has the authority set forth in paragraph (2), 
                the Secretary shall approve the program and so notify 
                such State and suspend the issuance of permits under 
                subsection (b) for activities with respect to which a 
                permit may be issued pursuant to the State program; or
                  ``(B) does not have the authority set forth in 
                paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
                so notify such State and provide a description of the 
                revisions or modifications necessary so that the State 
                may resubmit the program for a determination by the 
                Secretary under this subsection.
          ``(4) Effect of failure of secretary to make timely 
        decision.--If the Secretary fails to make a determination with 
        respect to any program submitted by a State under this 
        subsection within 1 year after the date of receipt of the 
        program, the program shall be treated as being approved 
        pursuant to paragraph (3)(A) and the Secretary shall so notify 
        the State and suspend the issuance of permits under subsection 
        (b) for activities with respect to which a permit may be issued 
        by the State.
          ``(5) Transfer of pending applications for permits.--If the 
        Secretary approves a State permit program under paragraph 
        (3)(A) or (4), the Secretary shall transfer any applications 
        for permits pending before the Secretary for activities with 
        respect to which a permit may be issued pursuant to the State 
        program to the State for appropriate action.
          ``(6) General permits.--Upon notification from a State with a 
        permit program approved under this subsection that such State 
        intends to administer and enforce the terms and conditions of a 
        general permit issued by the Secretary under subsection (e) 
        with respect to activities in the State to which such general 
        permit applies, the Secretary shall suspend the administration 
        and enforcement of such general permit with respect to such 
        activities.
          ``(7) Review by secretary.--Every 5 years after approval of a 
        State administered program under paragraph (3)(A), the 
        Secretary shall review the program to determine whether it is 
        being administered in accordance with this section. If, on the 
        basis of such review, the Secretary finds that a State is not 
        administering its program in accordance with this section or if 
        the Secretary determines based on clear and convincing evidence 
        after a public hearing that a State is not administering its 
        program in accordance with this section and that substantial 
        adverse impacts to wetlands or waters of the United States are 
        imminent, the Secretary shall notify the State and, if 
        appropriate corrective action is not taken within a reasonable 
        time, not to exceed 90 days after the date of the receipt of 
        such notification, the Secretary shall--
                  ``(A) withdraw approval of the program until the 
                Secretary determines such corrective action has been 
                taken; and
                  ``(B) resume the program for the issuance of permits 
                under subsections (b) and (e) for all activities with 
                respect to which the State was issuing permits until 
                such time as the Secretary makes the determination 
                described in paragraph (2) and the State again has an 
                approved program.
  ``(m) Miscellaneous Provisions.--
          ``(1) State authority to control discharges.--Nothing in this 
        section shall preclude or deny the right of any State or 
        interstate agency to control activities in waters within the 
        jurisdiction of such State, including any activity of any 
        Federal agency, and each such agency shall comply with such 
        State or interstate requirements both substantive and 
        procedural to control such activities to the same extent that 
        any person is subject to such requirements. This section shall 
        not be construed as affecting or impairing the authority of the 
        Secretary to maintain navigation.
          ``(2) Availability to public.--A copy of each permit 
        application and each permit issued under this section shall be 
        available to the public. Such permit application or portion 
        thereof shall further be available on request for the purpose 
        of reproduction.
          ``(3) Publication in federal register.--The Secretary shall 
        have published in the Federal Register all memoranda of 
        agreement, regulatory guidance letters, and other guidance 
        documents of general applicability to implementation of this 
        section at the time they are distributed to agency regional or 
        field offices. In addition, the Secretary shall prepare, update 
        on a biennial basis and make available to the public for 
        purchase at cost--
                  ``(A) an indexed publication containing all Federal 
                regulations, general permits, memoranda of agreement, 
                regulatory guidance letters, and other guidance 
                documents relevant to the permitting of activities 
                pursuant to this section; and
                  ``(B) information to enable the general public to 
                understand the delineation of wetlands, the permitting 
                requirements referred to in subsection (e), wetlands 
                restoration and enhancement, wetlands functions, 
                available nonregulatory programs to conserve and 
                restore wetlands, and other matters that the Secretary 
                considers relevant.
          ``(4) Compliance.--
                  ``(A) Compliance with permit.--Compliance with a 
                permit issued pursuant to this section, including any 
                activity carried out pursuant to a general permit 
                issued under this section, shall be deemed in 
                compliance, for purposes of sections 309 and 505, with 
                sections 301, 307, and 403.
                  ``(B) Cranberry production.--Activities associated 
                with expansion, improvement, or modification of 
                existing cranberry production operations shall be 
                deemed in compliance, for purposes of sections 309 and 
                505, with section 301, if--
                          ``(i) the activity does not result in the 
                        modification of more than 10 acres of wetlands 
                        per operator per year and the modified wetlands 
                        (other than where dikes and other necessary 
                        facilities are placed) remain as wetlands or 
                        other waters of the United States; or
                          ``(ii) the activity is required by any State 
                        or Federal water quality program.
          ``(5) Limitation on fees.--Any fee charged in connection with 
        the delineation or classification of wetlands, the submission 
        or processing of an application for a permit authorizing an 
        activity in wetlands or waters of the United States, or any 
        other action taken in compliance with the requirements of this 
        section (other than fines for violations under subsection (k)) 
        shall not exceed the amount in effect for such fee on February 
        15, 1995.
          ``(6) Balanced implementation.--
                  ``(A) In general.--In implementing his or her 
                responsibilities under the regulatory program under 
                this section, the Secretary shall balance the objective 
                of conserving functioning wetlands with the objective 
                of ensuring continued economic growth, providing 
                essential infrastructure, maintaining strong State and 
                local tax bases, and protecting against the 
                diminishment of the use and value of privately owned 
                property.
                  ``(B) Minimization of adverse effects on private 
                property.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary 
                and the heads of all other Federal agencies shall seek 
                in all actions to minimize the adverse effects of the 
                regulatory program under this section on the use and 
                value of privately owned property.
          ``(7) Procedures for emergencies.--The Secretary shall 
        develop procedures for facilitating actions under this section 
        that are necessary to respond to emergency conditions 
        (including flood events and other emergency situations) which 
        may involve loss of life and property damage. Such procedures 
        shall address circumstances requiring expedited approvals as 
        well as circumstances requiring no formal approval under this 
        section.
          ``(8) Use of property.--For purposes of this section, a use 
        of property is limited by an agency action if a particular 
        legal right to use that property no longer exists because of 
        the action.
          ``(9) Limitation on classification of certain waters.--For 
        purposes of this section, no water of the United States or 
        wetland shall be subject to this section based solely on the 
        fact that migratory birds use or could use such water or 
        wetland.
          ``(10) Transition rules.--
                  ``(A) Permit required.--After the effective date of 
                this section under section 806 of the Comprehensive 
                Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, no 
                permit for any activity in wetlands or waters of the 
                United States may be issued except in accordance with 
                this section. Any application for a permit for such an 
                activity pending under this section on such effective 
                date shall be deemed to be an application for a permit 
                under this section.
                  ``(B) Prior permits.--Any permit for an activity in 
                wetlands or waters of the United States issued under 
                this section prior to the effective date referred to in 
                subparagraph (A) shall be deemed to be a permit under 
                this section and shall continue in force and effect for 
                the term of the permit unless revoked, modified, 
                suspended, or canceled in accordance with this section.
                  ``(C) Reevaluation.--
                          ``(i) Petition.--Any person holding a permit 
                        for an activity in wetlands or water of the 
                        United States on the effective date referred to 
                        in subparagraph (A) may petition, after such 
                        effective date, the Secretary for reevaluation 
                        of any decision made before such effective date 
                        concerning (I) a determination of regulatory 
                        jurisdiction under this section, or (II) any 
                        condition imposed under the permit. Upon 
                        receipt of a petition for reevaluation, the 
                        Secretary shall conduct the reevaluation in 
                        accordance with the provisions of this section.
                          ``(ii) Modification of permit.--If the 
                        Secretary finds that the provisions of this 
                        section apply with respect to activities and 
                        lands which are subject to the permit, the 
                        Secretary shall modify, revoke, suspend, 
                        cancel, or continue the permit as appropriate 
                        in accordance with the provisions of this 
                        section; except that no compensation shall be 
                        awarded under this section to any person as a 
                        result of reevaluation pursuant to this 
                        subparagraph and, if the permit covers 
                        activities in type A wetlands, the permit shall 
                        continue in effect without modification.
                          ``(iii) Procedure.--The reevaluation shall be 
                        carried out in accordance with time limits set 
                        forth in subsection (e)(5) and shall be subject 
                        to administrative appeal under subsection (i).
                  ``(D) Previously denied permits.--No permit shall be 
                issued under this section, no exemption shall be 
                available under subsection (f), and no exception shall 
                be available under subsection (g)(1)(B), for any 
                activity for which a permit has previously been denied 
                by the Secretary on more than one occasion unless such 
                activity--
                          ``(i) has been approved by the affected 
                        State, county, and local government within the 
                        boundaries of which the activity is proposed;
                          ``(ii) in the case of unincorporated land, 
                        has been approved by all local governments 
                        within 1 mile of the proposed activity; and
                          ``(iii) would result in a net improvement to 
                        water quality at the site of such activity.
          ``(11) Definitions.--In this section the following 
        definitions apply:
                  ``(A) Activity in wetlands or waters of the united 
                states.--The term `activity in wetlands or waters of 
                the United States' means--
                          ``(i) the discharge of dredged or fill 
                        material into waters of the United States, 
                        including wetlands at a specific disposal site; 
                        or
                          ``(ii) the draining, channelization, or 
                        excavation of wetlands.
                  ``(B) Agency.--The term `agency' has the meaning 
                given that term in section 551 of title 5, United 
                States Code.
                  ``(C) Agency action.--The term `agency action' has 
                the meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, 
                United States Code, but also includes the making of a 
                grant to a public authority conditioned upon an action 
                by the recipient that would constitute a limitation if 
                done directly by the agency.
                  ``(D) Agricultural land.--The term `agricultural 
                land' means cropland, pastureland, native pasture, 
                rangeland, an orchard, a vineyard, nonindustrial forest 
                land, an area that supports a water dependent crop 
                (including cranberries, taro, watercress, or rice), and 
                any other land used to produce or support the 
                production of an annual or perennial crop (including 
                forage or hay), aquaculture product, nursery product, 
                or wetland crop or the production of livestock.
                  ``(E) Conserved wetlands.--The term `conserved 
                wetlands' means wetlands that are located in the 
                National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, 
                National Wilderness System, the Wild and Scenic River 
                System, and other similar Federal conservation systems, 
                combined with wetlands located in comparable types of 
                conservation systems established under State and local 
                authority within State and local land use systems.
                  ``(F) Economic base lands.--The term `economic base 
                lands' means lands conveyed to, selected by, or owned 
                by Alaska Native entities pursuant to the Alaska Native 
                Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 92-203 or the Alaska 
                Native Allotment Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 197), and lands 
                conveyed to, selected by, or owned by the State of 
                Alaska pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act, Public Law 
                85-508.
                  ``(G) Fair market value.--The term `fair market 
                value' means the most probable price at which property 
                would change hands, in a competitive and open market 
                under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, between 
                a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being 
                under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having 
                reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, at the time the 
                agency action occurs.
                  ``(H) Law of a state.--The term `law of a State' 
                includes the law of a political subdivision of a State.
                  ``(I) Mitigation bank.--The term `mitigation bank' 
                means a wetlands restoration, creation, enhancement, or 
                preservation project undertaken by one or more parties, 
                including private and public entities, expressly for 
                the purpose of providing mitigation compensation 
                credits to offset adverse impacts to wetlands or other 
                waters of the United States authorized by the terms of 
                permits allowing activities in such wetlands or waters.
                  ``(J) Navigational dredging.--The term `navigational 
                dredging' means the dredging of ports, waterways, and 
                inland harbors, including berthing areas and local 
                access channels appurtenant to a Federal navigation 
                channel.
                  ``(K) Property.--The term `property' means land and 
                includes the right to use or receive water.
                  ``(L) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the 
                Secretary of the Army.
                  ``(M) State with substantial conserved wetlands 
                areas.--The term `State with substantial conserved 
                wetlands areas' means any State which--
                          ``(i) contains at least 10 areas of wetlands 
                        for each acre of wetlands filled, drained, or 
                        otherwise converted within such State (based 
                        upon wetlands loss statistics reported in the 
                        1990 United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
                        Wetlands Trends report to Congress entitled 
                        `Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 
                        1980's'); or
                          ``(ii) the Secretary of the Army determines 
                        has sufficient conserved wetlands areas to 
                        provided adequate wetlands conservation in such 
                        State, based on the policies set forth in this 
                        Act.
                  ``(N) Wetlands.--The term `wetlands' means those 
                lands that meet the criteria for delineation of lands 
                as wetlands set forth in subsection (g).''.

SEC. 804. DEFINITIONS.

  Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is further amended--
          (1) in paragraph (6)--
                  (A) by striking ``dredged spoil,'';
                  (B) by striking ``or (B)'' and inserting ``(B)''; and
                  (C) by inserting before the period at the end ``; and 
                (C) dredged or fill material''; and
          (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraphs:
  ``(28) The term `wetlands' means lands which have a predominance of 
hydric soils and which are inundated by surface water at a frequency 
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances 
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in 
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, 
bogs, and similar areas.
  ``(29) The term `creation of wetlands' means an activity that brings 
a wetland into existence at a site where it did not formerly occur for 
the purpose of compensatory mitigation.
  ``(30) The term `enhancement of wetlands' means any activity that 
increases the value of one or more functions in existing wetlands.
  ``(31) The term `fastlands' means lands located behind legally 
constituted man-made structures or natural formations, such as levees 
constructed and maintained to permit the utilization of such lands for 
commercial, industrial, or residential purposes consistent with local 
land use planning requirements.
  ``(32) The term `wetlands functions' means the roles wetlands serve, 
including flood water storage, flood water conveyance, ground water 
recharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, water quality protection, 
scenic and aesthetic use, food chain support, fisheries, wetlands plant 
habitat, aquatic habitat, and habitat for wetland dependent wildlife.
  ``(33) The term `growing season' means, for each plant hardiness 
zone, the period between the average date of last frost in spring and 
the average date of first frost in autumn.
  ``(34) The term `incidentally created wetlands' means lands that 
exhibit wetlands characteristics sufficient to meet the criteria for 
delineation of wetlands, where one or more of such characteristics is 
the unintended result of human induced alterations of hydrology.
  ``(35) The term `maintenance' when used in reference to wetlands 
means activities undertaken to assure continuation of a wetland or the 
accomplishment of project goals after a restoration or creation project 
has been technically completed, including water level manipulations and 
control of nonnative plant species.
  ``(36) The term `mitigation banking' means wetlands restoration, 
enhancement, preservation or creation for the purpose of providing 
compensation for wetland degradation or loss.
  ``(37) The term `normal farming, silviculture, aquaculture and 
ranching activities' means normal practices identified as such by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Cooperative 
Extension Service for each State and the land grant university system 
and agricultural colleges of the State, taking into account existing 
practices and such other practices as may be identified in consultation 
with the affected industry or community.
  ``(38) The term `prior converted cropland' means any agricultural 
land that was manipulated (by drainage or other physical alteration to 
remove excess water from the land) or used for the production of any 
annual or perennial agricultural crop (including forage or hay), 
aquacultural product, nursery product or wetlands crop, or the 
production of livestock before December 23, 1985.
  ``(39) The term `restoration' in reference to wetlands means an 
activity undertaken to return a wetland from a disturbed or altered 
condition with lesser acreage or fewer functions to a previous 
condition with greater wetlands acreage or functions.
  ``(40) The term `temporary impact' means the disturbance or 
alteration of wetlands caused by activities under circumstances in 
which, within 3 years following the commencement of such activities, 
such wetlands--
          ``(A) are returned to the conditions in existence prior to 
        the commencement of such activity; or
          ``(B) display conditions sufficient to ensure, that without 
        further human action, such wetlands will return to the 
        conditions in existence prior to the commencement of such 
        activity.
  ``(41) The term `airport hazard' has the meaning such term has under 
section 47102 of title 49, United States Code.''.

SEC. 805. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Violation.--Section 301(a) (33 U.S.C. 1311(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``402, and 404'' and inserting ``and 402''; 
        and
          (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Except as in 
        compliance with this section and section 404, the undertaking 
        of any activity in wetlands or waters of the United States 
        shall be unlawful.''.
  (b) Federal Enforcement.--Section 309 (33 U.S.C. 1319) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``or 404'';
          (2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``or in a permit issued 
        under section 404 of this Act by a State'';
          (3) in each of subsections (c)(1)(A) and (c)(2)(A) by 
        striking ``or in a permit'' and all that follows through 
        ``State;'' and inserting a semicolon;
          (4) in subsection (c)(3)(A) by striking ``or in a permit'' 
        and all that follows through ``State, and'' and inserting 
        ``and'';
          (5) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following:
          ``(8) Treatment of certain violations.--Any person who 
        violates section 301 with respect to an activity in wetlands or 
        waters of the United States for which a permit is required 
        under section 404 shall not be subject to punishment under this 
        subsection but shall be subject to punishment under section 
        404(k)(5).'';
          (6) in subsection (d) by striking ``, or in a permit issued 
        under section 404 of this Act by a State,'';
          (7) by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following: 
        ``Any person who violates section 301 with respect to an 
        activity in wetlands or waters of the United States for which a 
        permit is required under section 404 shall not be subject to a 
        civil penalty under this subsection but shall be subject to a 
        civil penalty under section 404(k)(4).'';
          (8) in subsection (g)(1)--
                  (A) by striking ``--'' and all that follows through 
                ``(A)'';
                  (B) by striking ``or in a permit issued under section 
                404 by a State, or''; and
                  (C) by striking ``(B)'' and all that follows through 
                ``as the case may be,'' and inserting ``the 
                Administrator'';
          (9) by adding at the end of subsection (g) the following:
          ``(12) Treatment of certain violations.--Any person who 
        violates section 301 with respect to an activity in wetlands or 
        waters of the United States for which a permit is required 
        under section 404 shall not be subject to assessment of a civil 
        penalty under this subsection but shall be subject to 
        assessment of a civil penalty under section 404(k)(4).'';
          (10) by striking ``or Secretary'', ``or the Secretary'', ``or 
        the Secretary, as the case may be,'', ``or Secretary's'', and 
        ``and the Secretary'' each place they appear; and
          (11) in subsection (g)(9)(B) by inserting a comma after 
        ``Administrator''.

SEC. 806. EFFECTIVE DATE.

  This title, including the amendments made by this title, shall take 
effect on the 90th day following the date of the enactment of this Act.

                    TITLE IX--NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

SEC. 901. REFERENCES TO ACT.

  Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this title an 
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal 
of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to 
be made to a section or other provision of the Marine Protection, 
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).

SEC. 902. OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS.

  (a) Issuance of Permits.--Section 102 (33 U.S.C. 1412) is amended--
          (1) in the section heading by striking ``environmental 
        protection agency''; and
          (2) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it 
                appears and inserting ``Secretary'';
                  (B) by striking paragraph (G) and redesignating 
                paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (H), and (I) 
                as paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively;
                  (C) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by 
                redesignating subparagraphs (i) through (iii) as 
                subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively; and
                  (D) by striking the first and second sentences 
                following the indented paragraphs.
  (b) Categories of Permits.--Section 102(b) (33 U.S.C. 1412(b)) is 
amended by striking ``Administrator'' and inserting ``Secretary''.
  (c) Designation of Sites.--Section 102(c) (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``Secretary''; and
          (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Secretary'' each place it 
        appears and inserting ``Administrator''.
  (d) Special Rules.--Sections 102(d) and 102(e) (33 U.S.C. 1412(d) and 
1412(e)) are amended by striking ``Administrator'' each place it 
appears and inserting ``Secretary''.

SEC. 903. DREDGED MATERIAL PERMITS.

  (a) Disposal Sites.--Section 103 (33 U.S.C. 1413) is amended--
          (1) in the section heading by striking ``corps of engineers'' 
        and inserting ``dredged material''; and
          (2) in subsection (b)--
                  (A) by striking ``by the Administrator'' each place 
                it appears;
                  (B) by striking ``, with the concurrence of the 
                Administrator,''; and
                  (C) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Administrator'' 
                and inserting ``Secretary''.
  (b) Consultation With the Administrator.--Section 103(c) (33 U.S.C. 
1413(c) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(c) Consultation With the Administrator.--Prior to issuing a permit 
to any person under this section, the Secretary shall first consult 
with the Administrator.''.
  (c) Waivers.--Section 103(d) (33 U.S.C. 1413(d)) is amended by 
striking ``request a waiver'' and all that follows through the period 
at the end and inserting ``grant a waiver.''.

SEC. 904. PERMIT CONDITIONS.

  Section 104 (33 U.S.C. 1414) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``Administrator or the Secretary, as the case 
        may be,'' each place it appears and inserting ``Secretary'';
          (2) in subsection (a) by inserting a comma before ``after 
        consultation'';
          (3) in subsection (h)--
                  (A) by striking ``Administrator of the Environmental 
                Protection Agency'' and inserting ``Secretary''; and
                  (B) in the last sentence by striking ``Administrator 
                determines'' and inserting ``Secretary determines''; 
                and
          (4) in subsection (i)--
                  (A) by striking ``Administrator'' each place it 
                appears and inserting ``Secretary'';
                  (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``Merchant Marine 
                and Fisheries'' and inserting ``Transportation and 
                Infrastructure''; and
                  (C) in paragraph (4)(D) by striking ``of the 
                Environmental Protection Agency''.

SEC. 905. SPECIAL PROVISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN DUMPING SITES.

  Section 104A (33 U.S.C. 1414a) is amended by striking 
``Administrator'' each place it appears and inserting ``Secretary''.

SEC. 906. REFERENCES TO ADMINISTRATOR.

  With respect to any function transferred from the Administrator to 
the Secretary of the Army by an amendment made by this title and 
exercised after the effective date of such transfer, reference in any 
Federal law to the Administrator shall be considered to refer to the 
Secretary of the Army.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of the bill is to reauthorize and amend the 
Clean Water Act to provide a flexible, scientifically sound, 
and cost-effective basis on which to maintain and continue 
improvements in water quality.

                          Need for Legislation

    The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(referred to as the Clean Water Act, CWA, or Act) is to restore 
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 
of the nation's waters. The Act was last amended 
comprehensively in 1987 and most of its authorizations of 
appropriations expired in 1991. Funding has been provided 
through the annual appropriations process.
    The Clean Water Act is a program that requires further 
direction from Congress. In general, it has worked well to 
provide the nation with clean, healthy water through a 
partnership among Federal, State and local governments and 
industry. However, much of the improvements in water quality 
achieved to date have been through the implementation of ``end-
of-pipe'' controls on industrial and municipal point source 
dischargers. Additional regulation of these point sources is 
increasingly costly and achieves increasingly smaller marginal 
benefits.
    Moreover, a majority of the remaining water quality 
problems in rivers, streams and lakes are caused by ``wet 
weather flows,'' e.g., agricultural and urban runoff, and 
municipal and industrial storm sewer discharges. The urban 
streets, rural fields, and other sources that create this 
runoff problem are not amenable to traditional ``end-of-pipe,'' 
``command-and-control'' regulatory approaches. Accordingly, the 
current Act has not been able to effectively address the 
problems associated with such wet weather flows. Attempts to 
impose command-and-control approaches on wet weather flows have 
led to regulations or permits that require unattainable results 
or results that are attainable only at enormous costs, much of 
which will be borne by cities and towns.
    During the seven days of hearings in February and March 
1995, and at hearings held in the 103d Congress, the Committee 
heard extensive testimony about specific areas that need to be 
addressed through comprehensive Clean Water Act reauthorization 
legislation, including the need to (1) provide relief from 
unfunded mandates, (2) develop better approaches to control of 
pollution from nonpoint and stormwater runoff and other wet 
weather flows, (3) provide additional flexibility and an 
increased State and local role in implementation of the Act, 
(4) provide financial and regulatory relief to small 
communities, (5) incorporate risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis into the standard setting process, (6) ensure that 
standards are based on sound science, and (7) comprehensively 
reform the regulatory process for permitting activities that 
take place in wetlands.

                           Unfunded Mandates

    The Committee must support efforts to provide State and 
local governments relief from the impacts of unfunded mandates. 
On March 23, 1995, President Clinton signed into law the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. However, this Act does 
not address the impacts of unfunded mandates in existing law. 
During the debate on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the 
Clean Water Act was cited as placing the most costly unfunded 
mandates on local governmental entities.
    The National Association of Counties estimates that the 
Clean Water Act resulted in unfunded mandates costing counties 
$1.2 billion in 1993, and will result in unfunded mandates 
costing $6.5 billion from 1994 to 1998. In a 1993 survey on the 
impact of unfunded federal mandates on America's counties, 
conducted by Price Waterhouse, counties particularly cited the 
Clean Water Act's inflexible procedures and ``cookie-cutter'' 
approach, regardless of local conditions, as a reason for the 
size of the Clean Water Act's unfunded mandates. Counties also 
cited (1) the need to build and operate ``hugely expensive 
wastewater treatment plants'' to meet secondary treatment 
requirements, (2) impracticable stormwater regulations, (3) 
``sludge regulations that require wastewater treatment plant 
biosolids to be treated, then limits their disposal'' and (4) 
``wetlands regulations that prohibit the cleaning of some 
drainage ditches without a permit from the Corps of 
Engineers,'' as reasons for the expense and burden imposed by 
the Clean Water Act.
    The United States Conference of Mayors estimates that the 
Clean Water Act resulted in unfunded mandates costing cities 
$3.6 billion in 1993 and will result in unfunded mandates 
costing $29.3 billion from 1994 to 1998. Sadly and ironically, 
in response to a question in a 1993 survey conducted by Price 
Waterhouse on the impact of all Federal unfunded mandates on 
United States cities that asked what municipal projects had 
been delayed or forgone due to the need to divert resources to 
meet costly federal mandates, many cities responded that they 
were unable to make needed improvements in their sewer system 
infrastructure. By failing to maintain sewer systems, these 
communities are likely to face even more expensive costs 
associated with correcting infiltration or overflow problems 
associated with aging sewer systems. In addition, delaying or 
forgoing projects to extend sewer systems to households now 
serviced by septic tanks could result in impairment of water 
quality associated with failing septic tanks. Accordingly, 
Federal mandates are forcing communities to make funding 
choices that can be detrimental to the environment.
    The bill addresses unfunded mandates by providing increased 
funding to meet Clean Water Act mandates an by providing 
regulatory relief by increasing both the flexibility and cost-
effectiveness of the Act. Specifically, the bill authorizes 
$2.5 billion a year from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 
2000 for capitalization grants to States for the State 
Revolving Loan Fund (SRF). The bill also authorizes $500 
million per year for a SRF dedicated to addressing nonpoint 
sources of pollution. The bill will double (to $150 million a 
year) previously authorized levels for grants to States for 
administering and enforcing water pollution control programs. 
The bill establishes a $150 million a year grant fund for water 
infrastructure improvements for small communities and a $150 
million a year grant fund for coastal localities, contingent on 
full funding of the SRF.

                       Nonpoint Source Discharges

    Nonpoint source discharges include runoff from rural 
fields, urban streets, and other areas. During consideration of 
H.R. 961, the Committee heard testimony stating that it is not 
feasible to collect and treat this runoff prior to discharge. 
Instead, the most effective method of control is the prevention 
of pollution in runoff through management practices and 
measures. However, causes and the nature of runoff are 
extremely site-specific. Accordingly, a top-down approach for 
the development and implementation of management practices and 
measures is not appropriate.
    The Committee also heard testimony regarding the 
controversy and criticism generated by section 6217 of the 
Coastal Zone Management Program. Enacted as part of the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, section 6217 creates a 
separate coastal nonpoint source management program 
administered by both the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA). This separate program addresses the same 
nonpoint source runoff problem that is addressed under section 
319 of the Act. As a result, landowners in coastal areas are 
subject to two different regulatory programs implemented by as 
many as three different regulatory offices, all to address the 
same runoff. In addition, the Coastal States Organization has 
criticized the section 6217 coastal nonpoint source program as 
an inflexible program with unrealistic time frames that does 
not allow States to target resources to impaired waters. To 
eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy, ensure that landowners are 
not subject to conflicting regulatory requirements, and to 
provide States with flexibility to target resources, the bill 
repeals section 6217 and folds it into the section 319 nonpoint 
source program by requiring identification of impaired or 
threatened coastal areas within that program.
    The bill strengthens the existing section 319 nonpoint 
source program by authorizing $1 billion over five years for 
State program grants and establishing a new State revolving 
loan fund that is dedicated to control of nonpoint sources and 
is capitalized at $2.5 billion over five years.
    The bill requires States to develop and implement nonpoint 
source management programs that must include goals and 
milestones for achieving water quality standards as soon as 
practicable but no later than 15 years from the date of program 
approval. If a State does not develop an approvable program, 
EPA must develop and implement a program for the State.
    The bill requires EPA to develop guidance on model 
management practices and measures. The Committee expects, 
however, that States will work with conservation districts and 
other local groups to tailor management measures to best 
address specific situations and to rely first on voluntary 
measures. States also have the authority to require enforceable 
measures for the control of nonpoint source pollution. However, 
the bill expresses the belief that nonpoint source programs 
should be built upon a foundation of voluntary initiatives that 
represent the approach most likely to succeed in achieving the 
objectives of the Act.

                               Stormwater

    The current stormwater permitting program at section 402(p) 
of the Act was added in 1987. This section required industrial 
facilities and municipalities with populations over 250,000 to 
obtain permits for stormwater discharges by February 4, 1991, 
and municipalities with populations over 100,000 to obtain 
permits by February 4, 1993 (collectively, Phase I 
dischargers). However, EPA did not promulgate its stormwater 
permit regulations until November 1990. EPA administratively 
extended the deadline by which such dischargers were to have 
filed individual permit applications or obtained coverage under 
a general permit to October 1, 1992 (which extension was 
subsequently approved by Congress).
    The entire permit application process has been very complex 
and confusing for both regulators and the regulated community. 
Not knowing how to regulate stormwater, EPA required extensive 
data collection and information in permit applications. As a 
result, according to the February 9, 1995, testimony of Mr. 
Stephen John, on behalf of the National League of Cities, 
before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, the average 
cost to a city of a Phase I stormwater permit application is 
$625,000. According to the Price Waterhouse survey of the 
impact of federal unfunded mandates on cities, Tulsa, 
Oklahoma's stormwater permit application cost $1.1 million. As 
of May 1994, only 24 municipal stormwater permits had actually 
been issued.
    Approximately 60,000 industrial sources, at EPA's urging, 
opted to apply for a stormwater permit under EPA's group permit 
application process. These entities spent approximately $150 
million to collect the data necessary to put those applications 
together. However, EPA then decided not to issue a group 
application; segregated 700 groups into 29 sectors in a manner 
that combined groups with very different stormwater discharges; 
and has proposed (but has not yet issued) 29 multi-sector 
permits.
    The purpose and requirements of stormwater discharge 
permits remain unclear. The statute currently requires permits 
for industrial discharges to meet all applicable requirements 
of sections 402 and 301. Permits for municipal stormwater 
discharges are required to reduce the discharge of pollutants 
to the maximum extent practicable. Compliance with these 
requirements is to be achieved no later than three years from 
the date a permit is issued.
    To meet the statutory deadlines, most industrial facilities 
sought coverage under State general stormwater permits, which 
require stormwater pollution prevention planning. Some 
individual permits do have numerical effluent limitations. 
Similarly, some municipal permits require management practices 
and measures to reduce pollution, but others include numerical 
effluent limitations, which are currently unachievable.
    The EPA's own estimate of costs to municipalities to comply 
with the current stormwater permitting requirements of the 
Clean Water Act, is between $3.4 billion and $5.3 billion 
annually. If current law is interpreted, as it is by some 
States, to require stormwater discharges to meet numerical 
limits based on fishable, swimmable water quality standards, 
the National League of Cities estimates the cost of controls 
necessary to meet those limits to be over $1 trillion.
    Through the exercise of data collection and the confusion 
of permitting, both regulators and the regulated community 
learned that a bureaucratic permitting framework, federally 
mandated controls, and end-of-pipe limitations are not 
appropriate for control of stormwater runoff. Accordingly, the 
Phase I permitting program has resulted in extraordinary 
expenditures of time and resources, with minimal environmental 
benefit beyond that achieved through pollution prevention 
plans.
    Since October 1, 1994, an additional 7 million facilities 
and thousands of communities (Phase II dischargers) have been 
potentially subject to this broken program. Accordingly, rapid 
legislative action is needed to fix the stormwater management 
program.
    As expressed by participants in meetings held on the 
stormwater program by the Rensselaerville Institute in 1992 and 
1993, the most appropriate fix is one which provides for 
flexible, site-specific, pollution prevention measures, not 
nationally mandated controls:

          States feel that they have more knowledge of the 
        industrial risks within their boundaries and know what 
        is needed to bring those risks into compliance. A 
        number of focus groups cited the uselessness of having 
        EPA develop requirements for any given industry when it 
        did not understand specific industries.
          [W]orking in partnership with States and permittees 
        rather than through a ``command and control'' 
        relationship could get the program in place more 
        quickly and maximize its effectiveness.

U.S. EPA, Report on the EPA Storm Water Management Program, Vol 
1, at 18 (Oct. 1992) (EPA830-R-92-001).

          Much wisdom about storm water controls are not 
        readily generalizable.
          Pollution prevention should be emphasized.
          EPA needs to allow State and local flexibility to 
        address priorities as they have identified them.

U.S. EPA, Office of Water, EPA Group Involvement Project, at 
11-12 (Rensselaerville Institute) (Sept. 1993).
    At the Rensselaerville Institute meetings, two different 
structures for stormwater programs were discussed: (1) A 
traditional national program where EPA provides mandates and 
the States and localities attempt to meet them, and (2) a 
decentralized program which identifies a national performance 
target and allows States to develop programs to meet that 
target.
    The bill adopts the latter approach by replacing the 
current section 402(p) permitting program with new section 322 
State stormwater management programs. The bill requires States 
to develop stormwater management programs within four years and 
to meet the goal of attainment of water quality standards for 
stormwater within 15 years of program approval. To meet that 
goal, States have the flexibility to target receiving waters 
and sources of stormwater discharges. The premise of the 
program is that pollution prevention measures are most likely 
to result in attainment of the goal of achieving water quality 
standards. Accordingly, State controls begin with enforceable 
pollution prevention plans and may proceed to general and site-
specific permits as determined to be necessary by the State.
    Recently, EPA proposed a ``fix'' to its stormwater permit 
program, which would delay permit applications for Phase II 
dischargers until August 2, 2001, and adjust the requirements 
for Phase II dischargers through a negotiated rulemaking. 60 
Fed. Reg. 17950 (Apr. 7, 1995). Under its proposal, EPA may 
target particular Phase II sources for permit applications 
sooner than 2001. This proposal leaves in place the current 
stormwater permitting program both for Phase I sources and for 
those Phase II sources that EPA targets for early permits.
    In contrast, the bill reforms the stormwater program for 
both Phase I and Phase II sources and will bring more sources 
under control in a shorter time frame. In addition, by 
providing a hierarchy of control measures, the bill creates an 
incentive for facilities to achieve improvements as soon as 
possible, to avoid a State determination that additional 
controls on the facility are necessary. Accordingly, the 
approach taken by the bill is both more cost-effective and 
better for the environment than either current law or EPA's 
proposal.
    EPA's ``fix'' was negotiated with the Natural Resources 
Defense Counsel (NRDC), which threatened to sue EPA for its 
failure to impose its stormwater permit program on the 7 
million facilities that have been potentially subject to the 
stormwater permit program since October 1, 1994. EPA did not 
consult various affected parties until after it had reached its 
agreements with NRDC. Those affected parties strongly oppose 
EPA's ``fix.''
    On February 16, 1995, the National Association of Counties, 
the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of 
Mayors, and the National Association of Flood and Stormwater 
Management Agencies wrote to EPA Assistant Administrator for 
Water, Robert Perciasepe, to express their concerns over EPA's 
proposal:

          On behalf of the National Association of Counties, 
        the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of 
        Mayors, and the National Association of Flood and 
        Stormwater Management Agencies, we are writing to 
        express our very serious concerns about the Agency's 
        proposed interim final rule on stormwater.
          * * * * * * *
          Third, we have significant problems with the process 
        EPA is proposing. We cannot endorse a process that does 
        not, and cannot resolve our major problem with the 
        stormwater management program--the requirement to meet 
        numerical effluent limits. As EPA knows, and as NRDC 
        has publicly admitted, there are no strategies, 
        technologies or methods known or available that will 
        assure the attainment of water quality standards in 
        stormwater runoff. Absent the ability to address this 
        pivotal issue, we consider it a disservice to all of 
        our members to engage in a process that can only result 
        in cosmetic changes with no ability to bring cost 
        effectiveness and ``common sense'' to the program. We 
        would be irresponsible to accept a process that has the 
        potential to subject our members to a burdensome and 
        costly mandate determined by those who have neither the 
        responsibility for implementing nor financing such a 
        mandate.
          * * * * * * *
          Rather than proposing to broaden the program, EPA 
        should be requesting funding to determine whether the 
        objectives of the stormwater program are achievable and 
        if so how and at what cost relative to the benefits. 
        EPA should be asking Congress for immediate action to 
        delay further expansion of the program to additional 
        communities.

The new State stormwater management program created by section 
322 of the bill addresses the concerns of these public sector 
groups.

                  Flexibility and Increased State Role

    Many parties testified on the need to increase State and 
local flexibility to prevent the Act from imposing ``one-size-
fits-all'' standards and requirements that do not reflect 
regional and local differences. Flexibility is necessary to 
achieve the greatest environmental benefits from scarce 
resources.
    State organizations also have communicated to the Committee 
the need to give States increased flexibility and a greater 
role in implementing the Act to allow States to address real 
risks in a more cost-effective manner.
    In its recent report to Congress on its review of EPA's 
role in setting the nation's environmental priorities the 
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) endorsed both 
increased flexibility and an increased State role in program 
implementation. In particular, the NAPA report recommended that 
both EPA and Congress give more responsibility and 
decisionmaking authority to States and localities.
    The bill responds to this concern in a variety of ways. It 
allows States to take into account the unique nature of streams 
in arid areas when establishing water quality standards. This 
flexibility addresses concerns raised by cities in Arizona and 
other arid areas that are faced with illogical requirements to 
meet water quality standards developed for perennial streams, 
or to monitor for nonexistent pollutants in dry stream beds to 
develop a stormwater permit application.
    The bill allows EPA or States to modify technology-based 
permit requirements to allow dischargers to take pollution 
prevention measures or to engage in pollution trading, provided 
there is reduction in overall discharges and a net 
environmental benefit. This approach is endorsed in the recent 
NAPA report. NAPA recommends that EPA be given the authority to 
allow facilities to go ``beyond compliance'' to implement 
multi-media pollution control measures that depart from 
technology standards. NAPA predicts that the benefits of such 
flexibility in terms of risk reduction and efficiency would be 
substantial.
    The bill also provides relief from in the application of 
secondary treatment requirements for municipal wastewater 
treatment facilities that discharge from ocean outfalls. This 
flexibility addresses concerns expressed by communities faced 
with the prospect of spending billions of dollars for secondary 
treatment that will provide questionable added environmental 
benefit.
    The bill allows municipal treatment works to impose local 
pretreatment limits on facilities that introduce pollutants 
into the treatment works, in lieu of national categorical 
pretreatment standards, provided the treatment works 
demonstrates that it will remain in compliance with its 
effluent limits, sludge quality standards, air emissions 
limits, and all other applicable State requirements. Thus, the 
bill provides relief from otherwise redundant treatment that 
may occur if a facility must install equipment to meet national 
categorical pretreatment standards before discharging to a POTW 
that already has established local pretreatment limits to 
prevent pass-through of toxics and already adequately treats 
the indirect discharger's wastes.
    The nonpoint source and stormwater programs discussed above 
also maximize State flexibility to fashion their State programs 
to meet the national goal of attainment of water quality 
standards.

                           Small Communities

    The impacts of Clean Water Act mandates fall particularly 
hard on small communities. Several provisions of the bill 
relating to funding, technical assistance, and regulatory 
relief address this concern.
    Relating to funding, the bill provides up to $250,000,000 
in grants for wastewater treatment plants at hardship coastal 
communities and communities with a population of 75,000 or 
fewer. The bill requires EPA to issue guidance on simplified 
procedures for communities with populations of 20,000 or fewer 
to obtain assistance from the SRF. Disadvantaged communities 
are eligible for extended repayment schedules of up to 40 years 
and negative interest rates as low as negative 2% on SRF loans. 
States may use up to 2% of SRF grants for technical assistance 
to small communities.
    The bill establishes a technical assistance ``circuit 
rider'' program for rural and small publicly owned treatment 
works (POTWs) and authorizes $10,000,000 for this program.
    The bill provides regulatory relief by allowing EPA or a 
State to modify secondary treatment requirements for POTWs 
serving communities with a population of 20,000 or fewer if the 
effluent is from domestic users and the treatment works has an 
alternative treatment system that is equivalent to secondary 
treatment or that provides an adequate level of protection. 
With this amendment, the Committee intends to allow small 
communities to utilize alternative treatment systems such as 
constructed wetlands, recirculating sand filters, oxidation 
lagoons, and other natural land-based and water-based systems 
to meet the goals of secondary treatment. Again, the NAPA 
report supports this type of flexibility by recommending that 
if a city or county can demonstrate that it can attain or 
exceed required levels of environmental quality or risk 
reduction by non-traditional means, a State should be able to 
approve a plan that achieves this and waive the regulatory 
requirements that make less sense for the community.
    In addition, the provisions of the bill that (1) codify 
EPA's Combined Sewer Overflow Policy to allow permits and 
schedules for compliance with water quality standards from such 
discharges to be modified to allow for long-term control 
strategies of up to 15 years, and, (2) require EPA to develop a 
control policy for sanitary overflows (SSOs), both provide 
interim relief that is particularly important for small 
communities. Finally, the stormwater provisions of the bill 
reform the stormwater program so stormwater discharges from 
communities with populations under 100,000 will be regulated 
under new State Stormwater Management Programs rather than the 
current stormwater permitting program. By repealing section 
402(p), the bill ensures that small communities are no longer 
subject to enforcement actions and citizen suits for failure to 
have a stormwater discharge permit.

               Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis

    In the last twenty-five years, the cost to our citizens of 
complying with environmental regulation has risen dramatically. 
Today, it is estimated that each American household, on 
average, expends $1,500 each year for environmental protection. 
These costs are expected to rise. Under existing legislative 
requirements, society's pollution control costs are expected to 
equal federal defense spending by the year 2000 (see Figure 1). 
Approximately a third of these costs (the most recent EPA 
estimate is $64 billion) are attributable to Clean Water Act 
requirements.


    With resources of this magnitude being obligated to protect 
our nation's water quality it is extremely important that 
policy makers (1) have information that is based on sound 
scientific analyses of potential risks to public health and the 
environment, and (2) weigh the costs of proposed Clean Water 
Act regulations against their benefits before they are 
promulgated. Unfortunately, the current Clean Water Act not 
only does not encourage these activities but, in some cases, it 
precludes them. As Senator Daniel P. Moynihan has stated, 
``Truth be told, I suspect that environmental decisions have 
been based more on feelings than on facts.''
    On February 28, 1995, by a vote of 286 to 141, the House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-
Benefit Act of 1995, placing general requirements on regulatory 
agencies to perform risk assessments and benefit-cost analyses 
before promulgating significant regulations. The Committee 
endorses the application of H.R. 1022 requirements to new Clean 
Water Act regulations and has adopted, in sections 323 and 324 
of this bill, complementary provisions that tailor H.R. 1022 
requirements to Clean Water Act programs. The Committee 
believes these provisions will promote sound regulatory 
decisions and achieve a more rational and coherent allocation 
of society's limited resources.

                             Sound Science

    The Committee also heard repeatedly of the need to ensure 
that Clean Water Act standards and requirements are based on 
sound scientific evidence and principles. One example that was 
brought to the Committee's attention repeatedly is the need to 
update EPA's criteria documents that are used as the basis for 
setting State water quality standards.
    Many EPA criteria, particularly those for metals, are based 
on outdated scientific assumptions. To address this concern, 
the bill requires EPA to update all of its water quality 
criteria within 5 years as necessary to certify that the 
criteria are based on the latest and best scientific knowledge, 
beginning with metals, which must be updated within one year.

                                Wetlands

    Section 404 of the Clean Water Act was originally designed 
to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into 
``navigable waters'' at specified disposal sites. However, over 
time (and without significant change in statutory authority) 
the scope of the section 404 program, especially in terms of 
the types of activities regulated and the geographical extent 
of jurisdiction, expanded well beyond the original 
congressional intent. As a result of a myriad of judicial 
interpretations and administrative decisions, the program has 
become one of the most complex, controversial and burdensome 
aspects of the Clean Water Act. As a result, the program 
suffers from lack of public understanding, widespread 
opposition, and wide-ranging calls for reform.
    At the same time, the nation has come to better understand 
and appreciate the benefits to the aquatic environment that 
could be achieved under section 404, especially through 
preservation of truly valuable wetlands functions. 
Unfortunately, the program as it now exists often results in 
extraordinary delays and costs; a disregard of private property 
rights; overzealous and inconsistent application by the 
government; a lack of public awareness of and input to changing 
government policies; and bickering among the Federal agencies 
running the program.
    Title VIII of the bill will assure that the nation's truly 
valuable aquatic resources are preserved and that regulatory 
burdens on activities that are recurring in nature and have 
minor impacts will be reduced or eliminated. Reforms include 
the following measures.
    Landowners who have their property devalued by regulatory 
actions will be compensated (paid from the regulatory agencies' 
budgets), consistent with H.R. 925, passed by the House of 
Representatives on March 3, 1995.
    The fact that not all wetlands are of equal value will be 
taken into consideration in making regulatory decisions. A high 
degree of protection will be given to the most valuable 
wetlands, but low-value wetlands will not be subject to Federal 
permits. In fact, the type of activities occurring in wetlands 
that are regulated will actually be broadened to assure that 
valuable wetland resources are afforded a high degree of 
protection.
    States will have expanded opportunities and incentives to 
assume all or part of the program and State and local resource 
management programs will be given greater weight.
    Procedural reforms, agency disclosure requirements, and 
administrative appeals will streamline the process, assure 
better public understanding and opportunity for input, and 
assure fairness to applicants.
    Existing provisions intended to minimize or exempt minor, 
routine activities will be updated and expanded.
    Management of the program will be concentrated in a single 
agency for increased consistency, expedited reviews, and 
accountability.

                         Navigational Dredging

    As with wetlands regulation, the regulatory process for 
navigational dredging has degraded to the point that such work 
is delayed for years, often while agencies argue over details 
having little significance.
    Title IX of the bill modifies the regulatory provisions of 
the Ocean Dumping Act to assign responsibility for implementing 
those provisions to the Secretary of the Army, acting through 
the Chief of Engineers, consistent with the approach taken in 
Title VIII. Procedures for navigational dredging will be 
streamlined while preserving existing public review and 
environmental safeguards.

  Discussion of the Committee Bill (H.R. 961) and Section-by-Section 
                                Analysis

                 title i--research and related programs

Section 101. National goals and policies

    Section 101 of the bill identifies additional national 
goals and policies of the Clean Water Act. These additional 
goals and policies embody many of the general themes throughout 
H.R. 961: devolution and deference to State and local 
governments, increased emphasis on risk-based and market-based 
approaches, and more resources toward nonpoint and other ``wet 
weather flow'' issues.
    Subsection (a) adds nonpoint source pollution goals and 
policies by stating that it is the national policy that 
programs, including public and private sector programs using 
economic incentives, for the control of nonpoint sources of 
pollution, including stormwater, be developed and implemented 
in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of the Act 
to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint 
sources of pollution.
    In endorsing economic incentives and voluntary initiatives 
as viable options to control nonpoint sources, the Committee 
was particularly mindful of recommendations soon to be formally 
announced by the National Forum on Nonpoint Source Pollution. 
Convened over a year ago by the Conservation Fund and the 
National Geographical Society, the Forum includes prominent 
environmentalists and EPA senior management as well as 
Governors with leadership roles in the National Governors 
Association, agribusiness executives, and farmers. The Forum, 
recognizing the limited applicability of ``command-and-
control'' regulations to diffuse sources of contaminated 
runoff, recommends that economic incentives, voluntary 
initiatives and education play leading roles in a revitalized 
national effort to curb excessive nonpoint source pollution.
    A few examples from the Forum's recommendations illustrate 
the types of economic or market ``incentives'' that could be 
employed to reduce nonpoint source pollution. Incentives can be 
defined to include actions or policies which either encourage 
and reward, or discourage and penalize, certain behavior but 
which, unlike regulations, do not legally force or prohibit it. 
One such Forum-proposed market incentive is the nonpoint 
source-oriented water quality monitoring which section 102 of 
the bill calls for EPA and cooperating agencies to conduct. 
Other examples include preferential lending rates by financial 
institutions, preferential premiums by insurance carriers, and 
preferential property tax rates by local governments reserved 
for agricultural or other nonpoint enterprises that implement 
``best management practices'' to minimize nonpoint pollution. 
Another example is the pollution reduction ``trading'' 
agreement between a point and nonpoint source authorized in 
section 302 of the bill.
    Subsection (b) addresses the respective roles of State, 
Tribal, and local governments in implementing the statute by 
stating that it is the national policy to recognize, support 
and enhance the role of the State, Tribal and local governments 
in carrying out the purposes of the Act. Generally, most of the 
success of the Clean Water Act depends on a ``bottom-up'' 
rather than ``top-down'' approach to water pollution control.
    Subsection (c) States that it is the national policy to 
encourage reclamation and beneficial reuse of wastewater and 
biosolids. H.R. 961, like previous reauthorization bills, 
recognizes the importance of and need for wastewater 
reclamation and beneficial reuse. The beneficial recycling of 
``biosolids'' (a new term used in the bill and to be included 
in amended section 405 of the Act) is an environmentally and 
scientifically sound practice that, among other things, can 
conserve water and improve soil fertility.
    Subsection (d) states that it is the national policy to 
encourage water use efficiency. H.R. 961, like the existing 
Clean Water Act, recognizes that water use efficiency and water 
conservation can be integrally related to water quality. The 
Committee has received an abundance of testimony over the years 
from wastewater treatment officials, water quality regulators, 
environmental organizations, and others on this issue. H.R. 961 
encourages, but does not require, water use efficiency.
    Subsection (e) states that it is the national policy that 
the development and implementation of water quality protection 
programs pursuant to this Act be based on scientifically 
objective and unbiased information concerning the nature and 
magnitude of risk and maximize net benefits to society in order 
to promote sound regulatory decisions and promote the rational 
and coherent allocation of society's limited resources. 
Sections 323 and 324 of the bill implement this policy by 
requiring EPA to perform risk assessments and to certify that 
regulations, other than water quality standards and criteria, 
maximize net benefits. Recognizing that the overall objective 
of the statute is the restoration and maintenance of the 
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our nation's 
waters, the bill only requires that the costs of EPA developed 
water quality standards be reasonably related to the benefits 
(including, of course, achieving the objective of the statute). 
It does not require that costs be taken into account in 
establishing water quality criteria. It also does not require 
that the quantified benefits exceed the quantified costs.

Section 102. Research, investigations, training, and information

    National Programs. Section 102(a) provides that national 
programs created for the prevention, reduction and elimination 
of pollution, in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, 
and local agencies, are to conduct, promote, and encourage 
monitoring and measurement of water quality. These programs are 
to employ means and methods which will assist Federal, State 
and local agencies to identify relative contributions of 
particular nonpoint sources into those watersheds which are 
significantly affected by nonpoint sources of pollution.
    Based upon a recommendation of the National Forum on 
Nonpoint Source Pollution, the bill calls upon EPA and 
cooperating agencies at all levels of government to deploy 
water quality monitors in nonpoint source-influenced watersheds 
so that these monitors can help to identify the relative 
contributions of significant individual nonpoint sources. Most 
existing monitors were not sited with this objective in mind. 
The potential value of this approach is great and the need 
enormous. Without the most rudimentary information to 
distinguish sources which are significant contributors to water 
quality problems in a watershed from those which are not, both 
individual source owners and public officials have a limited 
foundation on which to base the voluntary actions, incentive 
measures, or regulation which may be appropriate. The Forum 
considered an example in the Midwest where the availability of 
such source-specific information surprised all concerned by 
showing one source to be the main contributor to the 
watershed's water quality problem--prompting the source owner 
to undertake voluntary corrective action.
    Grants to Local Government. Section 102(b) makes local 
governments eligible for grants under Section 104(b)(3) of the 
CWA. Local entities are key members to a successful partnership 
in combatting water pollution.
    Technical Assistance for Rural and Small Treatment Works. 
The Committee recognizes the financially burdensome situation 
facing the rural and small treatment works of our nation in 
their efforts to improve the water quality of the communities 
which they serve. Section 102(c) authorizes the EPA to make 
grants to nonprofit organizations for the purposes of providing 
technical assistance and training to rural and small, POTWs 
through a ``circuit rider'' program modelled after the 
``circuit rider'' program for drinking water systems under the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. The Committee intends, for purposes of 
this program, that ``rural and small'' shall mean communities 
with populations of 20,000 or less. Technical assistance is 
important to ensure the effective use of scarce funding, and 
can lead to less costly resolutions to water quality problems. 
Additionally, for the purposes of providing a complete and 
thorough support program, these organizations are directed to 
disseminate information to rural, small and disadvantaged 
communities with respect to the construction and operation of 
treatment works.
    Wastewater Treatment in Impoverished Communities. Section 
102(d) authorizes $50 million per year for fiscal years 1996 
through 2000 for EPA to award grants to the States for funding 
the planning, design and construction of POTWs in small, 
impoverished communities of 3,000 people or less that lack 
centralized sewage treatment systems and are severely 
economically disadvantaged.
    In communities with these circumstances, the committee 
believes the award of federal grant monies is justified for the 
protection of human health and the environment, and as further 
insurance for the Government's investment, grant monies may be 
used for training, technical assistance and educational 
programs relating to the operation and maintenance of such 
sanitation services.
    Despite enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act of 1972 and the expenditure of billions in federal funds 
for the construction of OPTWs, thousands of small communities 
still are not served by central wastewater treatment facilities 
today. Many small impoverished communities lack the resources 
even to repay low or zero-interest loans under the current SRF 
structure. Without financial assistance, untreated human sewage 
will continue to flow from pipes and seep from poorly 
functioning septic systems and privies, posing human health and 
environmental risks.
    The Committee anticipates working closely with the 
Administrator to develop appropriate criteria regarding 
``severely economically disadvantaged.''
    Authorization of Appropriations. Section 102(e) 
demonstrates the Committee's recognition of the importance of 
adequate funding to continue research, investigation and 
training in the areas of pollution prevention; and ensures that 
sound scientific information is available to all communities 
for addressing pollution problems. For instance, these funds 
could be used for research and technical guidance to reduce 
pollution from stormwater. This provision authorizes $50 
million per year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for grants 
to agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals for 
the purposes of research, investigation, experiments, training, 
relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, 
and elimination of pollution. One such recipient could 
certainly include the Water Environmental Research Foundation. 
These grants also are to be used for providing technical 
assistance to rural and small treatment works, except that no 
less than 20 percent of these sums shall be made available for 
providing technical assistance to rural and small treatment 
works.

Section 103. State management assistance

    Section 103 authorizes $150 million per year for fiscal 
years 1996 through 2000 under section 106 of the Act to assist 
States in administering State water pollution control programs 
and allowing the use of such funds to finance studies and 
projects on an interstate basis. This authorization is twice 
the amount historically authorized under this section. By this 
increase the Committee recognizes the Federal government's 
responsibility to fund currently mandated Clean Water Act 
requirements and support the additional burdens required under 
this legislation, such as the development and implementation of 
stormwater management programs under section 322, and the 
administration of State-delegated wetlands permitting programs 
under section 404.

Section 104. Mine water pollution control

    Section 104 establishes a demonstration program to 
illustrate the efficacy of measures to be used for abatement 
and treatment of the effects of acidic and other toxic mine 
drainage. The purpose of these measures is to restore the 
biological integrity of waters within the areas affected by 
past coal mining practices. Both States and Federal entities 
may apply for grants pursuant to this section.

Section 105. Water sanitation in rural and Native Alaska villages

    Section 105 authorizes $25 million, to be distributed 
through grants by the Administrator, for the purposes of 
developing and constructing sanitation facilities for rural and 
Native Alaska villages; and for providing training, technical 
assistance and educational programs relating to these 
sanitation services. Additionally, the funds may also be used 
for reasonable costs of administering and managing the grants; 
however, funds used for costs should not exceed four percent of 
the grant.

Section 106. Authorization of appropriations for Chesapeake program

    Section 106 authorizes $3 million per year for fiscal years 
1996 through 2000 for the Chesapeake Bay Program, and $18 
million per year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for 
interstate development plan grants under the Chesapeake Bay 
program.

Section 107. Great Lakes management

    Great Lakes Research Council. Section 107(a) establishes a 
council to promote the coordination of Federal Great Lakes 
research activities. The Great Lakes are unique and valuable 
national asset as one of the largest fresh water repository 
systems in the world, supporting a vast ecosystem. The Great 
Lakes not only provide an important source of drinking water 
for the region, but also provide recreational and industrial 
opportunities for the nation. The council will facilitate State 
and Federal efforts to preserve the integrity of the Great 
Lakes System through the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality 
Agreement.
    Consistency of Programs With Federal Guidance. Section 
107(b) amends section 118(c)(2)(C) of the Act by adding a new 
sentence to provide that, for purposes of the Great Lakes 
Initiative, a State's standards, procedures and policies shall 
be consistent with EPA guidance if they are based on 
scientifically defensible judgments and policy choices made by 
the State. These standards, procedures and policies should be 
made by the State after considering the guidance, and should 
provide an overall level of protection comparable to that 
provided by the guidance, taking into account the specific 
circumstances of the State's waters.
    Currently, section 118(c)(2) of the CWA directs EPA to 
publish proposed water quality guidance for the Great Lakes 
System. Within two years after the final guidance is published 
by EPA, Great Lakes States must adopt water quality standards, 
antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for 
waters within the Great Lakes System, which are consistent with 
such guidance. If a State does not do so within two years, EPA 
shall promulgate them for that State.
    On March 13, 1995, EPA issued the Final Water Quality 
Guidance for the Great Lakes System, also known as the ``Great 
Lakes initiative'' or ``GLI.'' (60 Fed. Reg. 15366, March 23, 
1995). Many witnesses testified that the final GLI goes 
considerably beyond the statutory requirement of section 
118(c)(2) that EPA issue ``guidance,'' and restricts the 
ability of the States to make their own judgments about the 
most effective way to achieve the laudable goal of protecting 
the Great Lakes System.
    H.R. 961 clarifies the intent of the statutory requirement 
that State's adopt water quality programs for a State 
``consistent with GLI.'' A State's program would be considered 
``consistent'' if (1) it was based on scientifically defensible 
judgments and policy choices made by the State after taking the 
GLI into account, and (2) if it provides an overall level of 
protection comparable to that provided by the GLI. It is not 
intended, nor should the effect of the amendment be, that any 
Great Lake State be relieved of its responsibility to develop 
and implement an effective water quality program. One of the 
principles behind the GLI is the benefit of uniformity among 
the various Great Lakes States.
    However, the current GLI places an extremely high burden on 
a State that proposes to adopt a requirement in its water 
quality program that differs from the corresponding GLI 
requirement. Section 132.4(h) of the GLI appears to provide 
that, for pollutants regulated under the GLI, a State must 
demonstrate that the GLI requirement is ``not scientifically 
defensible'' before it adopts a different water quality 
criteria or implementation procedure. Given the deference 
courts usually afford EPA on technical matters, States may face 
an almost impossible burden in developing alternative 
requirements that are protective of human health and the 
environment when a State's specific water quality circumstances 
are taken into account. The bill would provide greater 
flexibility but retain accountability to continue protecting 
and improving water quality.
    The phrase ``overall level of protection comparable to that 
provided by the guidance,'' clarifies that a State's program 
does not need to provide the identical level of protection on a 
provision by provision basis as that afforded by the GLI, to be 
considered ``consistent with'' the GLI. Section 132.5(g)(3) of 
the GLI requires that each and every element of a State's water 
quality program must be as protective as the corresponding 
element in the GLI for a State's water quality program to be 
deemed ``consistent with'' the GLI. States should be permitted 
to demonstrate to EPA that, overall, their programs provide a 
comparable level of protection, even if particular elements of 
a State's program are not adopted from the GLI. The bill 
provides the States with the ability to make this 
demonstration.
    Finally, the bill specifies that when EPA is evaluating 
whether the State's program is consistent with the GLI, EPA 
must take ``into account the specific circumstances of the 
State's waters.'' The GLI allows States limited ability to take 
sit-specific circumstances into account in the development of 
their programs, and even then, only with respect to the 
adoption or development of water quality criteria or values. 
The GLI should permit a State to demonstrate that the specific 
circumstances of the State's waters justify different 
requirements in other elements of the State's water quality 
programs--not just in the adoption or development of criteria 
or values. The bill would allow the States to develop their 
implementation procedures in a manner that appropriately 
addresses the States' specific water quality situations.
    In short, EPA's final GLI, while a considerable improvement 
over earlier proposals, is still very restrictive and does not 
provide the States with sufficient flexibility to tailor their 
water quality programs to their needs. The bill remedies these 
deficiencies, while providing an appropriate level of 
environmental protection and keeping in place a mechanism to 
significantly improve water quality.
    Reauthorization of Assessment and Remediation of 
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. Section 107(c) 
authorizes $3.5 million per year for fiscal years 1996 through 
2000 for the ARCS program and $1 million per year for fiscal 
years 1996 through 2000 for technical assistance. Initially, 
the Administrator of EPA, in consultation with the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army, is directed to conduct three projects 
involving promising technologies and practices to remedy 
contaminated sediments at sites in the Great Lakes System. The 
Administrator also has the discretion to expand the number of 
projects.
    Authorization of Appropriations. Section 107(d) authorizes 
$4 million per year for fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998, for 
the health research report identified in section 118 of the 
Act. Additionally, the bill provides an authorization of $17.5 
million per year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for the 
Great Lakes Programs.

                     title ii--construction grants

Section 201. Uses of funds

    Subsection (a) removes the limitation in existing law that 
no more than 20 percent of a State's SRF financing may be 
obligated to correct combined sewer overflows, construct 
collector sewer projects, and correct infiltration inflow.
    Subsection (b) requires EPA, with the concurrence of the 
States, to develop procedures to facilitate and expedite the 
retroactivity and provision of grant funding for facilities 
already under construction.

Section 202. Administration of closeout of construction grant program

    This section allows EPA to negotiate a budget with States 
for using grant funds to administer the closeout of the 
construction grant program.

Section 203. Sewage collection systems

    Section 203 expands funding eligibility for sewage 
collection systems in existence after 1972 but prior to the 
date of enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995.

Section 204. Treatment works defined

    Subsection (a) amends the definition of ``treatment works'' 
under section 212 of the Act to clarify that the existing 
definition includes all land acquisition necessary for 
construction of the treatment works. This unambiguously makes 
such costs eligible for funding under the SRF program.
    Subsection (b) is a technical correction to remove 
unnecessary language in section 218 of the Act relating to cost 
effectiveness.

Section 205. Value engineering review

    Section 205 raises the threshold for requiring value 
engineering review for a project from $10 million to $25 
million.

Section 206. Grants for wastewater treatment

    Section 206 authorizes $300 million for fiscal year 1996 
(if the total amount appropriated to carry out Title VI of the 
Act is at least $3 billion in fiscal year 1996) for grants to 
(1) coastal localities including, but not limited to, New 
Orleans, Louisiana, coastal localities in Bristol County, 
Massachusetts, and other coastal localities meeting certain 
needs and hardship conditions and (2) small communities for the 
purpose of constructing treatment works.
    In many cases, funds authorized in this section will be 
used for responding to combined sewer overflows (CSOs). 
Construction of CSO control facilities is costly and local 
communities currently bear most of the cost. EPA conservatively 
estimates that CSO construction needs are presently $42 billion 
depending on case-by-case permit decisions yet to be made by 
the Agency or delegated to States under the National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System permit program. These costs will 
have a major impact on local governments and their sewer 
ratepayers.
    Much of the initial CSO permitting and construction effort 
focuses on coastal areas. The cities of Richmond and Lynchburg, 
Virginia, for instance, have developed and are implementing CSO 
control plans based on individual consent orders to comply with 
the Clean Water Act's CSO control requirements. Both city 
discharges influence the Chesapeake Bay. The Committee intends 
that some of the funds authorized in this section be available, 
on an equal basis, to Richmond and Lynchburg. Lynchburg's 
required program totals $250 million for 16,000 customers 
resulting in rates of 1.25 percent of median household income 
by 1998. Richmond's control program totals $400 million which 
will result in rates of 1.8 percent of median household income. 
These construction programs include innovative and alternative 
control features that will be of use to other communities in 
planning and designing least cost CSO facilities.

                  title iii--standards and enforcement

    Title III of the bill includes the provisions that amend 
Title III of the Clean Water Act. Title III of the Act 
addresses standards, effluent limitations, pretreatment 
standards, inspections, and enforcement.

Section 301. Effluent limitations

    Compliance Schedules. Section (a) amends section 301(b) of 
the Act to replace obsolete deadlines for compliance with 
effluent limitations with a three-year deadline. This section 
has prospective effect only and does not affect any past or 
pending enforcement actions.
    Modifications for Nonconventional Pollutants. Section (b) 
amends section 301(g) of the Act to remove the requirement that 
EPA first list a pollutant before the permitting authority (EPA 
or a State) may use the flexibility provided under section 
301(g) to allow a permittee to comply with Best Practicable 
Control Technology or water quality standards (whichever is 
applicable) is lieu of Best Available Technology. The 
demonstrations a permittee must make before it is eligible for 
such a modification are not amended.
    Since 1977, the Act has contained authority for a permit 
holder to receive a site-specific variance from Best Available 
Technology limitations for nonconventional pollutants, where 
the discharger demonstrates that less stringent limitations are 
sufficient to protect water quality and designated uses. In 
essence, this is a provision to prevent ``treatment for 
treatment's sake.'' This provision has been used very 
infrequently, however, in part because in 1987 Congress 
restricted the variance to five listed pollutants and any 
others that EPA adds to that list. To date, no pollutants have 
been added. Because this variance is applied on a case-by-case 
basis, it is not necessary to restrict it to certain 
pollutants.
    The Committee expects the permitting authority to subject 
any requests for a variance under this section to careful 
review to ensure that the permittee qualifies for the variance.
    Coal Remining. Section (c) amends section 301(p) of the Act 
to allow EPA or a State to make modifications to effluent 
limitations in permits for coal remining even if the remining 
operation exceeds State water quality standards if (1) the 
receiving waters do not meet water quality standards prior to 
remining and (2) as part of its permit application, the 
applicant submits a plan which demonstrates that identified 
measures will be utilized to improve the existing quality of 
the receiving water.
    This provision removes a barrier to remining operations 
that can be environmentally beneficial by reducing pollutants 
in discharges from former mining operations, thereby improving 
water quality.
    Preexisting Coal Remining Operations. Section (d) amends 
section 301(p) to provide that operators of a coal remining 
operation that commenced remining prior to the adoption of 
section 301(p) in a State program approved under section 402 
are deemed to be in compliance with sections 301, 302, 306, 
307, and 402 of this Act if (1) the post-mining discharges from 
the operation are the same or better than discharges prior to 
the coal remining operation and (2) the remining was conducted 
under a Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act permit.

Section 302. Pollution prevention opportunities

    The current system of command and control regulation has 
gone about as far as it can go in making major gains for the 
environment, and more creative solutions are needed to deal 
with the problems that remain. Pollution prevention, or not 
generating waste in the first place, is one approach to 
continuing environmental improvements.
    One of the most frequent complaints heard by the Committee 
during its consideration of the bill relates to the ``one-size-
fits-all'' requirements of the Clean Water Act. Through its 
rigid application of numerical and technology-based standards 
applicable at the end of the pipe, the Clean Water Act 
currently does not encourage multi-pollution prevention 
efforts. The ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to environmental 
standards was effective when most sources of pollution were 
uncontrolled. Now, with typical control technologies achieving 
95 to over 99 percent efficiency, the cost of achieving the 
last increment can be astronomical relative to the benefits 
derived. And, with its focus on one media alone, the Clean 
Water Act misses opportunities to rationalize the controls it 
imposes, so benefits across all media can be missed. Section 
302 of the bill amends the Clean Water Act to provide 
additional flexibility to allow permittees to engage in 
pollution prevention measures that are environmentally 
beneficial.
    In reviewing requests for the permit modifications provided 
for under this section, the Committee expects the permitting 
authority to subject any such requests to careful review to 
ensure that the permittee qualifies for the modification. In 
determining whether the modification will result in an overall 
net environmental benefit, the Committee expects the permitting 
authority to examine both acute and chronic effects on water 
quality. Through the permitting process, the public will have 
an opportunity to review and comment on any proposed 
modification. In addition, EPA retains the authority even in 
delegated States to review and, if appropriate, disapprove 
State permits. Accordingly, only those permit modifications 
that truly result in an environmental benefit should be 
authorized.
    Innovative Production Processes. Under section 301(k) of 
the current Act, EPA or a State may provide a waiver of a 
technology-based effluent limitation if the permittee proposes 
to develop and use an innovative pollution prevention 
technology in accordance with standards set out in that 
section. Section (a) amends section 301(k) to extend these 
innovative technology waivers from 2 to 3 years. This section 
also authorizes EPA or the State to make other appropriate 
modifications to permit conditions to implement the innovative 
pollution prevention technology. In addition, this section 
directs a court or EPA to take into account a permittee's good 
faith efforts to implement the innovative technology to reduce 
or eliminate any penalties for violations caused by the 
unexpected failure of the innovative technology. Finally, this 
section requires EPA to publish a report on innovative 
technologies. In implementing this section, the Committee 
intends the permitting authority to condition the permit upon 
implementation of the innovative pollution control technology 
that is designed to achieve the standards set forth in this 
section. The Committee does not intend the permitting authority 
to impose any permit limitations for pollutants in media other 
than water.
    Pollution Prevention Programs. Section (b) adds a new 
section 301(q) to the Act to authorize EPA or the State to 
modify technology-based standards in a permit or pretreatment 
program, where the permitting authority determines that 
pollution prevention measures taken by the source will achieve 
an overall reduction in emissions to the environment from the 
facility (including offsetting reductions in the discharge of 
pollutants by that source to other environmental media) that is 
(1) beyond that required by law, (2) greater than would 
otherwise be achievable, and (3) will result in an overall net 
benefit to the environment.
    The modification to the permit (or pretreatment program) 
may be extended beyond its initial term of 10 years. However, 
if the permitting authority does not extend the permit 
modification, the permittee shall have a reasonable period to 
time, not to exceed 2 years to come into compliance with 
otherwise applicable requirements of the Act.
    The Committee intends to provide the permitting authority 
with the flexibility to make appropriate adjustments to a 
permit to the extent necessary to allow an environmentally 
beneficial pollution prevention project to go forward. For 
example, a plant in Louisiana developed a multimedia pollution 
prevention project that would have avoided a costly expansion 
of its end-of-pipe wastewater treatment system to meet 
limitations for Total Suspended Solids. The project would have 
recovered 40,000 pounds of product each day, reduced land 
disposal by 3,000 pounds a day, cut air emissions and saved 
energy. However, pilot studies showed that while the rigid 
numerical standard for Total Suspended Solids could be met 
under most weather conditions, the engineers could not 
guarantee that the system would meet the standard 100 percent 
of the time. A very cold day in Louisiana might cause the limit 
to be exceeded by an environmentally insignificant amount. The 
plant could not take the risk of going forward with the project 
without the certainty of meeting the standard.
    Because the Act does not currently give permitting 
authorities any flexibility with respect to effluent 
limitations, this innovative solution could not be implemented. 
Under the bill, the permitting authority could condition the 
permit on implementation of this pollution prevention project 
and revise the standard for Total Suspended Solids in the 
permit to the level attainable by that project.
    In a report of the National Advisory Council for 
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), industry and 
environmentalists agreed that the Clean Water effluent 
guidelines process must be more flexible, and must impart the 
pollution prevention mindset. Business and environmental 
leaders have been struggling with this issue for some time. 
While they may not agree on the approach, they agree that 
environmental standards should be set in ways that encourage 
pollution prevention strategies. H.R. 961 has recognized this 
issue by allowing the Administrator, or authorized State, to 
modify the technology-based requirements of a section 402 
permit if pollution prevention measures or practices will 
result in greater overall reductions in emissions to the 
environment than would be otherwise achievable under the 
existing command-and-control regime.
    For the purposes of this section, the term ``pollution 
prevention measures or practices (including recycling, source 
reduction and other measures to reduce discharges or other 
releases to the environment beyond those otherwise required by 
law)'' is intended to allow dischargers the maximum flexibility 
to choose measures that provide the greatest opportunity for 
cost-effective improvements in environmental performance. The 
Agency is not expected to define or limit by regulations what 
measures will qualify. In addition, this section does not 
authorize the permitting authority to mandate particular 
measures or practices beyond those required by law in a permit 
without the consent of the permittee.
    Because new Section 301(q) only amends the Clean Water Act, 
it may only be used to modify a Clean Water permit limit. It 
does not provide authority for modification of any requirement 
under another statute and does not provide authority to impose 
limits on pollutants in media other than water. This action 
represents the limits of this Committee's jurisdiction. It 
should not be viewed as indicating opposition to a broader 
flexibility provision that would allow for modifications such 
as those available under 301(q) for other requirements of other 
environmental statutes, or multi-media permits.
    The concept of ``overall net benefit to the environment'' 
means that a facility can comply with the Act by implementing 
technology that can achieve greater net reductions in releases, 
waste generation, or health or environmental risk either in a 
single medium or across several media, than would otherwise be 
achieved in the aggregate under existing requirements. The 
assessment of net benefits should not require an exhaustive 
risk analysis, but the risk reduction consequences of proposed 
measures should be compared to those under the otherwise 
required measures. It will be left to the permitting 
authority's discretion to determine whether a discharger's 
proposed pollution prevention measure will result in an overall 
net benefit to the environment. The Committee fully expects EPA 
to issue guidance to permit writers to help them make these 
determinations. The Committee believes, however, that the 
facility should be free to demonstrate to the satisfaction of 
the permitting authority a verifiable means of measuring the 
net benefits. By not specifying a formula for such 
determinations, however, it is expected that innovative 
techniques will more rapidly develop.
    Pollution Reduction Agreements. Section (c) adds a new 
section 301(r) to the Act that authorizes EPA or the State to 
modify a permit (or a pretreatment program) where the 
permitting authority determines that the permittee has entered 
into a binding contractual agreement with another source within 
a watershed to implement pollution reduction measures beyond 
those required by law such that there will be an overall 
reduction in discharges to the watershed that is greater than 
would otherwise be achievable and resulting in a net benefit to 
the watershed.
    If a proposed trading agreement will result discharges into 
a watershed that is within the jurisdiction of two or more 
States, the permitting authority must notify the affected 
States or the proposed permit modification. An affected State 
may disapprove the proposed trading agreement if it acts within 
90 days of receiving such notice.
    New section 301(r) is intended to further promote 
innovative approaches to pollution prevention, either 
separately or in conjunction with new section 301(q). New 
section 301(r) allows a source to enter into a binding 
contractual agreement with another source in the same watershed 
to gain greater reductions in discharges to the watershed than 
would otherwise be achieved.
    The President's ``Reinventing Environmental Regulation'' 
initiative calls for an effluent trading program ``as a cost-
effective approach for reducing water pollution.'' The 
Administration estimates the potential cost savings for three 
types of effluent trading:
          $611 million to $5.6 billion for point source/
        nonpoint source trading;
          $8.4 million to $1.9 billion for point source/point 
        source trading;
          $658 million to $7.5 billion for trading among 
        indirect dischargers.
    Further reductions from sources that are already well-
controlled can be extremely expensive when compared to the 
environmental benefit achieved. Often reduction opportunities 
from less well controlled sources, such as certain nonpoint 
sources, are greater, and can be achieved far more cheaply. 
This provision will give EPA, the States, and sources the 
flexibility to explore the most cost-effective solutions to 
water pollution problems. This in turn, will increase actual 
progress in improving water quality.
    Antibacksliding. Section (d) amends section 402(o) of the 
Act to exempt pollution prevention programs, pollution 
reduction agreements and certain pollution prevention or water 
conservation measures from antibacksliding provisions.
    The current antibacksliding prohibition in section 402(o) 
generally prohibits the renewal or modification of a discharge 
permit to contain a less stringent effluent limitation. The 
provision is a barrier to changes in permit limitations that 
actually produce a net benefit to the environment.
    Types of pollution prevention activities for which 
antibacksliding barriers have been raised include utilizing 
treated wastewater as cooling water or substituting one process 
chemical for a less toxic one. In the first case, the use of 
treated wastewater as cooling water could require an increase 
in permit limitations for the cooling water discharge, to 
reflect pollutants in the treated wastewater (which would be 
discharged to surface waters anyway). In the second case, 
substituting a detergent cleaning process for chlorinated 
solvent cleaning would require an increase in a permit 
limitation for phosphate, even though the permitted discharge 
of the more toxic solvent would decrease. While these types of 
changes might fall within one of the current exemptions to 
section 402(o), this amendment assures that the antibacksliding 
prohibition does not discourage pollution prevention measures.
    Antidegradation Review. Section (d) amends section 303(d) 
to preclude EPA from requiring a State to perform an 
antidegradation review in the case of increased discharges 
resulting from permit modifications for nonconventional 
pollutants under section 301(g), to encourage innovative 
technologies under section 301(k), for pollution prevention 
programs under new section 301(q), for pollution reduction 
agreements under new section 301(r), and for POTWs serving 
populations of 20,000 people or fewer under new section 301(t).
    EPA's current antidegradation policy regulations require a 
special review of actions that result in ``degradation'' or 
``lowering of water quality.'' In some instances this has been 
interpreted very broadly to include any increase in any permit 
limitation, even though the overall impact on water quality is 
beneficial or insignificant. Steps to increase water recycling 
and decrease consumptive uses of water may be subjected to 
antidegradation review because they result in an increase in 
the concentration of a pollutant in the discharge, even though 
the mass of the pollutant discharged remains the same or 
decreases.
    The amendment does not preclude a State from conducting an 
antidegradation review if it so chooses. Instead, the amendment 
restores the State's primary responsibility for ensuring that 
water quality is protected.
    Innovative Pretreatment Production Processes, Technologies, 
and Methods. Section (f) amends section 307(e) to make changes 
to the existing pretreatment innovative technology waiver 
similar to those made to the general innovative technology 
waiver under section 302(a) of the bill.

Section 303. Water quality standards and implementation plans

    No Reasonable Relationship. Subsection (a) amends section 
303(b) of the Act of preclude EPA from establishing a water 
quality standard under 303(b) where the costs of attaining such 
a standard are not reasonably related to the anticipated 
benefits.
    This cost-benefit test applies to EPA only. No requirement 
of any cost-benefit analysis is placed on the State water 
quality standard setting process.
    Revision of State Standards. Subsection (b) amends section 
303(c) of the Act to make certain revisions to the process by 
which States set water quality standards.
    First, an amendment to section 303(c)(1) revises the 
timetable for State review of water quality standards from 
three years to five years. In addition, this amendment requires 
a State to initiate review of a State water quality standard 
that includes criteria that are revised by EPA, within 180 days 
of such revision. The amendment only requires States to hold a 
public hearing initiating the review process within the 180 day 
time period specified in the bill. The Committee does not 
expect a State to complete a revision of a State water quality 
standard (if the State determines such revision is necessary) 
within 180 days. Nor does it require a State to complete the 
review process after the public hearing if the State determines 
that revision of its State water quality standard is not 
appropriate.
    Second, section 303(c)(2) is amended to allow States to 
consider costs and benefits when setting water quality 
standards. In addition, this section is amended to require 
States, when reviewing a State water quality standard that 
contains criteria which EPA has revised since the date of 
enactment of this bill, to include in any administrative record 
required under State law a copy of the EPA's estimate of the 
cost of complying with the revised criteria (that section 
307(c) of the bill requires EPA to develop), if available. The 
State administrative record also shall include any comments 
received by the State on the EPA cost estimate during its 
review of its State water quality standard.
    Revision of Designated Uses. Subsection (c) requires EPA to 
amend its regulations regarding designation of uses of waters 
by States. For State waters that are not attaining their 
designated uses, EPA must amend its regulations to allow a 
State to modify the designated use of such waters if the State 
determines that attainment of the designated use is infeasible 
(as defined by the Administrator), or if the State determines 
that the costs of achieving the designated use are not 
justified by the benefits. For State waters that are attaining 
their designated uses, EPA must amend its regulations to allow 
a State to modify the designated use of such a water only if 
the State determines that continued maintenance of water 
quality necessary to support the designated use will result in 
significant social or economic dislocations substantially out 
of proportion to the benefits. This amendment also allows a 
permitting authority to modify water quality based limits in 
permits to conform to any modified designated use.
    This amendment gives States greater flexibility in revising 
the designated uses of receiving waters. This flexibility is 
necessary because, in 1975, EPA required States to designate 
all waters that had not yet been assigned a designed use as 
``fishable, swimmable'' waters. Accordingly, some waters, such 
as certain dry stream beds in the arid west, have been assigned 
totally infeasible designated uses.

Section 304. Use of biological monitoring

    Section 304 of the bill provides important revisions to the 
biological monitoring provisions of section 303(c)(2)(B) of the 
Act. Biological monitoring and whole effluent toxicity testing 
was incorporated into the Clean Water Act in 1987 to provide 
for the detection of toxicity to receiving waters where 
chemical specific criteria were not available. However, in 
implementing this authority, EPA has chosen to use a limited 
number of non-site specific species for use in biological 
monitoring. In addition, EPA's whole effluent toxicity test has 
proven to be inherently unreliable, with a variability of plus 
or minus 30% or greater. Notwithstanding the irrelevance of 
many test species and the variability of the test, EPA has 
chosen to treat each whole effluent toxicity test failure as a 
violation of the Act enforceable by EPA or through citizen 
suits. Thus, dischargers face up to $25,000 per day penalties 
for each test failure when the only way to completely guarantee 
against test failures is to construct highly advanced and 
costly treatment processes such as reverse osmosis.
    Laboratory Biological Monitoring Criteria. To address 
concerns over the relevance and reliability of such testing, 
section 304(a) of the bill amends section 303(c)(2) to require 
criteria for whole effluent toxicity based on laboratory 
biological monitoring or assessment methods to use an aquatic 
species that is indigenous or representative of indigenous and 
relevant to the type of waters covered by such criteria. In 
addition, such criteria must take into account analytical 
variability. The Committee intends to prevent the permitting 
authority from using highly sensitive species that are not 
found in the receiving water ecosystem for whole effluent 
toxicity testing. However, the Committee also recognizes that 
some flexibility is required because if a receiving water is 
degraded, only the most hardy species may remain. Accordingly, 
the Committee intends the permitting authority to use species 
that are representative of species that one finds in a 
receiving water but for the water quality impairment.
    Permit Procedures. To address concern over the 
inappropriate use of biological monitoring or whole effluent 
toxicity testing as enforceable permit conditions, section 
304(b) of the bill adds a new subsection (q) to section 402 to 
specifically address permit conditions relating to biological 
monitoring. Under this new subsection, permits requiring 
biological monitoring or whole effluent toxicity testing must 
include procedures for responding to test failure by 
identifying and reducing, or, where feasible, eliminating, the 
source of toxicity. The new subsection also specifies that the 
failure of a biological monitoring test or whole effluent 
toxicity test will not result in a finding of violation under 
this Act unless the permittee has failed to comply with such 
procedures. Finally, new subsection (q) specifies that a permit 
be written to allow permittees to discontinue response 
procedures if certain conditions are met. If the permittee is a 
POTW, the permittee may discontinue response procedures if the 
source or cause of the toxicity cannot, after a thorough 
investigation, be identified. If the permittee is not a POTW, 
the permittee may discontinue response procedures if the 
permittee performs a field bioassessment study and demonstrates 
that a balanced and healthy population of aquatic species lives 
in the receiving waters affected by the discharge and water 
quality standards (other than the standard for whole effluent 
toxicity) are met for such waters.
    The Committee intends the permit writer to have the 
flexibility to include conditions necessary to protect water 
quality in the permit, within the parameters specified in new 
subsection (q). Response procedures may include testing and 
investigations to identify the source of the toxicity. Once the 
source of toxicity is identified, the response procedures may 
then require reduction of the source of toxicity, or, if 
feasible, elimination of the source of toxicity entirely 
through pollution prevention or source reduction.
    If an industrial discharger cannot identify the source of 
toxicity, the permit conditions may still require that 
discharger to take actions to reduce or eliminate the toxicity 
through treatment or otherwise unless the permittee 
demonstrates that there is no toxicity problem in the receiving 
waters through a field bioassessment study.
    If, however, a POTW cannot identify the source of toxicity 
after a thorough investigation, the permit must allow it to 
discontinue its response procedures. Feasible response 
procedures for POTWs do not include any requirement to install 
treatment technology. This ``off-ramp'' is appropriate for a 
POTW, which does not have complete control over the pollutants 
introduced to its treatment system. A treatment works' toxicity 
test failure may be the result of unintended combinations of 
innocuous substances from household products discharged to 
sewers or illegal discharges beyond the control of the 
treatment works. Toxicity from these types of sources is a 
short-term event. Of course, if the treatment works has another 
test failure the next time it conducts whole effluent toxicity 
testing, the response procedures begin anew.
    Information on Water Quality Criteria. Section 304(c) of 
the bill amends section 304(a)(8) of the Act to ensure that 
information published by EPA on water quality criteria for 
toxicity using biological monitoring and assessment methods is 
consistent with the requirements of section 303(c)(2)(B), as 
amended.

Section 305. Arid areas

    Water bodies in the western, arid part of the United States 
often have very different characteristics from water bodies in 
other parts of the country. The Clean Water Act does not 
currently take into account regional differences. For example, 
in the West there is extensive use of canals for irrigation 
waters and other purposes. Not all of these canals are waters 
of the United States. However, if a canal is a water of the 
United States, flexibility is needed in setting water quality 
standards to allow the canal to serve its intended purpose. In 
addition, some waters in arid areas are not perennial streams. 
These streams have water only seasonally or after a storm 
event. Other streams in arid areas consist entirely of effluent 
much of the year and, but for the effluent, would be dry stream 
beds. This section of the bill provides flexibility to allow 
States to take into account the unique characteristics of the 
arid West when setting water quality standards for these 
waters.
    Constructed Water Conveyances. Section 305(a) of the bill 
amends section 303(c)(2) of the Act to authorize States to take 
into consideration relevant uses, return flow from, 
maintenance, and purposes of constructed water conveyances; and 
State or regional water resources management and water 
conservation plans, when setting water quality standards for 
constructed water conveyances. Nothing in this provision is 
intended to affect any authorities or programs of the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    Criteria and Guidance for Ephemeral and Effluent-Dependent 
Streams. Section 305(b) amends section 304(a) of the Act to 
require EPA to develop and publish criteria for ephemeral and 
effluent-dependent streams and guidance to States for 
developing water quality standards for such streams within 2 
years of enactment, taking into account factors relevant to 
such streams.
    Factors Required to be Considered by Administrator. Section 
305(c) amends section 303(c)(4) of the Act to require EPA to 
take into account relevant factors when revising or adopting 
any new standard for ephemeral or effluent-dependent streams.
    Definitions. Section 305(d) amends section 502 to add 
definitions for effluent-dependent streams, ephemeral streams, 
and constructed water conveyances.

Section 306. Total maximum daily loads

    Currently, section 303(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act 
requires States to calculate a total maximum daily load (TMDL) 
for each receiving water that is not currently meeting 
applicable water quality standards. As a result of this 
statutory language, States have been sued for failure to 
establish TMDLs, even where a State may not have sufficient 
data to do so. In addition, when a State is not able to 
identify all sources of pollution contributing to a violation 
of a water quality standard, EPA requires that the entire load 
reduction necessary to meet water quality standards be assigned 
to point sources in the absence of ``reasonable assurances'' 
that nonpoint source pollution reductions will be achieved.
    The bill amends section 303(d)(1)(C) to provide States with 
greater flexibility in performing TMDLs by giving States the 
authority to determine whether and when a TMDL is necessary to 
achieve further reasonable progress toward the attainment or 
maintenance of water quality standards. States also are 
authorized to consider anticipated load reductions from 
implementation of management practices, stormwater controls or 
other nonpoint or point source controls when establishing 
TMDLs.
    To ensure that, when a State decides to establish a TMDL, 
it does so in a scientifically sound manner, the bill also 
requires States to consider the availability of scientifically 
valid data and information, projected reductions for all 
sources, and cost-effectiveness of control measures when 
establishing TMDLs.

Section 307. Revision of criteria, standards, and limitations

    During consideration of H.R. 961, the Committee heard many 
expressions of concern over the need to ensure that water 
quality criteria, standards, and effluent limitations are based 
on sound science. The amendments in this section of the bill 
address this concern.
    Revision of Water Quality Criteria. Section 307(a) of the 
bill amends section 304(a) of the Act to add factors to be 
reflected in EPA water quality criteria, including what 
organisms are likely to be present in the ecosystem, 
bioavailability of pollutants, exposure required to induce 
adverse effects, and bioaccumulation threat.
    This amendment also requires EPA to certify every 5 years 
that water quality criteria reflect the latest and best 
scientific knowledge. EPA must update all existing criteria 
within 5 years, and ammonia, chronic effluent toxicity, and 
metals within 1 year, as necessary to make this certification. 
Particular concern has been raised regarding metals criteria 
documents. EPA knows that these many of the metals criteria are 
out of date and will result in limitations below what is 
necessary to protect human health and the environment, but has 
not updated these criteria due to other priorities. This 
amendment makes updating metals criteria, as well as criteria 
for ammonia and chronic whole effluent toxicity, a high 
priority for the agency.
    Consideration of Certain Contaminants. Section 307(b) 
amends section 304(a) of the Act to require EPA to consider 
contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act when 
developing and revising water quality criteria.
    Cost Estimate. Section 307(c) amends section 304(a) to 
require EPA, when issuing or revising water quality criteria, 
to develop and publish an estimate of the costs that would 
likely be incurred if sources were required to comply with the 
criteria. The Committee recognizes that EPA will have to make 
assumptions and use model scenarios to develop this cost 
estimates. However, the Committee believes that it is important 
for the public and States to have information regarding costs 
of compliance with water quality criteria when such criteria 
are incorporated into water quality standards. This amendment 
does not require EPA to perform a cost-benefit analysis, nor 
does it require water quality criteria to meet any cost-
effectiveness test. The criteria document and the cost 
information can be two separate, stand-alone documents.
    Revision of Effluent Limitations. Section 307(d) amends 
section 304(b) of the Act. First, this amendment eliminates the 
impracticable requirement that EPA review all of the 
categorical effluent guidelines every year. Second, this 
amendment clarifies that, where Best Practicable Technology 
effluent guidelines have already been published for an 
industrial category, additional, more stringent requirements 
for conventional pollutants can be imposed only if they meet 
the Best Conventional Technology economic reasonableness tests 
currently specified in section 304(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
    In 1977, Congress concluded that Best Practical Technology 
had largely addressed control of industrial discharges of 
conventional pollutants. Additional efforts were focused on 
toxics, but additional conventional pollutant treatment could 
be required if economically reasonable. Recently, in effluent 
guidelines rulemakings for the pulp and paper and 
pharmaceutical manufacturing categories, EPA has suggested that 
it can impose more stringent conventional pollutant limitations 
which do not meet Best Conventional Technology economic 
reasonableness tests, simply by revising Best Practicable 
Technology. This would result in precisely the ``treatment for 
treatment's sake'' that Congress sought to avoid in 1977. As 
Congress concluded in 1977, an industry category should not be 
required to make even further reductions in conventional 
pollutants where the cost is greater than what additional 
removal of the same conventional pollutants would cost at a 
POTW.
    Schedule for Review of Guidelines. Section 307(e) amends 
section 304(m) of the Act to require EPA to identify categories 
of sources for which guidelines under section 304(b)(2) and 
section 306 have not been set, determine which sources have 
discharges that present a significant risk to human health and 
the environment and establish a schedule for issuing effluent 
guidelines for such sources.
    EPA's current effluent guidelines plan is based on a 1992 
consent degree settling a 1989 lawsuit filed by the Natural 
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) against EPA. The consent 
decree lists certain industry categories for which EPA must 
develop effluent guidelines and commits EPA to a schedule for 
conducting preliminary studies, and proposing and issuing 
additional effluent guidelines. In this consent decree, NRDC 
disputed whether EPA has the discretion to decide not to 
proceed with the development of an effluent guideline where EPA 
determines that the guideline would not have the potential to 
significantly reduce risk to human health or the environment. 
NRDC reserved the right to sue EPA again if the agency did not 
issue the guidelines listed in the decree and continue to issue 
additional effluent guidelines on the schedule set forth in the 
decree, even if EPA determined that no significant risk would 
be reduced by issuing those guidelines. This amendment 
supersedes the NRDC consent degree to ensure that EPA has the 
flexibility to, and in fact does, focus its limited resources 
for guidelines development on sources that present a 
significant risk.
    Revision of Pretreatment Requirements. Section 307(f) of 
the bill amends section 304(g) to eliminate the impracticable 
requirement that EPA review all of the categorical pretreatment 
standards every year.
    Central Treatment Facility Exemption. Section 307(g) adds a 
new subsection to section 304 of the Act to codify the existing 
regulatory exemption from effluent guidelines for certain 
central treatment facilities in the Iron and Steel 
Manufacturing Point Source Category. When the effluent 
guidelines for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing category were 
promulgated in the early 1980's, EPA did not evaluate 
facilities that treat all of their individual waste streams in 
a ``central treatment facility.'' In order to settle challenges 
raised by industry representatives, the effluent guideline 
regulation was amended by EPA to provide an exemption for 
certain treatment facilities that received the combined waste 
streams of a number of processes and source subcategories at 
steel plants. The 21 central treatment facilities subject to 
the exemption were listed by name in the regulation at 40 
C.F.R. section 420.01. This exemption was to last until the 
regulation was amended to establish effluent guidelines 
specifically for central treatment facilities. EPA has never 
published a revised effluent guideline applicable to central 
treatment facilities. Accordingly, the exemption for central 
treatment facilities at any of the listed steel plants 
continues to be available.

Section 308. Information and guidelines

    Section 308 amends section 304(i) of the Act to modify 
current requirements for eligibility to sit on permit review 
boards to increase flexibility for government officials and 
retirees.

Section 309. Secondary treatment

    The debate on Clean Water Act reauthorization, as well as 
the debate on unfunded mandates generally, identified the Clean 
Water Act requirement that municipal wastewater treatment 
plants meet secondary treatment standards as one of the most 
burdensome mandates on manicipalities. A significant number of 
smaller communities have been unable to meet this requirement 
for a number of reasons. Capital costs for construction of 
costly and sophisticated secondary treatment facilities are 
often beyond the means of small communities, even with zero 
interest loans. The technical expertise to operate and maintain 
these facilities is often not available in these communities. 
In addition, to be cost-effective, secondary treatment 
facilities require an economy of scale not found in small 
communities. This section of the bill adds flexibility to the 
implementation of secondary treatment requirements to address 
these concerns. In addition, secondary treatment may provide no 
environmental benefit when the treatment plant discharges 
through a deep ocean outfall. This section of the bill also 
addresses these concerns.
    Coastal Discharges. Section 309(a) amends section 304(d) of 
the Act to provide that a municipal wastewater treatment 
facility be considered a secondary treatment facility if the 
facility discharge is subject to chemically enhanced primary 
treatment; discharges through an ocean outfall greater than 4 
miles offshore; is in compliance with all State and local water 
quality standards for reciving waters; and is subject to an 
ocean monitoring program.
    Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements. Section 
309(b) adds a new section 301(s) to the Act to require EPA to 
modify secondary treatment requirements if the POTW discharges 
pollutants into marine waters that are at least 150 feet deep 
through an ocean outfall which discharges at least 1 mile 
offshore; the facility's discharge is in compliance with all 
water quality standards for receiving waters; the discharge 
will be subject to an ocean monitoring program; the applicant 
has in place an EPA-approved pretreatment plan; and the 
effluent has received chemically enhanced primary treatment and 
achieves a monthly average removal of 75% removal of suspended 
solids.
    Modifications for Small System Treatment Technologies. 
Section 309(c) amends section 301 to add a new subsection (t) 
to allow EPA or a State to issue a permit that modifies 
secondary treatment requirements for POTWs serving communities 
with a population of 20,000 or fewer if the POTW demonstrates 
(1) that the effluent is from domestic users, and (2) the 
facility has an alternative treatment system that is equivalent 
to secondary treatment or will provide an adequate level of 
protection to human health and the environment and contribute 
to the attainment of water quality standards in the receiving 
water and watershed.
    The Committee intends for this amendment to provide EPA and 
States with the statutory authority and increased flexibility 
to approve innovative alternative treatment systems for small 
communities, and to deem that such systems meet the technology-
based requirements of the Act. Many alternatives to full 
secondary treatment have been researched, developed, or 
improved to the point that they now represent a realistic 
alternative for small communities. These treatment systems, 
which include constructed wetlands, recirculating sand filters, 
oxidation lagoons, and other ``natural'' land-based and water-
based systems, offer an environmentally protective, cost-
effective, and relatively low technology option for helping 
small communities meet their wastewater needs.
    Puerto Rico. Section 309(d) further amends section 301 to 
add a new subsection (u) to allow Puerto Rico to initiate a 
study to determine the feasibility of a deepwater outfall for 
the POTW located at Mayaguez, Puerto Rico and allow the 
Mayaguez treatment works to submit an application for a 301(h) 
waiver of secondary treatment requirements within 18 months of 
enactment.
    The community of Mayaguez has been prevented from 
constructing a deep ocean outfall to improve the effectiveness 
of its sewage treatment program. Mayaguez has been unable to 
receive a wavier from secondary treatment requirements, 
preventing the construction of a deep ocean outfall. Section 
309(d) would allow such an application, and allow EPA to review 
a new deep ocean outfall proposal pursuant to current Clean 
Water Act standards for such outfalls. Section 309(d) does not 
alter the rigorous criteria for issuing such a waiver, or 
override the judgment of EPA.
    Puerto Rico has elicited comments from scientists and waste 
water treatment experts, who are in agreement on the merits of 
constructing a deep ocean outfall in Mayaguez. Apparently, it 
will save the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico approximately $65 
million and have environmental benefit as well.
    The history of Puerto Rico's difficulties in gaining 
approval from EPA for a deep ocean outfall are well documented. 
Section 309(d) should allow Puerto Rico and the EPA to reach 
accord on the construction of a deep ocean outfall. This 
provision allows EPA to review Puerto Rico's new deep ocean 
outfall application. It allows Puerto Rico to apply under 
existing Section 301(h) standards for a modification that best 
protects the marine environment. It presents a reasonable 
compromise, allowing the Commonwealth and EPA to implement a 
municipal sewage disposal program that is based on sound 
science and appropriate environmental and economic 
considerations.
    Under this provision, EPA is required to make a final 
determination within nine months of receiving an application. 
If EPA grants the waiver, Puerto Rico is required to complete 
construction of the outfall within five years of the date of 
enactment. These requirements ensure that the Agency and the 
Commonwealth act expeditiously to construct a facility that 
will benefit the environment and the residents of Puerto Rico.
    This measure is consistent with existing waiver standards 
in the Clean Water Act, and will only be fully implemented by 
EPA if environmental and economic objectives can be 
successfully met.

Section 310. Toxic pollutants

    Toxic Effluent Limitations and Standards. Section 310(a) of 
the bill amends section 307(a)(2) of the Act to require that 
specific factors be considered by EPA in promulgating effluent 
standards (or prohibitions) for toxic chemicals. The factors to 
be considered include the pollutant's persistence, toxicity, 
degradability, and bioaccumulation potential; the magnitude of 
risk; the relative contribution of point source discharges to 
the risk; the availability of substitute chemicals; the 
beneficial and adverse social and economic effect; the 
availability of other regulatory authorities; and such other 
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.
    Beach Water Quality Monitoring. Section 310(b) of the bill 
amends 304 of the Act to require EPA, in consultation with 
Federal, State, and local agencies, to issue guidance within 18 
months of enactment on beach water quality monitoring and the 
issuance of health advisories. EPA also must report on 
information available on State beach water quality monitoring.
    Fish Consumption Advisories. Section 310(c) of the bill 
specifies that any fish consumption advisories issued by EPA 
must be based on the protocols, methodology, and findings of 
FDA.

Section 311. Local pretreatment authority

    Section 311 of the bill adds a new subsection (f) to 
section 307 of the Act to allow a POTW to apply local limits in 
lieu of national categorical pretreatment standards for the 
purpose of eliminating redundant treatment or reducing the 
administrative burden on the POTW.
    Industrial pretreatment and EPA-approved local pretreatment 
limits have been an integral part of POTW operations for many 
decades. Some local programs even predate passage of the 1972 
Act. Considering the complexities of operating POTWs and 
attaining water quality, the implementation of pretreatment 
programs is among the most important contributions that POTWs 
have been making to environmental protection, while at the same 
time protecting the treatment facility and generating 
beneficially usable biosolids.
    Section 307(b) of the present Act authorizes EPA to 
establish and revise federal pretreatment standards; provides 
that the revision of categorical standards for individual POTWs 
``reflect the removal'' of toxic pollutants by such POTWs; and 
provides that ``[n]othing in this subsection shall affect any 
pretreatment requirement established by any State or local law 
not in conflict with any pretreatment standard under this 
section.''
    POTW pretreatment programs have been a highly successful 
part of the Act in reducing the discharge of toxics to POTWs 
and enhancing the quality of the nation's waters. Such programs 
remain critically important to water quality and to the ability 
of POTWs to meet federal biosolids and air quality 
requirements.
    For many POTWs, these environmental objectives can best be 
achieved by use of locally developed pretreatment limits in 
lieu of federal categorical standards. Currently, such local 
pretreatment limits regulate many more industries than those 
covered by federal categorical standards.
    The use of local limits to achieve such objectives and 
requirements can result in the elimination of additional, 
redundant, or unnecessary treatment by industrial users of 
POTWs which has little or no environmental benefit. Such 
redundant or unnecessary treatment should be limited as a 
matter of common sense, so long as the POTW can meet the 
objectives of the Act.
    EPA has always recognized the utility of local limits since 
more stringent local limits must be applied in lieu of 
categorical standards. The mechanism for calculation of local 
limits was developed by EPA to protect the POTW, prevent pass 
through of pollutants (including toxics), and protect the 
quality of biosolids. To be approved, a local pretreatment 
program must prevent the discharge of any pollution which would 
interfere with, pass through, or otherwise be incompatible with 
the POTW.
    In contrast, national categorical pretreatment standards 
are technology-based standards. As a result, national standards 
often are not consistent with local standards and in some cases 
may conflict with the needs of a local POTW. For example, a 
national categorical pretreatment standard for a can coating 
operation requires removal of phosphorus, even where the 
facility discharges to a POTW that has a phosphorus deficiency. 
As a result, the facility must pretreat for phosphorus, thereby 
using energy and creating sludge, and the POTW has to buy 
phosphorus to add to its system.
    Section 311 of the bill strengthens environmental 
protection while allowing common sense flexibility by allowing 
approved pretreatment programs at POTWs to be operated under 
performance based statutory conditions without sacrificing 
water quality or other environmental objectives.
    To obtain approval to apply local limits in lieu of 
categorical pretreatment standards, a POTW must make four 
demonstrations to the permitting authority: (1) the POTW is in 
compliance, and is likely to remain in compliance, with its 
permit under section 402; (2) the POTW is in compliance, and is 
likely to remain in compliance, with applicable air emissions 
limitations; (3) biosolids produced by the POTW meet beneficial 
use requirements under section 405; and (4) the POTW is likely 
to continue to meet all applicable State requirements. The 
permitting authority may disapprove any request if it believes 
that these criteria will not be met.
    Two important limitations are placed on this provision. 
First, a POTW may not apply local limits in lieu of categorical 
pretreatment requirements applicable to any industrial user 
that is in significant noncompliance (as defined by EPA) with 
the pretreatment program. Second, the demonstration to EPA or 
the State under section 307(f)(1) must be made under the 
procedures for pretreatment program modification provided for 
under sections 307 and 402 of the Act.
    Finally, the POTW must demonstrate continued compliance 
with the conditions of this section in its annual pretreatment 
report to EPA or the State.

Section 312. Compliance with management practices

    Section 312 of the bill adds new section 307(g) to the Act 
to authorize EPA or a State to allow persons who introduce 
silver into POTWs to comply with a code of management practices 
in lieu of a pretreatment requirement for silver for a period 
not to exceed five years from the date of enactment. The code 
of management practices must meet requirements set out in this 
section, be approved by EPA, and be accepted by the POTW. The 
person introducing silver into the POTW also must comply with a 
Best Available Technology standard.
    If EPA or a State allows persons to comply with such a code 
of management practices in lieu of a pretreatment standard for 
silver under this section, EPA or a State must modify the 
POTW's permit conditions and effluent limitations to defer, for 
a period not to exceed five years, compliance with any effluent 
limitation derived from a water quality standard for silver if 
the receiving waters will be adequately protected.
    This amendment provides relief for the photoprocessing 
industry and other users of silver who introduce silver into 
POTWs. In order to comply with extremely stringent water 
quality standards for silver, POTWs have enforced equally 
stringent local pretreatment limits on indirect dischargers of 
silver. However, State water quality standards for silver are 
based on outdated scientific assumptions, so both the water 
quality standards that POTWs must meet and the local 
pretreatment limits that the photoprocessing industry and other 
users of silver must meet are unnecessarily stringent.
    In 1990, EPA published draft chronic water quality criteria 
for silver. After publication, EPA concluded that silver does 
not pose a human health hazard, withdrew these draft criteria, 
and advised States that water quality standards for silver are 
not needed. In fact, EPA has even deleted the primary Maximum 
Contaminant Level of silver under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
EPA also has recognized that silver, and several other metals, 
is more appropriately measured and regulated on the basis of 
its dissolved form, rather than on the basis of total metals, 
as in previous water quality standards.
    Before EPA's recognition of its error, many States adopted 
water quality standards for silver based on the inaccurate and 
subsequently withdrawn silver criteria and have not taken 
action to revise or delete these standards. As a result, POTWs 
in many effluent limitations for silver, and many indirect 
dischargers are therefore subject to impossibly low local 
limits for silver, with no environmental benefit.
    Section 312 of the bill gives EPA the flexibility to 
provide interim relief from these overly stringent silver 
limits for five years. Under other provisions of the bill, EPA 
is required to update its criteria documents for metals within 
one year, and States are required to hold a hearing to consider 
review of their State water quality standard within 180 days of 
EPA's revision of any applicable water quality criterion. 
Accordingly, the Committee expects that States with water 
quality standards for silver will revise those standards within 
the next five years.

Section 313. Federal enforcement

    Adjustment of Penalties. Section 313(a) of the bill amends 
section 309 of the Act to provide for a consumer price index 
adjustment to automatically increase or decrease all penalty 
limits in the Act.
    Joining States as Parties in Actions Involving 
Municipalities. Section 313(b) amends section 309(e) of the Act 
to make the joining of States as parties to litigation 
involving municipalities permissive rather than mandatory.

Section 314. Response plans for discharges of oil or hazardous 
        substances

    Section 314 includes a general provision relating to the 
applicability of certain oil or hazardous substance response 
planning requirements under the CWA.
    The provision clarifies how total facility oil storage 
capacity should be calculated under the EPA's regulations 
implementing section 311(j)(5) of the CWA, as amended by the 
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). The provision is necessary to 
ensure that requirements imposed by section 311(j)(5) to 
prepare facility response plans (FRPs), and to engage in 
training and certain other activities, are triggered only when 
a facility poses a threat of ``substantial harm'' to the 
environment due to its potential to release significant 
quantities of oil.
    This provision also clarifies that the requirements of 
section 311(j)(5) do not apply to municipal and industrial 
treatment works, or to facilities that store quantities of 
process water mixed with de minimis quantities of oil. This is 
consistent with the Congressional intent behind the OPA. The 
Committee recognizes, through this provision, that municipal 
and industrial treatment works, and facilities storing process 
water mixed with de minimis quantities of oil, do not pose the 
threat of harm to the environment that Congress sought to 
address through section 311(j)(5).
    Section 314 also directs the President to issue regulations 
clarifying the meaning of the term ``de minimis quantities of 
oil or hazardous substances.''

Section 315. Marine sanitation devices

    Section 315 of the bill amends section 312(c) of the Act to 
require EPA to review and, if necessary, revise standards for 
marine sanitation devices within 2 years of enactment, and 
every 5 years thereafter, following notice and comment, and in 
consultation with the Coast Guard.

Section 316. Federal facilities

    In 1972, Congress included provisions on Federal facility 
compliance with our nation's water pollution laws in section 
313 of the Clean Water Act. Section 313 called for federal 
facilities to comply with all Federal, State, and local water 
pollution requirements.
    In April 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Dept. 
of Energy v. Ohio, that States could not impose certain fines 
and penalties against Federal agencies, for violations of the 
Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act 
(RCRA). This decision led to the enactment of the Federal 
Facilities Compliance Act (H.R. 2194) in the 102nd Congress to 
clarify that Congress intended to waive sovereign immunity for 
agencies in violation of RCRA. Federal agencies in violation of 
the RCRA are now subject to State levied fines and penalties. 
The 1992 Act, however, did not address the Supreme Court's 
decision with regard to the Clean Water Act.
    Section 316 of H.R. 961, clarifies the intent of section 
313 of the Clean Water Act. This measure reaffirms the waiver 
of sovereign immunity. This waiver subjects the Federal 
government to the full range of enforcement mechanisms 
available under the Clean Water Act.
    Section 316 is primarily a restatement of existing policies 
in the Clean Water Act governing Federal facilities. Changes 
made by section 316, including the clarification of the waiver 
of sovereign immunity, apply prospectively.
    Subsection (a), Applicability of Federal, State, Interstate 
and local laws, is modeled after section 313(a) of the Act and 
is intended to embody the same concepts as section 313. New 
paragraph 313(a)(7) of the Clean Water Act subjects agents, 
employees, and officers of the U.S. to criminal sanctions under 
Federal or State water pollution laws. The Committee, however, 
does not intend that agents, employees or officers be subject 
to criminal sanctions if their failure to comply with the Clean 
Water Act is caused by action or inaction of their employers--
such as an agency's failure to purchase appropriate wastewater 
treatment equipment or provide adequate funding to maintain 
treatment operations.
    Subsection (b), Funds Collected by a State is designed to 
ensure that States are using revenues collected for Federal 
violations of water laws to improve water quality.
    Subsection (c), Enforcement, gives EPA the authority to 
bring an administrative enforcement action against another 
Federal government entity.
    Subsection (d), Limitation on Actions and Right of 
Intervention, precludes citizen suits under section 505 
relating to violations that the Administrator is diligently 
pursuing or has resolved through issuance of a final order.
    Subsection (e), Definition of Person, defines person to 
include any department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
United States.
    Subsection (f), Definition of Radioactive Materials, adds 
definition of radioactive materials to section 502 of the Act. 
This term excludes materials discharged from certain vessels in 
the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.

Section 317. Clean lakes

    Section 317 of the bill amends section 314(d) of the Act to 
add Paris Twin Lakes, Illinois; Otsego Lake, New York; and 
Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, to the Clean Lakes program 
priority list. This section also authorizes $10 million per 
year for fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2000 to carry out the 
Clean Lakes program.

Section 318. Cooling water intake structures

    Section 318 of the bill amends section 316(b) of the Act to 
identify factors for EPA to take into account in determining 
best technology available for new and existing cooling water 
intake structures.

Section 319. Nonpoint source management programs

    Section 319, a central feature of H.R. 961, strengthens, 
coordinates, and improves the nation's current approach to 
nonpoint sources of pollution. Hearings, government and 
scientific reports, and public opinion all seem to agree on one 
point: nonpoint, or diffuse, water pollution presents one of 
the nation's greatest remaining challenges. H.R. 961 responds 
by providing additional funding, flexibility with 
accountability, agency-wide coordination, and incentives for 
innovative, market-based approaches, while retaining the basic 
structure and framework of existing section 319 of the Clean 
Water Act. The Committee explicitly rejected proposals for 
broader revisions, placing greater command-and-control 
authority within EPA and NOAA.
    Subsection (a) modifies state assessment report 
requirements in section 319 of the Act.
    Subsection (b) includes various modifications to existing 
section 319(b), relating to contents, requirements, and 
mechanisms for each state program. Among other things, it 
requires each section 319 program to include management 
practices and measures to reduce pollutant loadings that may 
include voluntary and incentive-based programs, regulatory 
programs, enforceable policies and mechanisms, State management 
programs approved under section 306 of the Coastal Zone 
Management Act, and other methods to manage nonpoint sources to 
the degree necessary to provide for reasonable further progress 
toward attaining water quality standards within 15 years of 
State program approval.
    The amendments throughout subsection (b) include several 
references to the goal of attaining water quality standards and 
making reasonable further progress towards attainment of water 
quality standards. One consistent theme runs throughout the 
section, however: specific and unrealistic deadlines should not 
be mandated from Washington, D.C. Instead, each state should 
tailor its program so that reasonable further progress can be 
made. A rigid 15 year deadline, particularly without interim 
goals and milestones, can be counterproductive and lead to 
needless litigation or prematurely imposed enforceable 
mechanisms. Therefore, the Committee does not intend this 
section to establish an absolute deadline of 15 years for 
attainment of water quality standards.
    For purposes of this section, reasonable progress toward 
water quality standards attainment may be demonstrated by a 
variety of measures and mechanisms. Adequacy of Federal funding 
is a factor in determining reasonable progress. The program 
also must include identification of goals and milestones for 
attaining water quality standards, including a projected date 
for attaining such standards as expeditiously as possible, but 
no later than 15 years from the date of program approval. 
Again, however, the intent of the Committee is that the 15 year 
date be an overall goal of each program. The real measure of 
success will be whether each state can demonstrate reasonable 
further progress on a periodic basis.
    In addition, subsection (b) adds a new section 319(b)(7) in 
recognition of agricultural programs. Compliance with approved 
whole farm or ranch natural resources management plans will 
constitute compliance with the State management program if 
certain conditions are met.
    In section 319(b)(7), the word ``program'' refers to the 
process of developing voluntary whole farm and ranch natural 
resource management plans that, when implemented, will achieve 
water quality results consistent with a State's nonpoint source 
management program. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between 
the Governor and the Chief of the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) or their designees should outline 
the scope of the voluntary natural resources management plans 
that will be developed for individual farms or ranches.
    The MOA should focus on the process and the anticipated 
water quality results in a given State. In order to facilitate 
the tailoring of plans for site-specific conditions and 
operations, specific conservation practices or management 
techniques for an individual farm or ranch would not be 
prescribed in the MOA. In developing the MOA, NRCS and the 
State should strive for maximum flexibility due to the 
variability of farm and ranch operations and resource 
conditions such as geology, soils, climate, crops and so forth 
that occur within the State. An individual farm and/or ranch 
plan should be approved and considered to be in compliance with 
the requirements of this section, as established in the MOA, 
for a period of no less than the five-year duration of the MOA. 
It is anticipated that practices specified in individual plans 
may be implemented in varying time frames within the duration 
of the plan, and implementation should not be interrupted by 
frequent plan revisions. The MOA must recognize the need to 
encourage farmers and ranchers to develop and implement whole 
farm and ranch plans by allowing reasonable implementation time 
periods, for example, time periods that provide for economic 
recovery of costs. The farmer may request a plan revision at 
any time and should request a revision to accommodate any 
significant operational changes or unforeseen technical 
problems within the farming/ranching enterprise.
    Subsections (c) and (d) include numerous provisions on 
submission, review, and approval of state management programs. 
In particular, subsection (d) authorizes EPA to review State 
programs and, in limited instances, to prepare and implement a 
program for a given State. This is just one of several examples 
of retaining accountability--i.e. safeguards to ensure 
enviromental progress.
    Subsection (e) expands opportunities for technical 
assistance to states under existing section 319 by making 
implementation, not just development, of programs eligible for 
assistance.
    Subsections (f) and (h) authorize funding for technical and 
financial assistance by EPA including grants for preparing and/
or implementing reports and programs. These are certainly some 
of the most significant provisions in the bill, in part, 
because they recognize the need for increased attention and 
resources for nonpoint source pollution. Subsection (f) 
increases the Federal cost share from 60% to 75% and requires 
EPA to establish an allotment formula for distribution to the 
States. The bill also expands eligible uses of funds. EPA is 
authorized to withhold grants to States that are not in 
compliance. Subsection (h) increases program funding levels $50 
million each year from $100 million for fiscal year 1996 to 
$300 million for FY2000.
    Subsections (g) and (h) recognize the importance of ground 
water protection by raising the existing cap on ground water/
nonpoint source grants that any one state may receive from 
$150,000 to $500,000 and by increasing the annual cap for the 
national nonpoint source program from $7.5 million/year to $25 
million/year.
    Subsection (i) modifies current section 319 provisions on 
consistency of other projects and programs with State 319 
programs. The bill requires a Memorandum of Understanding 
between a State and Federal agency that owns lands within the 
watershed covered by the nonpoint source program to coordinate 
nonpoint source control measures.
    Subsections (j) and (k) include various provisions on 
reports of the Administrator and set-asides for administrative 
personnel.
    Subsection (l) directs EPA to publish guidance on model 
management practices and measures for consideration by the 
States.
    The Guidance on Model Management Practices and Measures is 
a true ``guidance'' document, to be used by States at their 
discretion in developing State nonpoint source management 
programs. The measures and practices specified in this guidance 
can only be general in design, since specific measures and 
practices must be appropriately designed to meet the unique 
geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the area. For 
agricultural measures and practices, the guidance should 
appropriately defer to Local Field Office Technical Guides. The 
definition of Model Management Practices and Measures should 
also consider whether the measure or practice is economically 
achievable for an individual participant.
    Subsection (m) includes an unfunded mandate safeguard, 
i.e., compliance dates are delayed one year for each year 
Congress does not appropriate 100% of authorized funds, unless 
EPA and the State jointly certify that the amounts appropriated 
are sufficient to meet the requirements of this section. The 
Committee recognizes that adequate funding is crucial to the 
success of any nonpoint source program.
    Subsection (n) repeals section 6217 of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990, but at the same time folds some of 
the successful aspects of the coastal zone management program 
into section 319 of the Clean Water Act.
    For example, sections 319 (a) and (b) are amended to 
require States to identify critical areas, taking into 
consideration the value of coastal areas. For coastal areas, 
each State program must include an identification of land uses 
that individually or cumulatively cause or contribute to 
significant degradation of those coastal waters not attaining 
or maintaining water quality standards and those coastal waters 
threatened by foreseeable increases in pollutant loadings. In 
addition, States must cooperate with coastal zone management 
agencies in developing reports and management programs under 
this section.
    Subsection (o), agricultural inputs, clarifies that land 
application of agricultural inputs, including livestock manure, 
is not a point source and is regulated only under section 319--
and not subject to citizen suits.
    Agriculture involves the purposeful disturbance of land 
surfaces, the application of crop nutrients, animal manures and 
protection products to augment and enhance natural processes in 
the production of food and natural fiber. While farmers and 
ranchers can manage these nonpoint source activities, they 
cannot be controlled in the same fashion as point source 
activities. Runoff from nonpoint source activities is largely 
the consequence of natural hydrologic and geologic occurrences 
beyond the control of farmers and ranchers. That is why 
Congress has chosen to address diffuse, nonpoint source 
activities like land application of livestock manure and 
agricultural inputs, in a separate nonpoint source section, 
with States responsible for determining how best to work with 
farmers and ranchers in managing nonpoint source runoff. This 
section clarifies and strengthens the statutory distinction 
with respect to these agricultural nonpoint source activities.
    Subsection (p) amends section 319 of the Act to include an 
overriding purpose: to assist states in addressing nonpoint 
sources of pollution where necessary to achieve the goals and 
requirements of the Act. The provision further recognizes that 
State nonpoint source programs need to be built upon a 
foundation that voluntary initiatives represent the approach 
most likely to succeed in achieving the objectives of the Act.

Section 320. National Estuary Program

    Section 320 of the bill amends section 320 of the Act to 
make a technical correction to the listing of priority 
estuaries in existing law and adds Charlotte Harbor, Florida, 
and Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, to the priority list. This 
section also authorizes $19 million a year for fiscal year 1996 
through 2000 and allows such funds to be used for grants for 
monitoring of implementation in addition to grants for the 
development of conservation and management plans.

Section 321. State watershed management programs

    Section 321 of the bill establishes in the Clean Water Act 
a comprehensive, new section on watershed management. 
Throughout the Committee's hearings--both this Congress and 
last--and in countless governmental and nongovernmental 
meetings, reports, and recommendations, there has been 
remarkable consensus on the need for a watershed-based, 
``hollistic'' approach to water pollution control. Section 321 
responds to this need by establishing in the Act an entirely 
voluntary mechanism for States to use and coordinate existing 
authorities and to experiment with new authorities (such as 
pollutant transfer pilot projects) to increase the focus on 
watersheds.
    The Committee recognizes that the ``watershed-based 
approach'' is not a new concept to the Clean Water Act. For 
example, many of the provisions in sections 208, 314, 319, and 
320 already explicitly or implicitly refer to or rely upon 
management principles that focus on watersheds. Section 321, 
however, will provide even greater focus by providing various 
incentives and removing potential obstacles.
    For example, some of the incentives include: (1) expanded 
eligibility of watershed planning and implementation activities 
for financial assistance; (2) increased flexibility for 
issuance of point source permits; (3) opportunities for 
pollutant transfers (trading); (4) multipurpose grants; and (5) 
additional planning set-asides.
    While section 321 is many things, it is not a new 
regulatory program or mechanism for EPA or states to expand 
regulatory authorities. Like section 319 and other sections in 
title III, new section 321 is intended to be a program for 
planning, managing, and coordinating. It does not include new 
regulatory powers for the control of pollution sources that 
could not be controlled under other Clean Water Act sections. 
Instead, it embodies the belief that States can generally 
achieve water quality standards most effectively and 
expeditiously at the local watershed level by coordinating 
these multiple authorities in concert with the active 
involvement and cooperation of ``stakeholders'' in that 
watershed, who are in the best position to identify problems 
and design and implement suitable solutions.
    Subsection (a) establishes a new section 321 in the Clean 
Water Act.
    A State may submit a watershed management program at any 
time, and expedited program approval is provided for if a 
program contains minimum elements on program structure, scope, 
watersheds covered, requirements, goals, and consistency with 
the nonpoint source and stormwater sections.
    A State is provided significant flexibility in establishing 
the scope of the program with respect to watersheds, pollutants 
and factors to be addressed. This allows a State to tailor 
program capabilities to water quality problems specific to the 
State, and reflects the extent of the State's resources and 
capabilities. To ensure local input, the State is to take into 
account all regional and local watershed management programs, 
and consider recommendations from units of local government and 
water suppliers and agencies.
    To encourage prioritization in use of the watershed 
approach and scarce resources, a State is required to take into 
consideration those waters where water quality is threatened or 
impaired or otherwise in need of special protection in 
identifying which watersheds will be addressed. Management 
units for multistate watersheds may be included if jointly 
designated by the States, and may include Federally owned or 
managed waters and associated lands.
    To facilitate flexibility in applying the watershed 
approach at the local level, a State may go beyond the goals 
and objectives of this Act and include State water quality 
standards, including site-specific standards in identifying 
goals to be pursued in each watershed. However, Federal 
requirements and authorities apply only to the stated goals and 
objectives of this Act. For purposes of this section, the term 
``site-specific'' is intended to clarify that a State may 
establish standards different from a statewide standard for a 
particular water body or section of a river or stream, to the 
extent deemed necessary and appropriate to reflect that site or 
area's unique water quality attributes. It is not intended to 
apply to a particular point or nonpoint source.
    A State may submit modifications for an approved program to 
the Administrator at any time, which shall remain in effect 
until or unless the Administrator determines the program no 
longer meets requirements. Each State with an approved program 
shall provide an annual summary status report to the 
Administrator. In an effort to reduce paperwork burdens, this 
report may also be used to satisfy reporting requirements under 
other sections of the Act. Responsible entities for multistate 
watersheds shall be jointly determined by the States involved.
    Approved State programs and specific watershed plans could 
receive funding under various existing CWA authorities. As an 
incentive for local watershed management, expanded eligibility 
for assistance is established for watershed management costs 
associated with activities such as analysis, standard setting, 
identification and coordination of projects, activities and 
institutional arrangements, training, and public participation.
    For a watershed already attaining water quality standards, 
a plan need only identify how standards will be maintained for 
approval by a State with an approved program. To help ensure 
that a local watershed plan will be compatible with State water 
quality obligations under this Act, additional conditions are 
established for watershed plans including impaired areas, 
including identification of problems and how standards will be 
met consistent with this Act's deadlines.
    A State with an approved program has the flexibility to 
deem approval of a local watershed plan, including interim 
milestones, to be in effect for up to 10 years.
    To assist States, the Administrator is required to issue 
guidance within one year on provisions that States may consider 
for inclusion in watershed programs and local plans. States and 
other interested parties are to be consulted in development of 
the guidance. This guidance is not an enforceable mechanism. 
States are not required to use the guidance, in whole or in 
part, as a condition of program or plan approval, so long as 
minimum requirements of this section are satisfied.
    This section establishes a pilot project under which a 
discharger or source may apply for approval to offset the 
impact of its discharge by arranging for another discharger or 
source to implement controls or measures through a pollution 
credits trading program established as part of a watershed 
plan. Arrangements could include payment of funds. If a State 
so chooses, this pilot project allows selective approval of 
pollutant trading within a watershed if appropriate safeguards 
are included. The Administrator shall facilitate the pilot 
project by allocating funds to pollution credits programs in 
selected watersheds throughout the country. A report is to be 
submitted to Congress on the results of this pilot program 
within 36 months of enactment.
    From a water quality perspective, trading is most feasible 
if it occurs within the context of an integrated watershed 
planning process to ensure that the net reduction occurs in the 
same receiving waters. Pollutant trading within a watershed can 
provide overall water quality progress more flexibly and cost-
effectively. Currently, some sources are expected to experience 
sharply increased costs, and even financial hardship, for the 
next increment of pollution discharge reduction in revised 
NPDES permits, in waters that remain impaired despite expensive 
efforts already undertaken to date. The same or greater 
reductions might be accomplished at a significantly lower cost 
through pollutant trading, particularly in those instances 
where more affordable best available technologies may have 
already been utilized to eliminate the majority of discharges 
in earlier staged reductions.
    A properly designed pollutant trading program can be a 
positive incentive for the development and implementation of 
local watershed plans. Effective development and implementation 
of a local watershed plan hinges upon willingness by all 
stakeholders to participate.
    Subsection (b) includes additional incentives for states to 
develop watershed programs.
    Specific incentives that benefit permitted point sources 
are provided to encourage watershed management. A permitted 
source that does not have a history of a significant 
noncompliance may be issued a discharge permit with a 
limitation that does not meet standards if the receiving water 
is located in a watershed with an approved plan that contains 
assurances that standards will be met by a specified date 
through the combined efforts of both point and nonpoint 
sources. Permit extensions in such a watershed are also 
permissible in order to synchronize permit terms.
    The Administrator may provide a multipurpose grant for a 
State's approved watershed program, combining funds available 
under different sections of this Act and applying terms that 
apply for more than one year. This is intended to reduce 
administrative burdens for both the State and the Agency and 
provide flexibility to a State in focusing on priority 
activities. A State may also reserve limited additional funds 
for development of local watershed plans if half is made 
available to local entities. This encourages a State to make 
more planning funds available to local entities.

Section 322. Stormwater management programs

    State Programs. Subsection (a) of the bill adds a new 
section 322 to the Act which replaces the current section 
402(p) stormwater permitting program with mandatory State 
stormwater management programs.
    Section 322 recognizes that stormwater discharges are more 
characteristic of nonpoint sources and are fundamentally 
different from point sources whose discharges are more readily 
predictable and controllable. To avoid the continued imposition 
of significant control costs and regulatory burdens that have 
resulted in little, if any, water quality improvement, the 
Committee has removed certain stormwater management from the 
permitting requirements of section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
    Rather than imposing a national permitting scheme, the bill 
directs States to assess State waters, determine what 
categories and subcategories of stormwater discharges should be 
subject to controls, and identify control measures to be taken 
by those categories and subcategories to allow attainment of 
applicable water quality standards. The intent of the Committee 
is to remove the costly requirements of the existing section 
402(p) stormwater management program that creates bureaucracy 
and red-tape unrelated to environmental benefits. The new 
State-run program will allow a State to target both waters 
adversely impacted by stormwater pollution and categories of 
dischargers, and then gives the State the broad authority and 
flexibility to control pollution from stormwater discharged by 
those categories.
    Purpose. Subsection (a) of the new section 322 identifies 
the purpose of the section, which is to help States develop 
cost-effective stormwater pollution controls in an expeditious 
manner to allow States to meet the goals and requirements of 
the Act no later than 15 years from the date of approval of a 
State stormwater management program.
    State Assessment Reports. Subsection (b) requires States to 
prepare an assessment report identifying those navigable waters 
that the State does not reasonably expect to attain or maintain 
applicable water quality standards or the goals and 
requirements of the Act, without controls on stormwater 
discharges to those waters. The State assessment report also 
must identify those categories and subcategories of dischargers 
that add significant pollution from stormwater discharges to 
the waters that the State identifies in the assessment report 
and that are a contributing cause of the State's determination 
that such waters will not attain or maintain water quality 
standards or the goals and requirements of the Act.
    The categories of discharges that are potentially subject 
to control are stormwater discharges from municipal storm 
sewers and industrial, commercial, oil, gas, mining, and 
construction activities. These categories include approximately 
7.7 million commercial and light industrial facilities and 
thousands of small municipalities that are Phase II dischargers 
potentially subject to permitting under section 402(p) as 
currently in effect. Under new section 322, States have the 
flexibility to exempt de minimis contributors of pollution 
(such as small businesses, small municipalities, and small 
construction sites) from regulation. The Committee does not 
believe that it is essential for every activity with stormwater 
runoff and every municipality to be included in the State's 
stormwater management program.
    The State assessment reports also must identify the process 
the State proposes to undertake to identify measures for 
controlling pollution from the categories and subcategories of 
stormwater discharges that will be subject to the State 
program.
    Finally, the State assessment report must identify and 
describe existing or proposed State, local, and if appropriate, 
industrial programs for controlling pollution from stormwater.
    The intent of this section is to allow each State to 
develop a program that is tailored to its needs. Accordingly, 
the bill allows States to target facilities and municipalities 
and to target receiving waters.
    The State must provide notice of and an opportunity for 
comment on the State assessment reports. However, the decisions 
made by the State that are discussed in the report, including 
identification of dischargers (both municipal and nonmunicipal) 
that add ``significant pollution'' to navigable waters and 
navigable waters that require protection under the State 
Stormwater Management Program are matters committed to the 
discretion of the State.
    The assessment report must be submitted to EPA for approval 
within 18 months of enactment and must be reviewed, revised and 
submitted to EPA for approval every 5 years thereafter.
    State Stormwater Management Programs. Subsection (c) 
requires each State to develop a State stormwater management 
program, in conjunction and cooperation with affected local 
governments, that will be implemented during the first five 
years after program approval. The elements of the State program 
are spelled out in paragraph (2).
    Model Management Practices and Measures. Paragraph (2)(A) 
requires States to identify model management practices and 
measures to reduce pollutant loadings from each category or 
subcategory of stormwater discharges targeted by the State for 
regulation. States may utilize such model management practices 
and measures identified by EPA in guidance issued pursuant to 
new section 322(l). The identification of model management 
practices and measures in a State program is not intended to 
preclude facilities from implementing stormwater pollution 
prevention plans that identify other effective measures for the 
control of stormwater pollution.
    Programs and Resources. Paragraph (2)(B) requires States to 
identify the programs and resources it has determined are 
necessary to provide for reasonable further progress toward and 
achievement of the goal of attaining water quality standards 
(that include stormwater criteria) by not later than 15 years 
from the date of program approval.
    Industrial, Commercial, Oil, Gas, and Mining Discharges. 
Paragraph (2)(C) requires States to develop a program for 
categories and subcategories of industrial, commercial, oil, 
gas, and mining activities that provide incentives to implement 
pollution prevention practices and eliminate the exposure of 
stormwater to pollutants.
    This section establishes a hierarchy of regulatory 
frameworks. For noncontract facilities, described below, the 
hierarchy begins with voluntary pollution prevention plans and 
proceeds, if the State determines it is necessary, to general 
permits and then site-specific permits. For contract 
facilities, also described below, the hierarchy begins with 
enforceable pollution prevention plans and proceeds to general 
and then site-specific permits as determined to be necessary by 
the State.
    Noncontract facilities. Facilities where stormwater has no 
contact with material handling equipment, heavy industrial 
machinery, raw materials, intermediate products, finished 
products, byproducts or waste products at the site of an 
industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining facility 
potentially subject to regulation under this section, are not 
subject to enforceable stormwater pollution controls. However, 
the State programs should encourage the use voluntary pollution 
prevention planning to control the introduction of pollutants 
to receiving waters from stormwater discharges. A facility 
where stormwater comes into incidental contact with buildings 
and motor vehicles only shall be considered a noncontact 
facility. Currently, under EPA's interpretation of section 
402(p), such noncontact facilities are not regulated.
    Pollution Prevention Plans. For facilities where stormwater 
does come into contact with such materials, each State program 
must require enforceable pollution prevention plans. The 
minimum requirements for the enforceable pollution prevention 
plans are set forth in subsection (d) and are more stringent 
than pollution prevention plans currently required under 
general stormwater permits. Such pollution prevention plans are 
self-implemented and self-certified, but must be kept available 
for State review. If, upon review, the State determines that 
the plan does not meet the requirements of subsection (d), the 
State may require the facility to amend its plan and may take 
enforceable action against the facility under section 309 of 
the Act.
    General Permits. A State program may propose to require 
general permits for categories and subcategories of stormwater 
discharges where the State finds, after providing notice and an 
opportunity for comment, that reasonable further progress 
towards achieving water quality standards (that contain 
stormwater criteria) in a particular receiving water cannot be 
made due to the presence of a pollutant or pollutants specified 
by the State imposes general permits on such categories and 
subcategories, despite the implementation of voluntary 
activities (if a non-contact is targeted) or enforceable 
pollution prevention plans (if a category where stormwater 
comes into contact with pollutants from facility materials is 
targeted). The bill does not set any minimum period of time for 
implementation of pollution prevention plans by a category or 
subcategory before a State may make such a finding. The State 
may make this finding at any point after implementation of 
pollution prevention plans that the State believes it has 
adequate data to determine that this control mechanism alone 
will not result in reasonable further progress toward achieving 
water quality standards.
    The State's identification of such categories and 
subcategories and pollutants is a matter committed to the 
discretion of the State. However, in the administrative 
proceeding provided under State law for the issuance of 
permits, a facility in a targeted category or subcategory shall 
have the opportunity to demonstrate that stormwater discharges 
from that facility are not contributing to a violation of a 
water quality standard established for designated uses of the 
receiving water and are not significantly contributing the 
pollutant or pollutants identified by the State. If the 
facility makes this demonstration, it shall not be subject to 
the proposed general permit. In accepting or rejecting any 
demonstration made by a facility under this subparagraph, the 
State shall apply the standards applicable to general permit 
decisions under State law. The State's decision to accept or 
reject the demonstration will be reviewable to the extent that 
general permits are reviewable under State law.
    Site-Specific Permits. A State program may propose to 
require site-specific permits for categories and subcategories 
of stormwater discharges, or individual facilities in such 
categories or subcategories, whether the State finds, after 
providing notice and an opportunity for comment, that 
reasonable further progress towards achieving water quality 
standards (that contain stormwater criteria) in a particular 
receiving water cannot be made, unless the State imposes such 
permits, due to the presence of a pollutant or pollutants 
specified by the State, despite the implementation of voluntary 
activities (if non-contact facilities are targeted), or 
enforceable pollution prevention plans and general permits (if 
facilities where stormwater comes into contact with pollutants 
from site materials are targeted). The bill does not set any 
minimum period of time for implementation of general permits by 
a category or subcategory, or an individual facility, before a 
State may make such a finding. The State may make this finding 
at any point after implementation of general permits that the 
State believes it has adequate data to determine that this 
control mechanism alone will not result in reasonable further 
progress toward achieving water quality standards.
    The State's identification of such categories and 
subcategories (or individual facilities) and pollutants is a 
matter committed to the discretion of the State. However, in 
the administrative proceeding provided under State law for the 
issuance of permits, individual facilities shall have the 
opportunity to demonstrate that stormwater discharges from that 
facility are not contributing to a violation of a water quality 
standard established for designated uses of the receiving water 
and are not significantly contributing the pollutant or 
pollutant identified by the State. If the State finds that the 
facility has met its burden and has made this demonstration, 
applying the standard applicable under State law for the 
issuance of site-specific permits, the facility shall not be 
subject to the proposed site-specific permit. The State's 
decision to accept or reject the demonstration will be 
reviewable to the same extent that site-specific permits are 
reviewable under State law.
    Small Business. For small businesses engaged in industrial, 
commercial, oil, gas or mining activities, States may not 
require general permits or site-specific permits unless the 
State finds that, without such permits, stormwater discharges 
from small businesses will have a significant adverse effect on 
water quality. The State's finding under this subparagraph is 
committed to the State's discretion. If the State makes this 
finding with respect to a category or subcategory of small 
business (or an individual business) such a category or 
subcategory (or individual business) shall be regulated in the 
same fashion as other industrial, commercial, oil, gas or 
mining activities. Paragraph (5) requires EPA to define small 
businesses for the purpose of this section.
    Municipal Discharges. Paragraph (2)(D) requires States to 
develop a program for the reduction of pollution from municipal 
stormwater discharges sufficient to allow the State to meet the 
goals of this section and the Act. The State's identification, 
of those municipalities that will be subject to the State 
stormwater management program is a matter committed to the 
discretion of the State. However, it is the intent of the 
Committee that States work closely with local governments to 
develop the municipal stormwater program.
    Construction Activities. Paragraph (2)(E) governs 
stormwater discharges from construction activities. The bill 
does not require States to regulate construction activities in 
the same fashion as industrial, commercial, oil, gas or mining 
activities generally. The Committee recognizes that for 
construction activities, many States already have stormwater 
runoff and/or erosion and sediment control requirements in 
place that are working to control stormwater runoff from 
construction activities through pollution prevention practices 
and measures. Accordingly, States must develop a program for 
construction activities that is consistent with current State 
and local requirements to avoid duplicative regulatory 
requirements.
    The program for construction activities also must take into 
account land area disturbed by the construction activities and 
should consider differences in soil conditions, project 
duration, location, topography, and vegetation when identifying 
management practices and measures.
    The program for construction activities also must focus on 
pollution prevention through model management practices and 
measures. States are encouraged to use voluntary programs and 
enforceable pollution prevention plans in lieu of a permitting 
framework to require implementation of pollution prevention 
management practices.
    The State may impose effluent limits or other numerical 
standards to control pollutants in stormwater discharges from 
construction activities only if the State finds, after 
providing notice and an opportunity for comment, that such 
standards are necessary to achieve water quality standards. 
This finding shall be reviewable in the context of any 
applicable permit appeal proceeding. Such review shall be in 
accordance with procedures and standards applicable to permit 
decisions under State law.
    States retain the flexibility to reduce (as well as 
increase) controls established for categories and subcategories 
of industrial, commercial, oil, gas, mining or construction 
activities based on the State findings and facility 
demonstrations provided for in this section. Thus, not only do 
facilities have an incentive to prevent stormwater pollution to 
avoid increased controls, they have the incentive to reduce any 
stormwater pollution that is the basis for a permitting 
requirement or an effluent limitation to work their way 
``back'' to enforceable pollution prevention planning with a 
goal of ``no contact'' (where economically and technologically 
feasible) and voluntary pollution prevention activities. Thus, 
the public and the environment benefit by a net reduction in 
discharges of identified pollution to waters and improved water 
quality and dischargers and States benefit by reduced 
administrative burdens.
    Bad Actor Provisions. Notwithstanding any other 
requirements of this section, a State may take any action it 
deems necessary to address stormwater discharges from bad 
actors. Accordingly, Paragraph (2)(F) requires State stormwater 
management programs to include a bad actor provision that 
specifies that programs for specific types of dischargers (and 
any hierarchy of controls specified in those programs) are 
superseded where the State identifies, after notice and an 
opportunity for a hearing, a discharger that has a history of 
stormwater noncompliance under the Clean Water Act, State law, 
or implementing regulations, permits, orders, or administrative 
actions, or poses an imminent threat to human health and the 
environment. The State stormwater management program need not 
spell out what specific actions the State will take against 
particular bad actors.
    The identification of a discharger that has a history of 
stormwater noncompliance or poses an imminent threat shall be 
subject to the same standards and procedures applicable to 
formal adjudications under the State law governing 
administrative procedure. The discharger's right to review 
shall be dependent on State administrative law and whatever due 
process State law requires for the actions the State proposes 
to take against the bad actor.
    In identifying bad actors, the State may rely on a 
discharger's failure to comply with stormwater requirements in 
existence prior to the date of enactment of this bill. However, 
a discharger subject to section 402(p)(6) (a Phase II 
discharger) is not a bad actor solely by reason of a failure to 
obtain or apply for a stormwater discharge permit. In addition, 
a discharger subject to section 402(p)(4) (a Phase I 
discharger) is not a bad actor solely by reason of a failure to 
obtain a stormwater discharge permit if the discharger 
submitted a complete stormwater permit application as required 
under section 402(p) (including those facilities that were part 
of an approved group stormwater permit application) prior to 
the date of enactment of this bill in a timely fashion.
    Schedule. Under Paragraph (2)(G), each State stormwater 
management program must include a schedule for making 
reasonable progress toward attainment of the goal of meeting 
water quality standards (which contain stormwater criteria) 
within 15 years of the date of program approval. The goal of 
the program is meeting water quality standards. However, the 
state programs are developed as five-year implementation plans. 
The State program must be updated and revised after each five-
year internal. The Committee does not expect that water quality 
standards will be met in all waters impacted by stormwater 
discharges in the first five years of program implementation. 
However, a State program must make reasonable further progress 
toward the goal of attaining water quality standards.
    Reasonable further progress may be shown by any combination 
of improvements in water quality, documented implementation of 
voluntary stormwater discharge control measures, or adoption of 
enforcement stormwater discharge control measure.
    Certification of Adequate Authority. Under Paragraph 
(2)(H), a State must certify that it has adequate authority to 
implement the stormwater management program, or list additional 
authorities that will be necessary to implement the program and 
a commitment to seek such additional authorities as 
expectiously as possible. It is the intent of the Committee 
that States be able to use existing authorities to the maximum 
extend possible under State law, including existing permitting 
authorities, to implement this program.
    Identification of Federal Financial Assistance Programs. 
Paragraph (2)(I) requires a State to identify Federal financial 
assistance programs and Federal development projects that the 
State will review for their effect on water quality and for 
consistency with the State's stormwater management program.
    Monitoring. Paragraph (2)(J) requires States to describe 
the monitoring of navigable waters that will be carried out for 
the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of the State 
program.
    Identification of Certain Inconsistent Federal Activities. 
Paragraph (2)(K) requires States to identify activities on 
Federal lands that are inconsistent with the State management 
program.
    Identification of Goals and Milestones. Paragraph (2)(L) 
requires the State to identify goals and milestones for 
achieving progress toward the attainment of water quality 
standards (that include stormwater criteria), including a 
projected date for attainment that cannot be later than 15 
years from the date of program approval.
    Utilization of Local and Private Experts. Paragraph (3) 
requires a State to involve local public and private agencies 
and organizations with expertise in stormwater management when 
developing and implementing the State stormwater management 
program. Private organizations include industrial facilities 
and related trade associations, including those whose expertise 
in stormwater management was developed from participation in 
EPA's group stormwater permit application process.
    Development on a Watershed Basis. Paragraph (4) requires 
States to develop and implement State stormwater management 
programs on a watershed basis to the maximum extent 
practicable.
    Regulations Defining Small Businesses. Paragraph (5) 
requires EPA to issue regulations defining small businesses for 
the purposes of this section. In defining small businesses, the 
Committee expects EPA to consult with the Small Business 
Administration Office of Advocacy and to examine the definition 
of small business used in other environmental statutes.
    Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans. Subsection (d) sets 
forth the requirements for the stormwater pollution prevention 
plans that must be implemented by industrial, commercial, oil, 
gas, and mining facilities under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii). If 
equivalent, State or local erosion control plans, or spill 
prevention, control and countermeasure plans may qualify under 
this subsection as a stormwater pollution prevention plan.
    A facility that is complying with a stormwater pollution 
prevention plan meeting the requirements of this subsection 
shall not be subject to permits, mandatory model management 
practices and measures, analytical monitoring, effluent 
limitations or other numerical standards under section 
322(c)(2)(C)(ii).
    Administrative Provisions. Subsection (e) of new section 
322 includes administrative provisions.
    Cooperation Requirement. Subsection (e)(1) requires a State 
to develop both the State assessment report and the State 
stormwater implementation plan in cooperation with local, 
substate, regional, and interstate entities which are 
responsible for implementing a stormwater management program.
    Time Period for Submission of Management Programs. 
Subsection (e)(2) requires States to initially submit their 
stormwater management programs to EPA within 30 months of the 
date that EPA issues its guidance on model stormwater 
management practices and measures (as required under subsection 
(1) of new section 322). Every five years, States must resubmit 
their program to EPA along with a demonstration of reasonable 
further progress toward the goal of attaining water quality 
standards (that contain stormwater criteria) and a 
documentation of the degree to which the State has achieved the 
interim goals and milestones contained in the previous program 
submission. The State's demonstration shall take into account 
the adequacy of Federal funding under this section.
    Transition. Subsection (e)(3) identifies the rules that 
apply during the period of time from enactment of this section 
to the date a State program is approved. Notwithstanding the 
repeal of section 402(p), section 402(p) remains in effect 
during the transition period only as authority for permits and 
enforcement measures as provided for in section 322. All 
permits issued pursuant to section 402(p) remain in effect, 
except as provided for in this subsection, until superseded by 
an approved State stormwater management program. Stormwater 
dischargers operating under permit applications because no 
permit has yet been issued, shall continue to operate under the 
terms and conditions in the permit description that accompanies 
the application, unless the permitting authority disapproves 
the application.
    All conditions of those permits and permit applications, 
including requirements for the payment of fees, also remain in 
effect unless and until such conditions are modified by the 
State. However, prior to the effective date of the State 
stormwater management program, a stormwater discharger may 
request the State or EPA, as applicable, to modify its 
stormwater permit. For example, the discharger may seek 
approval to have effluent limitations or numerical standards 
removed from the permit.
    Notwithstanding the repeal of section 402(p), during the 
transition period after the date of enactment of the bill and 
before the effective date of a State stormwater management 
program, States shall retain any authority conferred by section 
402(p) to enforce the permitting requirements that section 
imposed on Phase I stormwater dischargers. However, any 
stormwater discharger (both municipal and nonmunicipal) that is 
complying with a stormwater discharge permit or application 
continued in effect under this section shall not be subject to 
citizen suits under section 505.
    Any new nonmunicipal facility that begins operation during 
this transition period that would have been a Phase I facility 
if it had commenced operation prior to the date of enactment of 
this Act, shall be subject to any applicable general permit 
that covers its type of operations. To be in compliance with 
this section, such facilities are required to notify the State 
or Administrator that the facility intends to be covered by and 
shall comply with such permit.
    If there is no general permit applicable to the new 
nonmunicipal facility, the State may impose enforceable 
stormwater management measures under this section, State 
authorities, or section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act as in 
effect prior to the date of enactment of this Act, if the State 
finds that the stormwater discharge is likely to impose an 
imminent threat to human health and the environment or to pose 
a significant impairment of water quality standards. Such a 
finding is committed to the discretion of the State.
    In recognition of the valuable information such dischargers 
have collected, the considerable resources expended upon such 
applications, the technical sophistication and relatively high 
compliance rates of such dischargers, an industrial facility 
that is included in a part 1 group stormwater permit 
application approved by EPA under 40 C.F.R. section 
122.26(c)(2), may choose to immediately implement a stormwater 
pollution prevention plan consistent with subsection (d) of new 
section 322 in lieu of continued operation under existing 
permits. This option is available during the transition period 
only. To exercise this option, the facility must certify to the 
State, or EPA as appropriate, that it is operating under 
stormwater pollution prevention plan that is consistent with 
subsection (d). Upon such certification, the facility shall no 
longer be subject to its existing permit. However, failure to 
implement and comply with a stormwater pollution prevention 
plan that is consistent with subsection (d) shall be a 
violation of the Act subject to enforcement under section 309 
and citizen suits under section 505.
    Stormwater discharges for which permits were required under 
section 402 prior to the 1987 amendments (which added section 
402(p) to the Act) are not addressed under new section 322. 
Such stormwater discharges remain point source discharges 
subject to section 402.
    Notwithstanding the fact that permits under section 402(p) 
are continued in effect during the transition period, the 
antibacksliding provisions of section 402(o) shall not apply to 
any modifications of permits that may occur during the period 
of time between the date of enactment of this Act and the 
effective date of a State stormwater management program. Of 
course, section 402(o) has no application to a State stormwater 
management program, when implemented.
    Approval or Disapproval of Reports or Management Programs. 
Subsection (f) provides EPA with the authority to approve or 
disapprove a State assessment report or a State stormwater 
management program (or portion of a management program). If EPA 
does not disapprove a report or program within 180 days of 
submission, the report or program shall be deemed to be 
approved.
    To disapprove a proposed State stormwater management 
program (or a portion of a program), EPA must determine, after 
providing notice and an opportunity for comment, that (1) the 
proposed program does not contain the elements required by this 
section, (2) the proposed program will not satisfy the goals 
and requirements of the Act, (3) the State does not have 
adequate authority or resources to implement the program (or 
portion being disapproved), or (4) the practices and measures 
that the State proposes to implement will not result in 
reasonable further progress toward the attainment of water 
quality standards.
    To disapprove a program or portion of a program, EPA also 
must notify the State within six months of the date the State 
submitted the program to EPA of the revisions or modifications 
necessary for approval. The State then shall have an additional 
six months from date of notification of disapproval to revise 
and resubmit its program and EPA shall have an additional three 
months from the date of receipt of the revised program to 
approve or disapprove it.
    When reviewing a State stormwater management program, EPA 
shall not condition approval of a State's program unless it 
makes the determinations provided for in subsection (f)(2).
    Federal Takeover of State Programs. If a State does not 
submit a State assessment report (which under subsection (b) 
must be submitted within 18 months from the date of enactment) 
by the date which a State stormwater management program must be 
submitted to EPA, EPA must prepare an assessment report for the 
State.
    If a State does not submit a stormwater management program, 
or if EPA disapproves the proposed State program, EPA shall 
prepare and implement a stormwater management program for the 
State.
    If, upon reviewing a program submitted for renewal five 
years after the date of initial program approval, EPA 
determines (after taking into account the level of funding 
provided compared to the level authorized) that the State has 
not demonstrated reasonable further progress toward attainment 
of water quality standards, the State shall have 12 months to 
revise its program in a manner sufficient to achieve water 
quality standards within 15 years from the date of initial 
program approval. If the State fails to revise its program or 
EPA disapproves the revision, EPA shall prepare and implement a 
stormwater management program for the State. EPA's disapproval 
of the revision also shall be subject to notice and comment.
    As an alternative to Federal takeover of a State stormwater 
management program under this subsection, EPA and a State may 
approve a program submitted by a unit of general purpose local 
government or a local public agency or organization. If the 
State agrees, a local public agency or organization may seek 
technical assistance from EPA to develop such a program, which 
may be applicable to subsections of the State that EPA 
determines are of sufficient geographic size to allow 
implementation of a separate stormwater management program.
    If EPA or a local agency implements a State stormwater 
management program, or a portion of a State program, that 
agency shall have the responsibilities and authorities for 
program implementation placed upon or provided to the States by 
the new section 322 and shall comply with the requirements 
imposed on States under this section.
    Interstate Management Conference. Under subsection (g) a 
State may ask EPA to convene an interstate management 
conference if a portion of the State's navigable waters are not 
meeting water quality standards or the goals or requirements of 
the Clean Water Act because of pollution from stormwater 
discharges that originate in another State. If EPA determines 
that the State has correctly identified stormwater discharges 
originating in another State as the source of its water quality 
problem, EPA shall notify the affected States and convene an 
interstate management conference within 180 days of such 
notification.
    The purpose of the management conference is to develop an 
agreement among the affected States relating to pollution from 
stormwater discharges. If the States reach agreement, their 
State stormwater management programs shall be revised to 
reflect that agreement.
    Grants for Stormwater Research. For the purpose of 
determining the most cost-effective and technologically 
feasible means of addressing pollution from stormwater 
discharges and to develop stormwater criteria, subsection (h) 
authorizes $20 million annually to be awarded by EPA for grants 
for State and local demonstration projects and research to (1) 
identify adverse impact of stormwater, (2) identify pollutants 
in stormwater that have an adverse impact, and (3) test 
innovative approaches to address the impacts of source controls 
and model management practices and measures.
    For each year that Congress fails to appropriate the full 
$20 million authorized under this subsection, any deadlines 
established in a State program for compliance with water 
quality standards shall be postponed by one year.
    Development of Stormwater Criteria. Subsection (i) requires 
EPA to develop stormwater criteria as an element of water 
quality standards established for designated uses of navigable 
waters by December 31, 2008. The stormwater criteria need not 
be numeric criteria. The criteria may include performance 
standards, guidelines, guidance, and model management practices 
and measures and treatment requirements. In addition, in 
developing such criteria, EPA should consider the importance of 
land-based transportation developments to national defense, 
Postal Service operations and interstate commerce.
    Collection of Information. Subsection (j) requires EPA to 
collect and make publicly available information pertaining to 
model management practice and measures and implementation 
methods.
    Reports of EPA. Subsection (k) requires EPA to submit a 
biennial report to Congress on activities and programs 
implemented under section 322 and progress made in reducing 
pollution in navigable waters from stormwater discharges.
    Guidance on Model Stormwater Management Practices and 
Measures. Subsection (l) requires EPA to publish guidance on 
model stormwater management practices and measures. EPA's 
guidance must consider the fact that a State may choose to 
integrate its stormwater management program with its section 
319 nonpoint source management program.
    Enforcement. Subsection (m) specifies that State stormwater 
management programs are federally enforceable under sections 
309 and 505 of the Clean Water Act.
    Entry and Inspection. Subsection (n) specifies that a State 
has the right to enter and inspect any property at which there 
is a stormwater discharge or at which records required to be 
maintained under a State stormwater management program and 
located.
    Stormwater Discharges Regulated Under a Watershed Program. 
A State that chooses to develop a watershed program under 
section 321 of the Act need not develop and implement a State 
stormwater management program for those stormwater discharges 
that are addressed under the State watershed program, which 
shall be deemed to be the State stormwater management program 
with respect to such discharges. However, subsection (o) 
specifies that the State's regulation of stormwater discharges 
under section 321 must be consistent with this section.
    Consistency does not require duplication of a section 322 
program within a section 321 program. However, if a State 
chooses to use the authority provided under section 322 to 
require a permit on a stormwater discharge in the context of a 
section 321 watershed program (which does not give States any 
authority to require permits for nonpoint sources of 
pollution), the State must make the findings and utilize the 
administrative procedures provided for under section 322. In 
addition, consistent with this section, a State may not under 
section 321 require compliance with numerical standards or 
limitations based on water quality standards until such 
standards incorporate stormwater criteria.
    Mineral Exploration and Mining Sites. Subsection (p) 
clarifies how stormwater discharges from mineral exploration 
and mining sites are to be regulated following the date of 
enactment.
    Stormwater discharges from mineral exploration sites are to 
be regulated in the same manner as stormwater discharges from 
construction activities, consistent with current law. Mineral 
exploration activities are generally of short duration and 
affect only a limited area where core drilling or bulk sampling 
is conducted. For exploration activities at inactive or 
abandoned mine sites, the operator's responsibility for control 
of stormwater is limited to the area disturbed by the 
exploration activity in order to provide an incentive for 
exploring such sites in historically mined areas without 
incurring liability for the ground not disturbed by the 
exploration operation.
    Stormwater discharges from ore mining and dressing sites 
that are commingled with mine drainage and process wastewater 
are regulated as point source discharges under section 402, and 
not as stormwater discharges under section 322.
    Stormwater discharges from abandoned mined lands are to be 
regulated under section 319, unless the State determines, in 
its sole discretion, that regulation under section 322 is 
necessary to make reasonable further progress toward achieving 
water quality standards. However, due to the additional 
remediation authorities and resources available under the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, abandoned mined 
lands subject to that Act shall be subject to section 319 only.
    All other stormwater discharges from mining activities are 
regulated under section 322.
    Section 322(b) of the bill repeals the limitation on 
permits for stormwater from agricultural return flows and oil, 
gas and operations under section 402(l). By repealing section 
402(p) and the exemption in section 402(l), the Committee does 
not intend to change the Clean Water Act's current approach to 
agricultural stormwater runoff from cropland, pasture, 
rangelands and other agricultural areas. Diffuse agricultural 
runoff is addressed under section 319 and not the newly 
established section 322; stormwater runoff from oil and gas 
operations is regulated under new section 322; and stormwater 
runoff from mining operations is regulated as specified in new 
section 322(p), as discussed above.
    Section 322(c) of the bill repeals section 402(p) of the 
Clean Water Act. Notwithstanding this repeal, authorities and 
requirements under section 402(p) remain in effect as provided 
for in this section until such time as a State stormwater 
management program is approved.
    Section 322(d) of the bill defines the terms stormwater and 
stormwater discharge and amends the definition of point source.
    Stormwater is defined as runoff from rain, snow melt, or 
any other precipitation-generated surface runoff.
    Stormwater discharge is defined as a discharge from any 
conveyance used for collecting and conveying stormwater to 
navigable waters and which is associated with a municipal storm 
sewer or industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining activity. 
A conveyance shall include any ditch or channel formed by the 
runoff and is not limited to artificially constructed 
conveyances.
    Stormwater discharges are excluded from the definition of 
point source.

Section 323. Risk assessment and disclosure requirements

    Section 323 of the bill adds a new section 323 to the Act. 
This section is presented in two parts. First, the subsections 
of section 323 are briefly summarized in the order they appear 
in the bill. Second, the Committee's views regarding the 
intended effect of section 323 are described. Although this 
discussion focuses on the responsibilities placed on the 
Administrator of EPA, these responsibilities also generally 
apply to relevant activities performed by the Secretary of the 
Army.
    Subsection (a) requires the Administrator of EPA to develop 
and publish a risk assessment before issuing any standard, 
effluent limitation, water quality criterion, water quality 
based requirement, or other regulatory requirement that is not 
a permit or a purely procedural requirement, and any guidance 
that, if a rule, would result in costs of $25 million or more 
per year.
    Subsection (b) delineates the minimum contents of risk 
assessments. Risk assessments must identify and discuss data, 
assumptions, risk to specific populations or natural resources, 
and uncertainty.
    Subsection (c) provides for the Administrator of EPA, in 
consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to issue guidance 
for conducting risk assessments covered under this section. The 
guidance shall be issued within 180 days of enactment.
    Subsection (d) requires that EPA provide an explicit and 
practical quantitative description of any margin of safety 
relative to an unbiased estimate of the risk being addressed. 
In the past, margins of safety have been adopted in response to 
legislative requirements and at the discretion of the Agency.
    Subsection (e) allows EPA to exempt from the requirements 
of this section, regulations that would result in costs of less 
than $25 million or more per year.
    Subsection (f) establishes an effective date for these 
requirements as one year following the date of enactment of 
this section.
    Under subsection (g) EPA must conduct risk assessments for 
regulatory requirements and guidance issued after February 15, 
1995, that would result in costs of $100 million or more per 
year. Such reviews must be completed within 18 months of 
enactment of this section. The Committee notes that this 
provision and a similar provision under section 324 (subsection 
324(f)(1)(B)) has, unfortunately, been widely mischaracterized 
and that these mischaracterizations have caused unnecessary 
confusion.\1\ Thus far only one requirement, the Great Lakes 
Initiative issued in March 1995, would need to be reviewed 
under this subsection. Further, since rules costing $100 
million or more are already required to be evaluated by EPA and 
the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866, the Committee expects that the retroactive review 
required by sections 323 and 324 will place little or no 
additional burden on EPA, assuming EPA has complied with the 
Executive Order.
    \1\ For instance, the retroactive coverage of section 324 has been 
described as repealing ``23 years of existing major Clean Water Act 
standards by requiring extensive cost-benefit and risk assessment 
reviews for all major existing standards within an impossible deadline 
of 18 months.'' (Letter to Congress from Jay Hair of the National 
Wildlife Federation dated April 3, 1995.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overall, the Committee intends that section 323 be 
consistent with the general risk assessment provisions of H.R. 
1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995, which 
passed the House of Representatives on February 28, 1995 by a 
vote of 286 to 141. Section 323 tailors the requirements of 
H.R. 1022 to the Clean Water Act.
    Section 323 sets out minimum requirements for risk 
assessments that are performed in support of significant 
regulations and guidance. The thrust of these requirements is 
to fundamentally change the way EPA presents the results of 
risk assessments to decision makers. Three aspects of this 
section will lead to this change, each of which is described 
below.
    First, the requirements of subsection 323(b) will ensure 
that the risk assessments reflect sound science. As Mary Jo 
Garries, Chief of Standards and Certification for Maryland's 
Department of the Environment recently noted, ``Too often * * * 
in the rush to meet public demand for water quality protection, 
standards are hastily and imperfectly derived. The 
imperfections are frequently the result of inadequate science, 
which can take many forms.'' Specific requirements under 
sections 323(b) (1), (3), and (4) will require federal risk 
assessors to identify and use all relevant and readily 
obtainable scientific data and justify the selection of 
significant assumptions, inferences or models that could 
significantly change the findings of the risk assessment.
    Second, section 323(b) will require EPA to produce best 
estimates (or similar unbiased descriptions) of the risk to be 
regulated. The Committee expects these estimates will be a 
principal product of risk assessments. Currently, EPA does not 
provide best estimates of the reduction in health and 
environmental risks a proposed regulation will achieve. 
Further, EPA typically does not describe the margin of safety a 
proposed standard incorporates. Both of these problems are 
caused, at least in part, by embedded and often hidden 
conservation assumptions in risk assessments. This results in 
estimates that reflect a degree of risk that is more serious 
than an unbiased estimate would indicate. For instance, EPA 
risk assessments for dioxin exceed those adopted by other 
governments by a factor of a thousand and exceed independently 
generated ``most likely estimates'' by a factor of 5,000.
    The problems this presents for decision makers, including 
State policymakers who must use EPA risk assessments to set 
water quality standards, are significant. As a Department of 
Energy study concluded last year, ``By design, many science 
policy decisions lead to risk assessment results that are more 
likely to overstate than to understate risks'' and, 
unfortunately:

        Risk assessors often fail to emphasize the existence 
        and extent of science policy in risk assessment. Where 
        the role of science policy is not explicitly explained, 
        risk estimates may be erroneously communicated to 
        policy makers, risk managers, the media, and the public 
        as uncontrovered fact. * * * Risk assessors should 
        ensure that such miscommunication does not occur.\2\
    \2\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``Choices in Risk Assessment: The 
Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk Management Process,'' 
Washington, DC, 1994, p. 241 and 244.

    The absence of best estimates further complicates 
policymaking in instances where risk assessments are used in 
conjunction with information on economic effects in making 
regulatory decisions (as opposed to using risk assessments to 
set health-based standards). EPA's current risk assessment 
process forces EPA decision makers to compare indeterminately 
conservative estimates of risk reduction against best estimates 
of compliance costs. Because the level of conservatism embodied 
in risk estimates may vary by more than a factor of ten, this 
necessarily warps the intent of policymakers who may otherwise 
believe they are making consistent and rational decisions 
regarding the expenditure of resources to protect public health 
and the environment.
    A more logical structure for assessing risks in pursuit of 
health and environmental protection is to produce a best 
estimate (or similar unbiased characterization) of the risk 
along with a description of the uncertainty of the estimate and 
then make an explicit and deliberate policy decision regarding 
the margin of safety that is desirable. A margin of safety may 
be necessary in order to protect certain specific populations 
or subpopulations that are more sensitive to harm than the 
population or ecosystem in general or in order to take into 
account key uncertainties in the risk assessment, or because it 
is required by statute. Defining an explicit margin of safety 
is precisely the type of process engineers use in designing 
dams, bridges, or other structures whose failure could result 
in a significant loss of life or environmental damage.
    Sections 323(b) (5) and (6) and subsection 323(d) address 
these problems. They will require EPA to provide best estimates 
(or other unbiased descriptions) of the risk being assessed, 
describe the uncertainty inherent in these estimates and 
explicitly identify and describe margins of safety adopted by 
the Agency. It is important to note that the best estimate (or 
other unbiased estimation) must include a description of the 
specific populations or natural resources the best estimate is 
based on. For instance, the prevalence and variability of the 
populations used could be critical to interpreting such an 
estimate.
    The Committee recognizes that in order to meet these 
requirements EPA will have to attempt to separate questions of 
science from questions of policy. This is intentional. In 1983 
the National Academy of Science recommended that:

        regulatory agencies take steps to establish and 
        maintain a clear conceptual distinction between 
        assessment of risks and consideration of risk 
        management alternatives; that is, the scientific 
        findings and policy judgements embodied in risk 
        assessments should be explicitly distinguished from the 
        political, economic, and technical considerations that 
        influence the design and choice of regulatory 
        strategies.\3\
    \3\ National Research Council, ``Risk Assessment in the Federal 
Government: Managing the Process'' (also known as the ``Red Book''). 
National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1983, p. 7.

    However, the Committee also recognizes that policy and 
scientific determinations are often intertwined an can be 
difficult to segregate. These provisions of section 323 are 
intended to separate policy and scientific findings as much as 
is practical and require risk assessors to explicitly identify 
and describe policy decisions whenever they are made.
    The third change section 323 invokes is the greater use of 
risk assessment results in setting EPA priorities. Subsection 
323(b)(7) would require EPA to compare the nature and extent of 
a risk to other risks to human health and the environment. This 
reflects the importance of placing risk reductions in context 
and forcing some evaluation of whether resources being directed 
at the proposed risk reduction may be inadequate or may be 
better directed at other more important priorities.
    Among its several uses, the use of risk assessment as a 
priority setting device offers the greatest opportunity for 
benefiting public health and the environment. Comparative risk 
can indicate where a reallocation of resources may result in 
greater environmental benefits at no increased cost to society. 
The Committee is concerned at the lack of prioritization that 
takes place within the water program and across EPA. Numerous 
bipartisan groups and experts including EPA's Science Advisory 
Board, the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and 
Government, the Environmental Working Group, former EPA 
Administrator William Reilly, and Supreme Court Justice Stephen 
Breyer have recommended that EPA's planning and budgeting 
process needs to reflect risk-based priorities.
    The Committee expects that section 323 requirements for 
producing unbiased risk estimates and comparisons to other 
risks, along with establishing consistent guidelines for risk 
assessments, will make it easier to deliberately set priorities 
among water related regulatory activities, and compare these 
activities to other priorities outside of the water program. 
Such information will help future policymakers, including this 
Committee, determine how laws, regulations, and budgets should 
be changed to improve federal environmental programs.

Section 324. Benefit and cost criterion

    Section 324 of the bill adds a new section 324 to the Act. 
This new section is presented in two parts. First, subsections 
of section 324 are briefly summarized. Following this, the 
Committee's views regarding the intended effect of this section 
are presented. Although the discussion of section 324 focuses 
on the responsibilities placed on the Administrator of EPA, 
they also apply to relevant activities performed by the 
Secretary of the Army.
    Subsection (a) requires the Administrator of EPA to certify 
that new regulations (and new guidance that, if issued as a 
rule, would result in an annual increase in costs of $25 
million or more per year) maximize net benefits to society. The 
requirement to maximize net benefits supplements and, to the 
extent there is a conflict, supersedes decision criteria 
otherwise applicable under the Clean Water Act, except that the 
resulting regulatory requirement or guidance must be 
economically achievable.
    Subsection (b) directs EPA to issue guidance for conducting 
benefit-cost analyses within 180 days of enactment. The 
guidance shall include procedures for identifying policy 
alternatives and methods for estimating incremental benefits 
and costs.
    Subsection (c) exempts from the requirements of this 
section permits, purely procedural requirements, water quality 
criteria, and water quality based standards.
    Subsection (d) allows the Administrator of EPA the 
discretion to exempt from the requirements of this section any 
regulations that would result in costs of less than $25 million 
per year.
    Subsection (e) sets out the general effective date of 
section 324 as one year from the date of enactment.
    Subsection (f) requires EPA to review, using the criterion 
of this section, any regulatory requirements and guidance 
issued after February 15, 1995, if such regulations or guidance 
would result in costs of $100 million or more per year. As 
mentioned above, the effect of this requirement may need some 
clarification (see the summary of subsection 323(g) above).
    Subsection (g) directs EPA to perform a study within 5 
years of enactment regarding the precision and accuracy of 
benefit and cost estimates developed to comply with this 
section.
    Overall, the Committee intends that section 324 be 
consistent with the benefit-cost provisions of H.R. 1022, the 
Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995 which passed the 
House of Representatives on February 28, 1995, by a vote of 286 
to 141. Section 324 tailors these requirements to the Clean 
Water Act resulting in some important differences which are 
described below. None of these differences are intended to 
conflict with the requirements of H.R. 1022 but, rather, should 
supplement or complement the benefit-cost requirements of H.R. 
1022.
    As noted earlier in this report, since 1972 Clean Water Act 
regulations, and technology-based standards in particular, have 
resulted in significant improvements in the nation's water 
quality. For instance, the United States Geological Survey 
recently noted that the concentrations in fish of three 
important toxic elements (arsenic, cadmium, and lead) decreased 
by more than 50 percent nationwide from 1976 to 1986.\4\ 
Nonetheless, there is evidence that the improvement in water 
quality has come at an unnecessarily high cost and the 
efficiency of Clean Water Act requirements will simply become 
increasingly worse.
    \4\ USGS, ``National Water Summary 1990-91, 1993, p. 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A number of independent sources have recommended that 
future Clean Water Act regulations need to reflect a better 
balance between benefits and costs to society. Indeed, the 
limited data available indicate current regulations are 
extremely inefficient. One estimate placed the annual costs of 
compliance with Clean Water Act requirements in the mid-1980s 
at approximately $28 billion, while the benefits achieved over 
the same time period were approximately half this ($14 
billion).\5\ Further, a recent analysis indicates that under 
existing provisions of the Clean Water Act, future regulations 
may be even less cost-effective, resulting in costs that will 
outweigh benefits by as much as four to one.\6\
    \5\ See Freeman, A. M., Water Pollution Policy, in ``Policies for 
Environmental Protection,'' edited by Paul Portney, pp. 122-127, 
Resources for the Future, Washington DC, 1990.
    \6\ Lyon, Randolph and Scott Farrow, ``An Economic Analysis of 
Clean Water Issues'', ``Water Resources Research,'' January 1995, pp. 
213-223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The purpose of section 324 is to ensure that future 
regulations reflect a rational and coherent allocation of 
society's resources. Over twenty years ago Bill Ruckelshaus, 
then Administrator of EPA, argued against the adoption of 
technology-based limits. He testified before this Committee: 
``Effluent limitations are a means for achievement. They should 
not become an end unto themselves, nor should they be defined 
in statutory law solely in terms of the technology needed to 
achieve them.'' He further stated:

          There must be a rational, sober evaluation of 
        alternatives because we are always dealing with finite 
        resources. For instance, the extraordinary costs which 
        may be necessary to take the last five percent of 
        pollutants from a specific effluent in a specific river 
        basin may have no reasonable relationship to the 
        benefits to be derived. Without a consideration of the 
        nature and use of the receiving water, and the costs to 
        society, we may be wasting resources which could be 
        more effectively used to clean the air, dispose of 
        solid wastes, or effectively address water pollution 
        control in another body of water. As you well know, the 
        alternative uses of finite resources are infinite. 
        (Testimony of William Ruckelshaus before the Committee 
        on Public Works, December 7, 1971.)

    On the same day, Russell Train, then the Chairman of the 
Council on Environmental Quality, predicted that:

          If we insist that the public pay--through tax 
        revenues and increased prices for manufactured goods--
        many billions of dollars for water cleanup beyond the 
        point where added benefits can be demonstrated or even 
        assumed, I believe we will hurt the environmental cause 
        in two ways: First, the public legitimately will 
        question our wisdom on this and other environmental 
        matters and perhaps feel that the measures needed to 
        deal with environmental problems are being exaggerated. 
        Second, the imposition of enormous incremental costs 
        unsupported by water quality benefits attained will 
        divert an inordinate amount of our resources from other 
        environmental priorities, where they could be more 
        effectively utilized. (Testimony of Russell Train 
        before the Committee on Public Works, December 7, 
        1971.)

    Despite Train's warning, the Clean Water Act was amended to 
incorporate technology-based limitations with a modicum of 
regard for benefit-cost considerations. Today the credibility 
of federal environmental regulations is strained and the 
allocation of environmental protection resources is patently 
out of line with any set of rational priorities. As Peter 
Rogers, a water policy expert at Harvard University states, 
``there is an urgent need to review the cost-effectiveness, the 
timetables, the attainability, and the prescriptive nature of 
the present technology-based standards and regulations.''
    The Committee believes it is important to make sure that 
new or revised federal regulations be justified by the benefits 
they will attain. If proposed regulations cannot meet such a 
test, they will need to be reworked to make them less costly or 
achieve greater benefits. The benefit-cost requirement embodied 
in section 324 will force regulators to place a higher value on 
the resources they compel taxpayers, consumers, and others to 
use to restore and protect the nation's waters. It is the 
Committee's intention that this requirement will spur greater 
innovation and flexibility in the ways federal regulations are 
formulated and will ultimately achieve greater environmental 
protection than existing approaches at less cost. For instance, 
this section should encourage regulators to seek out situations 
where environmental protection and economic growth do not 
conflict, but go hand in hand.
    As mentioned above, section 324 contains some provisions 
that are different from those adopted in H.R. 1022. These 
include the criteria for benefit-cost review, the treatment of 
guidance, and exemptions from the review requirement. Each of 
these differences is described briefly below.
    The most notable difference between section 324 and H.R. 
1022 is the criteria for review. H.R. 1022 adopts three 
decision criteria:
          benefit-cost analyses are based on objective and 
        unbiased scientific and economic evaluations of all 
        significant and relevant information and risk 
        assessments;
          the incremental risk reduction or other benefits of 
        any strategy chosen will be likely to justify, and be 
        reasonably related to, the incremental costs incurred 
        by society; and
          that other alternative strategies identified or 
        considered by the agency were found either (A) to be 
        less cost-effective at achieving a substantially 
        equivalent reduction in risk, or (B) to provide less 
        flexibility to State, local, or tribal governments or 
        regulated entities in achieving the otherwise 
        applicable objectives of the regulation.
Section 324 adopts only one decision criterion: the regulation 
must ``maximize net benefits to society'' (section 324(a)(1)). 
The Committee believes that, for the purposes of the Clean 
Water Act, this standard is consistent with, and preferable to, 
the criteria listed in H.R. 1022 for the following reasons.
    First, the Committee expects that the first criterion of 
H.R. 1022, that benefit-cost analyses will be based on complete 
and unbiased information, will be incorporated into the 
guidance that will be issued under section 324(b).
    Second, the Committee notes that the second and third 
criteria of H.R. 1022, that incremental benefits be reasonably 
related to incremental costs and that the regulation must be 
the most cost-effective or flexible, are similar to standards 
already used under certain provisions of the Clean Water Act. 
For instance, applicants for permit modifications under section 
302(b)(2)(A) of the Act must show that the costs of achieving a 
effluent limitation are not reasonably related to the benefits 
and a cost-effectiveness test is used to help determine best 
available technology (BAT) standards under section 301(b)(2) of 
the Act.
    The Committee considers EPA's current implementation of 
these criteria as contrary to the intent of H.R. 1022 and 
section 324. For instance, as implemented under the Clean Water 
Act, the cost-effectiveness test does not always consider the 
option of no additional regulation (see, for instance, the list 
of options presented in ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis For 
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines And Standards For The 
Coastal Subcategory Of The Oil And Gas Extraction Point Source 
Category'' published by EPA in February 1995 on page 2-7). The 
Committee is concerned that EPA may consider its current 
interpretation of these tests as being consistent with the 
criteria of H.R. 1022.
    The ``maximize net benefits'' criterion adopted in section 
324 will solve this potential problem. For instance, it clearly 
requires EPA to consider all possible regulatory alternatives. 
In fact, because it may result in the selection of alternatives 
that could require a facility be closed (e.g., zero discharge 
that is not technically feasible), section 324(a)(2) limits the 
effect of the criterion by requiring the resulting regulatory 
requirement must be economically achievable. It is important to 
note that the ``maximize net benefits'' criterion does not 
conflict with cost-effectiveness and other criteria used in 
H.R. 1022, but, rather, subsumes them.\7\
    \7\ For a discussion of the relationship between benefit-cost 
criteria see Stokey, Edith and Richard Zeckhauser, ``A Primer for 
Policy Analysis,'' Norton, New York, 1978, pp. 137-155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The second reason the ``maximize net benefits'' criterion 
has been adopted for Clean Water Act requirements is that it 
will be administratively easier for EPA to implement than the 
three certifications under H.R. 1022. Since 1981, under 
President Reagan's Executive Order 12291, EPA has been required 
to estimate the costs and benefits of all new regulations. This 
requirement was renewed in 1993 under President Clinton's 
Executive Order 12866. Under these Executive Orders over 3,000 
EPA rules have gone through benefit-cost review. The ``maximize 
net benefits'' test under section 324 would subject new Clean 
Water Act regulations to the identical benefit-cost analysis 
required under Executive Order 12866. Thus section 324 would 
compel no additional analysis beyond that already required, 
assuming EPA has been complying with Executive Order 12866.
    A second important difference between section 324 and H.R. 
1022 is that it covers not only significant regulations (which 
are covered by H.R. 1022) but other significant regulatory 
requirements and significant guidance (see subsections 
324(a)(1) (A) and (B)). The Committee intends for section 324 
to cover the same set of policy documents as has been covered 
by Executive Orders 12291 and 12866. These are ``agency 
statements of general applicability and future effect, which 
the agency intends to have the force and effect of law, that is 
designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or 
to describe the procedure or practice requirements of the 
agency'' (Executive Order 12866, section 3(d)). The Committee 
notes that many documents EPA releases as ``guidance'' (such as 
the Great Lakes Initiative) have a stronger effect than that 
word typically connotes and that these documents will be 
improved by benefit-cost review.
    Finally, section 324 lists Clean Water Act-specific 
exemptions not found in H.R. 1022. These include the issuance 
of individual permits, purely procedural requirements, and, 
importantly, rules governing the formulation of water quality-
based standards. The Committee does not intend that the 
consideration of benefits or costs confuse EPA's development of 
water quality criteria under section 304 of the Clean Water 
Act, which represent non-regulatory scientific assessments of 
ecological effects. Further, while the Committee believes water 
quality-based standards should not be promulgated by EPA unless 
they result in benefits that are at least reasonably related to 
the costs of compliance with such standards (see section 303), 
it is not the Committee's intention to require EPA to 
``maximize net benefits to society'' when establishing water-
quality based standards.
    Benefit-cost analysis will not only result in better 
decision making at the first instance but will offer a baseline 
for determining whether regulations are, in fact, resulting in 
the benefits and costs that were anticipated. The Committee 
notes that federal policymakers are currently greatly 
restricted in what they can learn from the promulgation of past 
regulation because there is seldom a clear record of what was 
originally intended or expected. Section 324 should provide a 
basis for creating a feedback loop in the policymaking process 
so regulators can determine whether their original goals were 
met and what types of regulation may better protect human 
health and the environment at less cost.
    As a final note, the Committee recognizes the difficulty 
regulators face in attempting to perform benefit-cost analysis. 
First, it may be morally challenging. People often balk at 
admitting to the exchangeability of certain things. We would 
prefer to maintain that some things are beyond price. However, 
when society makes a decision to give up some of one good thing 
(e.g., reduced dredging of harbors) in order to get more of 
another good thing (e.g., reduced risk from contaminated 
sediments), a tradeoff necessarily takes place.
    The decisions that must be made by government involve 
painful choices. They affect both the quantity and distribution 
not only of goods and benefits, but also of potential health 
and environmental damage. As James DeLong, former research 
director of the Administrative Conference of the United States, 
has pointed out:

          It is easy to understand why people would want to 
        avoid making such choices and would rather act in 
        ignorance than with knowledge and responsibility for 
        the consequences of their choices. While this may be 
        understandable, I do not regard it as an acceptable 
        moral position. To govern is to choose, and government 
        officials--whether elected or appointed--betray their 
        obligations to the welfare of the people who hired them 
        if they adopt a policy of happy ignorance and 
        nonresponsibility for consequences.

    Benefit-cost analysis is designed not to dictate individual 
values, but to take them into account when decisions must be 
made collectively. Its use is grounded on the principle that, 
in democracy, government must act as an agent of the citizens.
    A second challenge regulators may face in using benefit-
cost analysis is technical. How are benefits and costs to be 
assessed? The Committee notes that the field of benefit-cost 
analysis is more developed than is generally recognized. As 
discussed above, benefit-cost analysis of all Clean Water rules 
has been required since 1981 and a federal guidance for 
conducing benefit-cost analysis, issued with EPA's concurrence, 
was published over five years ago.
    Further, the Committee does not intend that these analyses 
prolong the decision making process. The level of detail and 
effort required to complete these analyses should be 
commensurate with the expected impact of the requirement or 
guidance. It will come as no surprise if this section will 
initially be difficult to implement. It will require a change 
in thinking which will not be easy. However, the Committee 
expects that the estimation of benefits and costs will 
eventually become routine and subsequent benefit-cost analyses 
will greatly benefit from the experience gained under the 
Executive Orders and the first regulations or guidance assessed 
under this section.

                     title iv--permits and licenses

    Title IV of the bill amends Title IV of the Act, which 
addresses permits and licenses.

Section 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated animal feeding 
        operations

    This section amends section 402 of the CWA to clarify the 
scope of EPA's existing exemption from permitting for certain 
waste treatment systems involving concentrated animal feeding 
operations (CAFOs) and impoundments.
    The Committee recognizes that both manmade and naturally 
existing impoundments are utilized by CAFOs to meet the water 
quality protection goals and effluent guidelines of the CWA. 
The Committee recognizes that, in certain parts of the country, 
a small number of CAFOs utilize playa lakes as waste retention 
facilities to store rainfall runoff, and process generated 
wastwater produced by the facility. Historically, these playa 
lakes have functioned well as waste retention systems due to 
lack of hydrologic connection to jurisdictional waters of the 
United States and by providing excess storage and evaporative 
capacity. It would be counterproductive to classify such 
structures as waters of the United States, thus restricting 
their future use. It is the Committee's intent that a 
concentrated animal feeding operation utilizing a natural 
topographic impoundment, including a playa lake, on the 
effective date of this Act is authorized under this Act to 
continue use of the impoundment.

Section 402. Permit reform

    Duration and Reopeners. Section 402(a) of the bill amends 
section 402(b) of the Act to extend permit terms from 5 to 10 
years. The ten year permit term does not preclude the 
permitting authority from terminating or modifying the permit 
for cause, including as necessary to address a significant 
threat to human health and the environment.
    Review of Effluent Limitations. Section 402(b) of the bill 
amends section 301(d) to require that effluent limitations in 
permits be reviewed at least every ten years, when the permit 
is reissued.
    Discharge Limit. Section 402(c) of the bill amends section 
402(b) of the Act to prohibit the permitting authority from 
setting discharge limits in permits that are below the lowest 
level that the pollutant can be reliably quantified on an 
interlaboratory basis for a particular test method, as 
determined by EPA using approved analytical methods. The 
requirement that the quantification level be achieved on an 
interlaboratory basis precludes the permitting authority from 
setting permit limits below a quantification level that is 
achieved by only one or two laboratories.

Section 403. Review of State programs and permits

    Section 403 of the bill amends section 402 to revise EPA's 
oversight of decisions made by States regarding implementation 
of State permitting programs. First, this section amends 
section 402(a) of the Act to place EPA review of State programs 
on a three year cycle. Second, this section amends section 
402(d) to change the standard for EPA disapproval of State 
permits from ``outside the guidelines and requirements of this 
Act'' to ``as presenting a substantial risk to human health and 
the environment.'' Third, this section amends section 402(h) to 
allow EPA to take judicial action to prohibit the introduction 
of pollutants to a treatment works only where the discharge 
involves a significant source of pollutants to the waters of 
the United States.

Section 404. Statistical noncompliance

    Section 404 of the bill amends section 402(k) of the Act to 
provide permittees and indirect dischargers with an affirmative 
defense to allegations of noncompliance with technology-based 
effluent limitations or pretreatment standards if the permittee 
or indirect discharger can show, through reference to 
information from EPA's rulemaking docket on the development of 
the relevant effluent guideline, that the technology on which 
the effluent limitation or pretreatment standard is based does 
not achieve that limitation or standard 100% of the time.
    Technology-based effluent limitations guidelines under the 
Clean Water Act are supposed to be based upon the pollutant 
concentration levels that can be achieved by application of the 
Best Practicable, Best Conventional, and Best Available 
Technology. In setting these technology-based limits, EPA 
identifies the model technology that meets the statutory 
criteria, and then collects data on the pollutant concentration 
levels that application of such technology is capable of 
achieving. Not surprisingly, the achievable levels vary from 
day to day. In deciding what discharger limits to promulgate, 
EPA analyzes the data from the model technology and, using a 
statistical methodology, determines the daily maximum pollutant 
concentration level that the model technology can achieve 99 
percent of the time, and the monthly average level that the 
technology can achieve 95 percent of the time. It does not set 
the limits at the highest daily maximum or monthly average 
concentration levels that the model technology achieved 
because, most of the time, the model achieves lower levels.
    Exceedences even 1 percent or 5 percent of the time expose 
dischargers to significant penalties, even when they are 
properly using the very technology on which the limits were 
based. For example, it is not uncommon in some industries for a 
discharge permit to contain limits on 50 pollutants. In such a 
case, a discharger using EPA's model technology would be 
expected to exceed its daily maximum limits 120 times and its 
monthly average limits 150 times during a 5-year permit term. 
The maximum potential penalty for this discharger for 
violations that are expected by EPA's methodology to occur is 
$115 million.
    EPA has argued that it can use its prosecutorial discretion 
not to bring enforcement actions against dischargers for the 
occasional exceedances expected from a technology. However, 
citizen suits are not constrained by prosecutorial discretion. 
Accordingly, this amendment gives dischargers with occasional 
permit exceedences a defense to liability if they can 
demonstrate that their performance is the same as the model 
technology on which EPA based their permit limits. Nothing in 
this amendment allows dischargers to reduce their current level 
of treatment and nothing in this amendment affects water-
quality-based effluent limitations.

Section 405. Anti-backsliding requirements

    Section 405 of the bill amends section 402(o) of the Act to 
provide that anti-backsliding restrictions do not apply to a 
POTW if the POTW demonstrates to EPA that the increase in its 
discharge is the result of conditions beyond its control and 
does not impair the water quality of the receiving waters.

Section 406. Intake credits

    Section 406 of the bill amends section 402 of the Act to 
require EPA to take into account the presence of pollutants in 
a discharger's intake water (i.e., water that is taken into a 
facility before the facility treats it for any purpose) if the 
source of the intake water and the receiving water is the same; 
if the source of the intake water meets drinking water 
standards; or if the level of a pollutant in the intake water 
is the same or lower than the level of that pollutant in the 
receiving water. However, intake credits are not required for a 
conventional pollutant where the constituents of the 
conventional pollutant in the intake water are not the same as 
the constituents of the conventional pollutant in the effluent. 
This amendment also requires EP to provide an appropriate 
intake credit in other circumstances, creating a presumption in 
favor of the use of intake credits. In some cases, the 
appropriate intake credit may be none at all. However, EPA must 
explain why intake credits are inappropriate with respect to a 
particular discharge permit.
    This amendment does not preempt States and require them to 
provide intake credits as well. However, the amendment does 
ensure that States will retain the flexibility to provide 
intake credits. In the context of the Great Lakes Initiative, 
EPA has suggested that it has the authority to preclude States 
from granting intake credits. This amendment makes it clear 
that EPA has no such authority.

Section 407. Combined sewer overflows

    Section 407 adds new subsection (s) to section 402 of the 
Act to specifically address combined storm and sanitary sewer 
system overflows (CSOs). New section 402(s)(1) contains the 
general requirement that permits for CSOs are consistent with 
the comprehensive CSO control policy finalized and signed by 
the Administrator on April 11, 1994. Section 402(s)(2) provides 
permit terms, including compliance deadlines for long term 
control plans and extended deadlines based on economic 
capability and reasonable further progress demonstrations.
    Section 402(s)(2)(C) includes additional limitations on 
extensions. Since it has been demonstrated that some of the 
untreated wastes discharged during storm events from CSOs 
located in New York have had negative impacts on the shore 
areas of New Jersey (resulting in a court-imposed deadline for 
compliance), the opportunity for extension has been limited. 
Any extension requested by either New York or New Jersey for a 
discharge which would affect the other State would have to be 
agreed to in advance, in writing, by the governors of both 
States.
    New section 402(s)(2)(C)(3) includes a savings clause 
relating to consent decrees and court orders entered or issued 
before enactment of H.R. 961. Certain deadlines, schedules or 
timetables shall be modified to extend to December 31, 2009.

Section 408. Sanitary sewer overflows

    Section 408 adds new subsection (t) to section 402 of the 
Act to specifically address sanitary sewer system overflows 
(SSOs). New section 402(t)(1) directs the Administrator to 
develop and publish a national control policy for municipal 
separate sanitary sewer overflows. The SSO policy must 
recognize and address regional and economic factors. The 
Committee also expects the Administrator to provide a thorough 
assessment of the problem, including the magnitude, frequency, 
location, nature, impact, health effects, and existing 
regulatory controls of SSOs.
    Paragraphs (2) and (3) require permits for SSOs to conform 
to the SSO policy and to include compliance deadlines, 
including deadlines for long term control plans. Paragraph (4) 
allows for an extension of such deadlines if certain conditions 
are met.
    Paragraph (5) provides that, prior to publication of the 
SSO policy, the Administrator or Attorney General may not 
initiate any administrative or judicial civil penalty action in 
response to an SSO due to stormwater inflows or infiltration.
    Paragraph (6) includes a savings clause similar to the one 
applicable to CSOs; specifically, certain deadlines, schedules 
or timetables shall be extended to December 31, 2009.

Section 409. Abandoned mines

    This section authorizes EPA to issue permits to 
governmental entities and persons cooperating with governmental 
entities that are remediating abandoned mines. The permits 
modify otherwise applicable Clean Water Act requirements and 
require the incorporation of a remediation plan. The 
remediation plan must include, among other things, a 
description of the physical conditions at the site which are 
causing adverse water quality impacts and a description of the 
practices proposed to reduce, control, mitigate or eliminate 
the adverse conditions, along with a schedule for implementing 
such practices. The remediation plan must demonstrate, with 
reasonable certainty, that the actions taken will result in an 
improvement of water quality.
    Abandoned mines continue to pose a problem as a major 
source of water pollution, as thousands of stream miles are 
severely impacted by drainage and runoff. These mine sites are 
of particular concern in the Western States, where sites are 
numerous and the water supply so precious. However, through 
remedial actions, water quality previously tainted by mining 
activities can be improved. The current CWA scheme, however, 
does not provide the flexibility nor the incentive for 
undertaking or encouraging such remedial action. The Committee 
strongly favors remedial measures to improve water quality, and 
intends through implementation of section 409, to encourage 
such activities for abandoned mine sites.

Section 410. Beneficial use of biosolids

    Subsection 410(a) amends section 405 of the CWA to 
acknowledge that sewage sludge is also referred to as 
biosolids. Beneficial recycling of biosolids is an 
environmentally and scientifically sound practice that can, 
among other things, improve soil fertility and water 
conservation. The Committee supports these and other efforts to 
encourage greater public acceptance of beneficial reuse.
    Subsection (b) of the bill directs the Administrator to 
approve delegation of a State biosolid program if the State 
includes all the substantive standards for Final Use and 
Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 C.F.R. Part 503, as revised.
    EPA's insistence on strict adoption of procedural 
requirements has delayed delegation. This provision will 
provide needed flexibility to the States for accepting primacy 
over the Part 503 program. The biosolids program will operate 
most effectively when run by the States, and States should be 
given maximum flexibility to develop their biosolids programs, 
consistent with the Part 503 regulations. Even though the 
regulations have been in place for over two years, no State has 
yet assumed primacy for the program.
    Subsection (c) further amends section 405 of the CWA by 
including a reference to ``building materials'' (such as 
``biobricks''), directing the Administrator to issue additional 
guidance on beneficial use of sewage sludge and updating the 
funding authorization for the section. The Committee strongly 
encourages the Administrator to actively promote the 
development and use of biobricks, one of several promising 
beneficial uses of sewage sludge. Biobricks, a mixture of 
sewage sludge, clay and shale, have virtually identical 
characteristics as other bricks, but added benefits. For 
example, use of biobricks can help preserve valuable landfill 
space and conserve energy and water.

Section 411. Waste treatment systems defined

    Section 411 of the bill adds new section 406 to the Act to 
require EPA to issue regulations defining waste treatment 
systems. Such regulations must include areas used for 
detention, retention, treatment, settlement, conveyance, or 
evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water within 
the definition of waste treatment system unless (1) such area 
was created in a navigable water after the date of enactment, 
(2) the owner or operator of the area allows it to be used by 
interstate or foreign travelers for recreational purposes, or 
(3) the owner or operator of the area allows it to be used for 
fishing for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
    Under section 502 of the bill, waste treatment systems (as 
defined by EPA within the parameters of new section 406) are 
excluded from the definition of navigable waters. This 
amendment confirms what is already evident from structure and 
purposes of the Act and from EPA's current applicable 
regulatory definition of ``navigable waters.'' It should not 
even be necessary to amend the Act to make it clear that, 
except in unusual circumstances, areas used for the treatment 
of wastewaters prior to their discharge to navigable waters are 
not themselves navigable waters. However, EPA has not 
consistently applied the regulatory definition of navigable 
waters, creating uncertainty for the regulated community.
    On May 19, 1980, EPA promulgated a definition a ``navigable 
waters'' at 40 C.F.R. section 122.2 that excluded ``waste 
treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons 
designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (other 
than cooling ponds as defined in 40 C.F.R. section 423.11(m) 
which also meet the criteria of this definition).'' In the 
definition, EPA also provided that: ``This exclusion applies 
only to manmade bodies of water which neither were originally 
created in waters of the United States (such as disposal areas 
in wetlands) nor resulted from the impoundment of waters of the 
United States.''
    The exception in 40 C.F.R. section 122.2 to the general 
exclusion of waste treatment systems from the definition of 
navigable waters was suspended by EPA on July 21, 1980. (45 
Fed. Reg. 48620.) At that time, EPA agreed that the definition 
of navigable waters may be overboard and should be reexamined. 
In addition, there no longer is a definition of cooling ponds 
at 40 C.F.R. section 423.11(m), or elsewhere in EPA's 
regulations.
    EPA has not consistently interpreted its regulations to 
exclude from the definition of navigable waters all waste 
treatment systems that may have been constructed in 
jurisdictional waters, or even all waste treatment systems that 
were clearly constructed outside of jurisdictional waters. In a 
December 13, 1993, memorandum, Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant 
Administrator for Water reviewed issues relating to whether a 
new utility cooling pond constructed in part in jurisdictional 
wetlands would be considered a ``navigable water.'' Mr. 
Perciasepe concluded that ``due to the ambiguities in the 
existing regulation and apparent lack of national consistency, 
EPA should begin rulemaking development to air the policy 
issues and clarify the jurisdictional status of steam electric 
cooling ponds.'' EPA has informed the Committee that currently 
it is not working on the development of such a rulemaking.
    In the meantime, under Mr. Perciasepe's memorandum, EPA 
Regions have the discretion to make decisions regarding whether 
waste treatment systems are navigable waters on a case-by-case 
basis. The memorandum specifies that (1) Regions may regulate 
treatment systems as navigable waters based on an actual or 
potential connection to interstate commerce (which under some 
court decisions may include potential use of water by migratory 
birds), (2) Regions may interpret the current regulatory 
exclusion for waste treatment systems as including all cooling 
ponds, whether or not built in jurisdictional waters, or (3) 
Regions may take into account the particular uses of a cooling 
pond to decide whether it is a navigable water.
    Although built partially in wetlands, Region IV ultimately 
decided that the cooling pond that was the subject of the 1993 
Perciasepe memorandum was not a navigable water. However, a 
later regulatory official may decide to revisit that decision. 
In short, companies and individuals today live under a very 
real fear that cooling ponds and surface impoundments they are 
using for waste treatment may suddenly be determined to be 
navigable waters, and subject to the full panoply of Clean 
Water Act requirements. This is not simply a theoretical 
concern. There are companies and individuals that are currently 
under threat of EPA enforcement action in which they are 
alleged to have discharged without an NPDES permit into 
settling and evaporation basins that no one previously had ever 
suggested were navigable waters.
    In requiring EPA to clarify the definition of navigable 
waters as it applies to waste treatment systems, the Committee 
is making the policy decision that EPA may not revisit an 
earlier decision to allow the creation of a waste treatment 
system in a jurisdictional area, such as wetlands, without 
requiring an NPDES permit for discharges to that waste 
treatment system. Accordingly, such waste treatment systems are 
grandfathered. If, however, EPA has asserted jurisdiction over 
the system and has issued a final NPDES permit for discharges 
to that system, those areas remain navigable waters.
    In developing its regulations, EPA has the discretion to 
regulate a waste treatment system as a navigable water only if 
(1) such area was created in a navigable water after the date 
of enactment, (2) the owner or operator of the area allows it 
to be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational 
purposes, or (3) the owner or operator of the area allows it to 
be used for fishing for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. 
In giving EPA discretion over the jurisdictional status of such 
areas, the Committee is not requiring that such areas be 
regulated as navigable waters. In fact, EPA may conclude that 
such areas are adequately protected under State law or other 
Federal law; that non-waste treatment uses of the area are 
sufficiently limited; that classification of an area as a waste 
treatment system will not pose any significant risk to public 
health; that facilities open for certain non-treatment uses 
after the operative date have been or will be closed; that 
failure to include such areas within the definition of waste 
treatment system would undermine the achievement of the goals 
or requirements of the Act; or that Clean Water Act regulation 
of such areas is not necessary for other policy reasons 
identified during the rulemaking process. EPA's rules also may 
allow for case-by-case classification of existing or proposed 
areas as ``waste treatment systems'' if such classification is 
given finality.
    Finally, for those areas constructed as waste treatment 
systems that are nevertheless classified as navigable waters 
subject to regulation under the Act, the amendment directs EPA 
and the States to take into account the treatment purposes for 
which the area was constructed, and allow a permitting 
authority to tailor any regulatory requirements, including 
water quality standards, to avoid interfering with continued 
use of the area for waste treatment. In particular, as to heat, 
which generally would not be expected to pose any threat to 
human health, the Committee would expect that thermal standards 
or other requirements imposed, if any, would not constrain 
continued use of the area for heat dissipation.

Section 412. Thermal discharges

    The intent of section 412 is to require that either the EPA 
or the State of Ohio determine, based on scientific evidence, 
that thermal discharges from the Piqua Municipal Utility are 
actually causing harm to aquatic life, before they require the 
Utility to construct a cooling tower or operate under a thermal 
management plan. Additionally, the Committee intends that the 
Utility not be required to construct the cooling tower of 
implement the thermal management plan until it has had the 
opportunity to utilize all rights of appeal and judicial 
review.

                      title v--general provisions

Section 501. Consultation with States

    Section 501 amends the CWA to require, among other things, 
that EPA consult and substantially involve State and local 
governments in CWA decisionmaking and implementation efforts. 
Furthermore, it exempts meetings held between federal officials 
and State, local, and tribal officials for the purposes of 
exchanging views, information, or advice relating to the 
management or implementation of this Act from the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.
    The Committee repeatedly received requests, throughout the 
testimony on CWA reform, to increase the role of State and 
local governments in the decisionmaking process regarding water 
issues. Numerous examples were provided demonstrating that 
water issues could be more effectively addressed at the State 
and local level, rather than solely at the federal level. Due 
to the size and rich diversity of our nation's water supply, 
State and local interests, often times, are in a better 
position to address water issues unique to their region. The 
Committee acknowledges this fact, and recognizes the importance 
of State and local input into the decisionmaking process.

Section 502. Navigable waters defined

    Section 502 of the bill amends section 502(7) of the Act to 
exclude ``waste treatment systems,'' as defined under new 
section 406, from the definition of navigable waters.

Section 503. CAFO definition clarification

    Section 503 amends section 502(14) of the CWA to clarify 
the definition of a concentrated animal feeding operation 
(CAFO) as a point source. Unlike typical concentrated 
production facilities where animals are fed and maintained on a 
continuous basis for extended periods of time, intermittent 
nonproducing livestock operations are short-term, temporary 
facilities. These operations, such as stockyards or holding and 
sorting facilities, typically house livestock less than 24 
hours for one to two days per week, and keep feeding and 
watering to a minimum.
    Section 503 clarifies CAFO to include intermittent 
nonproducing operations only if the average number of animal 
units that are fed or maintained in any 90 consecutive day 
period exceeds the number of animal units determined by EPA or 
the State to constitute a CAFO; or if the operation is 
designated by EPA or State as a significant contributor of 
pollution.

Section 504. Publicly owned treatment works defined

    Section 504 of the bill amends section 502 to add a 
definition for POTWs. To encourage privatization of treatment 
works, this definition includes all treatment works, other than 
those located at industrial facilities, that EPA determines are 
designed and constructed principally to treat domestic sewage 
or a mixture of domestic sewage and liquid industrial wastes, 
and, if privately owned, are carrying out and complying with a 
pretreatment program that meets the requirements of section 307 
of the Act.

Section 505. State water quantity rights

    Section 505 amends section 510 of the Act to clarify that 
the Act does not abrogate a State's right to allocate 
quantities of water or authorize the Federal Government to 
allocate quantities of water. The provision responds in part to 
the increasing concern that the Federal Government may try to 
circumvent the intent of section 101(g) by superseding, 
abrogating, or otherwise impairing State authorities to 
allocate water or superseding, abrogating, or otherwise 
impairing rights to quantities of water established by State 
law. The Committee reiterates that the Clean Water Act is a 
water quality and water pollution control statute and is not to 
be used by the Federal Government as a means to accomplish 
other ``agendas'' such as water quantity allocation.
    During its hearing process, the Committee became aware of 
several potential impacts of the Supreme Court's decision in 
PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of 
Ecology (1994). The case is particularly relevant to 
relationships among Federal and State agencies and to the 
Federal regulation of U.S. hydroelectric resources. In this 
case, the Supreme Court ruled, among other things, that State 
water quality agencies, under section 401 of the Act, could 
impose stream flow requirements and place other mandatory 
conditions on hydropower projects to support designated uses.
    This decision raises significant policy issues regarding 
duplication of review in the licensing process for hydropower 
projects regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC). Of primary concern is the consequence that State water 
quality agencies, under the purview of section 401, might 
consider and place mandatory conditions on hydropower projects 
to address issues that are already considered within the 
Federal licensing process.
    Notably, the Supreme Court's decision in PUD No. 1 of 
Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology did not 
address how to resolve potential conflicts between State water 
quality agency certification requirements and the comprehensive 
statutory responsibilities of FERC under the Federal Power Act. 
As a result, hydroelectric licensees are left with some 
uncertainly and a process that does not necessarily allow for 
resolution of intergovernmental conflicts or provide the 
stability and accountability necessary for an effective and 
workable regulatory program.
    While recognizing the need for clarification and regulatory 
reform, the Committee did not include legislative language on 
this issue in order to allow adequate time for the hydropower 
community and state representatives to collaborate on 
development of a mutually agreeable resolution to the program. 
Should negotiations in this regard prove unsuccessful, the 
Committee plans to work with others to resolve the issue 
legislatively by addressing questions of duplication in the 
hydropower licensing process, the role of FERC, and proper 
deference to State water quality agencies.

Section 506. Implementation of water pollution laws with respect to 
        vegetable oil

    Section 506 requires federal agencies to differentiate 
among types of oil when issuing or enforcing regulations or 
guidelines relating to water pollution control laws. For 
purposes of this section the phrase ``water pollution control 
laws'' is a reference to the CWA and the Oil Pollution Act of 
1990. The requirements to apply different standards and 
reporting requirements (including reporting requirements based 
on quantitative amounts) is a reference to the so-called 
``sheen rule'' and the need to include a quantitative, 
volumetric component to such reporting requirements.

Section 507. Needs estimate

    Section 507 of the bill amends section 516(b) of the Act to 
authorize the existing needs estimate to be prepared 
quadrennially rather than biennially.

Section 508. General program authorizations

    Section 508 of the bill amends section 517 of the Act to 
authorize such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1996-
2000 to carry out the Act.

Section 509. Indian tribes

    Section 509(a) of the bill amends section 518 of the Act to 
require EPA to respect the terms of cooperative agreements that 
address the authority of a State or Indian Tribe to administer 
this Act. The Committee believes that the most appropriate 
method to ensure consistent implementation of this section 
between State and Tribal authorities is the development of 
cooperative agreements. It is the Committee's view that the 
Administrator should not revise the division of responsibility 
between a State and a Tribe under this section so long as the 
cooperative agreement provides for adequate administration of 
the section.
    Section 509(b) amends section 518 to require EPA to issue 
regulations providing for resolution of disputes arising from 
differing water quality standards that may be issued by States 
and Indian Tribes located on common bodies of water. The 
Committee is of the opinion that there should be a process to 
resolve disputes between States and Indian Tribes over 
differing water quality standards located on common water 
bodies. The Committee also believes that all persons who are 
impacted by differing water quality standards between the 
States and Indian Tribes should have standing to utilize the 
dispute resolution process.
    Section 509(c) amends section 518 to give United States 
District Courts the jurisdiction to review any EPA 
determinations under Section 518. Because of the cost and 
burden on States and Indian Tribes associated with challenge to 
EPA actions, the Committee believes that the proper forum for 
challenges to actions under this section are the U.S. District 
Courts that are proximate to the impacted parties. It is also 
the Committee's view that given the complex legal regimes 
attendant to States and Indian Tribes under this Section that 
the District Court should undertake its review de novo 
including the taking of evidence.
    Section 509(d) defines ``Federal Indian Reservation'' to 
include, in the State of Oklahoma, lands held in trust by the 
United States for the benefit of a Tribe, lands subject to 
federal restrictions against alienation, and lands located 
within a dependent Indian community. This provision simply 
conforms the Act to take into account the unique status of 
certain Indian Tribes within the State of Oklahoma.
    Section 509(e) amends section 518(c) to reserve 1 percent 
of sums appropriated under sections 607 and 608 for Indian 
Tribes. This provision raised from one-half of 1 percent the 
amounts to be made available to Indian Tribes. This will allow 
for additional resources to be authorized for use by Native 
Americans to alleviate some of the most pressing Clean Water 
needs.

Section 510. Food processing and food safety

    Section 510 of the bill adds section 519 to the Act to 
require EPA to consult with FDA, the Department of Health and 
Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, and the 
Department of Commerce when developing any effluent guideline, 
pretreatment standard, or new source performance standard 
applicable to the food processing industry and to consider and 
explain any departure from any comments from these entities 
with respect to food safety.

Section 511. Audit dispute resolution

    Section 511 of the bill adds new section 520 to the Act to 
require EPA to establish an independent Board of Audit Appeals 
to review and decide contested audit determination with respect 
to grant and contract awards under the Act.
    Over the past several years, as the construction grants 
program has been phased-out, funded projects have undergone 
rigorous close-out audits to ensure that funds were 
appropriately expended and that completed projects comply with 
the grantee's stated plans, designs, and specifications. The 
Committee has heard testimony over the past several years about 
disallowance by auditors of previously approved project costs 
where there is no fraud or abuse.
    For example, in the case of the Las Virgenes Municipal 
Water District in California, an audit disallowed all EPA 
approved project costs, totalling more than $10 million, 
because of potential ineligible portions of the sludge disposal 
facility project. The audit decision was based on the 
conclusion that the previously approved project design was 
unacceptable because it resulted in excess disposal capacity. 
After four years of appeals to EPA, the disallowed costs were 
reversed. The grantee was awarded all of the costs with the 
exception of $126,000.
    This example is not unique. A survey of audit performed in 
Region IX between 1985 and 1992 revealed that auditors 
disallowed approximately 53% of previously approved costs. 
However, on appeal, 93% of all project costs were upheld. The 
survey also found that during this time period, EPA spent $12 
million to conduct audits, but recovered only $3.5 million 
based on the final audit resolution.
    The current audit and appeals process is not cost-effective 
and has forced local governments to initiate costly and time 
consuming appeals that could be handled more efficiently. The 
Committee also is concerned about the potential conflict of 
interest created by the fact that, currently, EPA reviews 
decisions of auditors, even though it is EPA's own project 
decisions that are the subject of the audit. Accordingly, this 
amendment directs EPA to establish an independent audit appeals 
board. This board will provide both local government officials 
and EPA with an impartial process through which claims can be 
reviewed and settled, minimizing costs to Federal, State, and 
local government.

        title vi--state water pollution control revolving funds

Section 601. General authority for capitalization grants

    This section broadens the authorized uses of State 
revolving loan fund (SRF) assistance to include any activities 
that accomplish the purposes of the Clean Water Act. (See 
conforming provisions in section 603 below.)

Section 602. Capitalization grant agreements

    Section 602 removes administrative requirements previously 
imposed on Title II grant recipients and currently extended to 
applicants who receive SRF capitalization grant loans. Other 
cross-cutting federal requirements that may apply to the use of 
SRF loans (e.g., regulations implementing the Drug-Free 
Workplace Act of 1988) will be considered met if a State has an 
applicable program which addresses the intent of the federal 
requirement. Existing federal requirements would only apply to 
activities receiving federal capitalization grants. Activities 
funded by State resources and funds from repaid federal grants 
would not be covered by federal requirements. This section also 
requires EPA to issue guidance within one year of enactment on 
simplified procedures to aid small communities (populations of 
20,000 or less) in obtaining assistance under the SRF program. 
(See section 603 below for other provisions affecting small 
communities.)

Section 603. Water pollution control revolving loan funds

    Section 603 broadens the activities eligible for SRF loans 
to those actions that have as their principal benefit the 
protection or improvement of water quality. This includes non-
point source programs, watershed management, stormwater 
management, and measures to improve water use efficiency. 
Nothing in this section is intended to supersede or otherwise 
affect other EPA programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
Nothing in this section authorizes the use of funds for 
consolidation of small drinking water systems or plumbing 
replacement. Disadvantaged communities would be eligible for 
extended repayment schedules of up to 40 years and negative 
interest rates as low as negative two percent. 
``Disadvantaged'' would be defined by the State based on 
guidance to be issued by EPA. States may use up to 2 percent of 
SRF grants for technical assistance to small communities.
    Subsection (i) also allows States or relevant agencies to 
transfer treatment works to a qualified private sector agency. 
This subsection generally codifies provisions of Executive 
Order 12803 issued April 30, 1992.
    In section 603(c) of the bill, the Committee has expanded 
the eligible purposes for which State revolving loan funds may 
be used to include loan guarantees for developing and 
implementing innovative technologies for purposes of meeting 
the goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act. This will 
provide more flexibility to States in assisting private sector 
projects that may provide substantial water quality benefits.
    The Committee is aware that there may be cases in which the 
recipient of a guarantee will be willing to pay the cost of the 
guarantee. This type of financing would protect the interests 
of the State revolving loan fund while enabling the recipient 
to obtain financing at a reasonable rate. The Committee 
encourages States to explore this type of financing to promote 
private sector solutions to water quality problems.

Section 604. Allotment of funds

    Section 604 provides for a new allotment formula based on 
population and recently estimated needs, but adjusts the 
formula to insert a hold harmless and cap limitation to prevent 
any State from losing or gaining approximately 10 percent of 
the State's prior allotment. Without the hold harmless and cap 
limitation, the allotments to many States would change 
drastically. For instance, over 14 States would see a reduction 
of over 50 percent in their allotments (see Figure 2). The 10 
percent limitation will ameliorate these potentially disruptive 
changes.


Section 605. Authorization of appropriations

    Section 605 authorizes general SRF capitalization grants at 
$2.5 billion each year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000. It 
is the Committee's view that authorizing SRF capitalization 
grants at this level is critical to assisting States and local 
governments in keeping pace with Clean Water Act needs.
    In the near term EPA estimates that current Clean Water Act 
mandates will cost municipalities approximately $23 billion in 
fiscal year 1996. This is more than six times the total amount 
of Federal grants to States and local governments for all 
environmental needs proposed for 1996 (see Figure 3). In the 
longer term, EPA estimates that States face over $137 billion 
in capital needs to meet existing Clean Water Act requirements 
over the next 20 years.


    On a related issue, the Committee also received testimony 
critical of the manner in which EPA disburses SRF 
capitalization grants to States. EPA currently disburses grants 
through a letter of credit (LOC) procedure whereby the Agency 
makes commitments to the States through a LOC account 
established between EPA and the State. Funds are disbursed when 
States ``draw'' against the LOC to meet financial obligations. 
Thus, ``draws'' are made as costs are incurred to meet 
construction invoices, premiums for the purchase of bond 
insurance, and satisfy other fiscal needs.
    When it enacted the SRF program, Congress intended for 
capitalization payments to be made in the form of cash or 
check. The use of LOCs to disburse funds was not discussed or 
contemplated. LOCs were developed later by the Executive Branch 
to defer outlays.
    The LOC disbursement method effectively prohibits States 
from implementing authorized uses of SRF funds which require 
access to cash in advance of meeting obligations (see section 
603(d) of the Act for a list of authorized uses). 
Unfortunately, the authorized uses of the fund the LOC method 
obstructs are those uses that offer States very productive 
capital generation. The Committee is concerned that, in 
implementing the LOC approach, the Executive Branch has 
deprived the federal government of maximizing the effectiveness 
of its investment in water quality improvement.
    The Committee believes cash payments would result in a more 
beneficial and productive use of limited federal funds and 
calls upon the Administration to work with the appropriate 
Committees of Congress in studying the advisability and 
feasibility of moving from the current LOC method for 
disbursing capitalization grants to cash disbursement as 
originally intended by Congress.

Section 606. State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving 
        funds

    Nonpoint source pollution represents the largest remaining 
challenge to achieving clean water standards. Recognizing that 
resource allocations should reflect this changing priority, 
this section amends Title VI to authorize $500,000,000 per year 
for a separate State nonpoint source revolving fund dedicated 
to nonpoint source pollution. Since each State faces a 
different range of water quality problems and priorities, the 
Committee has provided for maximum flexibility by allowing each 
State to transfer funds from one fund to the other.
    The Committee expects States to utilize these funds 
aggressively in providing financial assistance to farmers, 
ranchers and others involved in nonpoint source activities for 
the purpose of implementing management measures and for 
development and implementation of the water quality components 
of whole farm and ranch plans designed to reduce nonpoint 
source runoff, with a priority for impaired waters. This 
dedicated fund also may be used by States to implement the new 
stormwater management programs that States are required to 
develop to address stormwater runoff under section 322 of the 
bill. States are authorized and encourages to utilize the full 
range of flexibility in utilizing SRF funds, including low- and 
negative-interest loans to serve as cost-share grants.

                  title vii--miscellaneous provisions

Section 701. Technical amendments

    Section 701 provides a number of technical corrections to 
be made to Title 33 of the U.S. code, including grammatical 
corrections, typographical errors and misspellings, and 
inadvertent deletions from original text.

Section 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research 
        Laboratory

    Section 702 renames the National Fresh Water Laboratory in 
Duluth, Minnesota for former Chairman of the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation, John A. Blatnik. Chairman 
Blatnik included authorization of the National Fresh Water 
Laboratory in the 1961 reauthorization of the water pollution 
control law, as a companion to the National Salt Water 
Laboratory already established in Rhode Island.

Section 703. Wastewaster service for colonias

    Section 703 authorizes $50 million for grants to States 
along the United States-Mexican border to assist in the 
planning, design, and construction of wastewater treatment 
works for communities along the border, known as ``Colonias.'' 
These grants shall be administered through the EPA. The federal 
cost of projects undertaken pursuant to these grants shall be 
limited to 50 percent, with the non-federal share to be 
provided by the State receiving the grant.

Section 704. Savings in municipal drinking water costs

    The Committee believes that municipalities will achieve 
substantial savings from implementation of CWA reforms, in 
addition to the environmental benefits expected. Section 704 
requires EPA to perform a study of the annual savings that 
municipalities realize specifically in the construction, 
operation, and maintenance of drinking water supplies as a 
result of actions taken pursuant to the CWA; and to report its 
findings to Congress within one year.

            title viii--wetlands conservation and management

    Title VIII replaces section 404 of the existing Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) with a new, comprehensive 
program to regulate discharges of dredged or fill material into 
waters of the United States (including wetlands) and drainage, 
channelization and excavation activities in wetlands.
    Section 801 cites Title VIII as the ``Comprehensive 
Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995.''
    Section 802 includes findings and statements of purpose. 
Findings include declarations regarding the importance of 
wetlands to the Nation; the need for a regulatory approach that 
balances wetlands conservation and enhancement with 
consideration of private property rights and the need for 
essential infrastructure and economic growth; the fact that 
section 404 was not originally established as a wetlands 
regulatory program and, under current law, is not effective as 
such; and the need to streamline regulatory procedures for 
navigational dredging. Purposes of Title VIII include the 
assertion by Congress that, for the first time, Federal 
regulatory jurisdiction should be applied to a broad category 
of activities that cause wetland losses; that Federal agency 
actions should not limit use of private property or diminish 
its value; that the relative value of wetlands as measured by 
the functions they perform should be taken into account in 
establishing the regulatory requirements applied to activities 
in wetlands; and that procedures for regulating navigational 
dredging should be streamlined.
    Section 803 is the principal component of Title VIII. It 
strikes the current section 404 of the FWPCA and replaces it 
with a new section 404. The following paragraphs summarize the 
new provisions of section 404:
    New section 404(a) specifies that no person may undertake 
an activity in a wetland or a water of the United States 
without a permit from the Secretary of the Army (``Secretary'') 
unless otherwise authorized by this section.
    New section 404(b) authorizes the Secretary to issue 
permits in accordance with this section. No Federal permit is 
required under section 404 for an activity occurring in a Type 
C wetland, or that is authorized under a general permit, or 
that is exempt from permit requirements. This provision does 
not limit State or local government's ability to regulate 
activities pursuant to their own authorities.
    New section 404(c) establishes procedures for the 
classification of wetlands for purposes of this title and 
procedures for obtaining wetland classifications. The 
classification of wetlands according to the relative functions 
they perform is an essential element of the reforms this title 
achieves.
    Under existing law, there is no meaningful provision for 
determining the degree of rigor to be applied in regulating 
proposed activities in wetlands. Today, all federal 
jurisdictional wetlands are subject to the same degree of 
regulatory rigor whether the wetland in question is a pristine 
wooded swamp or a small, degraded wetland in an industrial 
development. The regulatory agencies suggest that distinctions 
with respect to various classes of wetlands are reflected in 
their regulatory decisions, although these distinctions are not 
reflected in the provisions of the statute. Indeed, the Corps 
of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency issued 
guidance to their field offices in 1993 on this issue.
    The Committee believes strongly that the federal wetlands 
regulatory program must reflect the reality that all wetlands 
are not equal. Some wetlands provide greater environmental 
functions than others and should be treated accordingly. New 
section 404(c) will remedy this problem in current law by 
requiring that regulatory emphasis be placed on conserving and 
enhancing the truly valuable wetland resources while requiring 
the traditional ``public interest'' balancing be applied to 
most wetlands. Regulation of low value wetlands will be left to 
the discretion of State and local governments. This approach 
will also allow the limited federal funding and personnel 
resources available for this program to be concentrated on 
those wetland resources that are most important to the goals of 
the FWPCA.
    The Secretary is required to issue regulations within one 
year of enactment on procedures to be used in classifying 
wetlands. Persons seeking to undertake activities in wetlands 
regulated under this section must apply to the Secretary to 
make a determination on the classification of the affected 
wetland. Within 90 days of receipt of the application, the 
Secretary must advise the person of the wetland classification 
and the basis for such classification. In those cases where the 
activity would affect a wetland that has already been 
classified pursuant to the advance classification program under 
section 404(h), the Secretary must, within 30 days of receipt 
of the application, provide that information to the person and 
allow opportunity for a de novo classification and an 
administrative appeal of the classification.
    Type A wetlands are defined as those which are of critical 
significance to the long-term conservation of the aquatic 
environment and which meet specified requirements. Such 
requirements include that Type A wetlands (1) serve critical 
wetlands functions; (2) are at least 10 acres in size (or a 
part of a wetland that is at least that large) and have either 
an inlet or an outlet providing for the flow of water into or 
out of the wetland; (3) occur in a watershed or aquatic 
environment where there is a scarcity of Type A wetland 
functions; and (4) are wetlands in which there is unlikely to 
be an overriding public interest in the use of such wetlands 
other than conservation.
    In issuing regulations on wetland classification, the 
Secretary is expected to establish clear parameters for 
applying such terms as ``critical significance'' and 
``scarcity.'' Areas that are wetlands under this section but do 
not satisfy the requirements for Type A wetlands shall be 
deemed to be either Type B or Type C wetlands. The Committee 
has included language that assures that areas such as prairie 
potholes, vernal pools and playa lakes are not excluded from 
being classified as Type A wetlands solely because of their 
limited size or lack of an inlet or outlet for the flow of 
water; This provision, however, is not intended to prejudge 
that such areas are Type A wetlands. Depending on the wetland 
functions they perform and the application of wetland 
delineation criteria, such areas may be Type B or Type C 
wetlands or may not qualify as Federal jurisdictional wetlands 
at all. These determinations must be made on a case-by-case 
basis.
    Type B wetlands are those which provide habitat for 
significant populations of wetland wildlife or perform other 
significant wetland functions. Such wetlands will provide 
enhancement or protection of water quality, significant natural 
flood control or similar benefits, but in amounts less than 
that provided by Type A wetlands. As with Type A wetlands, the 
Secretary shall define ``significant'' and other key terms in 
regulations. The Committee anticipates that most wetlands will 
be determined to be Type B wetlands under this Act.
    Type C wetlands are the least valuable wetlands in terms of 
the functions they perform. They include such areas as those 
which serve limited wetland functions; which serve some wetland 
functions but exist in relatively abundant quantity such that 
Federal regulation is not required to conserve important 
wetland functions; and areas that are within developed areas 
that do not serve significant wetlands functions. Wetlands 
shall not be classified as being Type C merely because they are 
located in developed areas. The committee recognizes that many 
valuable wetlands are located in or adjacent to urban centers 
or other developed sites.
    A landowner may request and obtain a determination of 
whether a wetland or other water of the United States is 
present on his or her property and, if wetlands are present, 
the classification of such wetlands. The Secretary must make 
determinations and notify the owner within 90 days of such a 
request and must provide documentation on the basis for making 
the determination. In the event that the landowner disagrees 
with the Secretary's determinations, the owner may pursue a 
judicial review of or an administrative appeal of the 
determination.
    New section 404(d) prescribes the requirements and 
procedures for remedies to Federal regulatory actions taken 
under this section that limit the use of property thereby 
reducing the property's value. These provisions are consistent 
with those contained in H.R. 925, which was passed by the House 
of Representatives on March 3, 1995. These provisions require 
that a property owner who has a portion of his or her property 
value diminished by 20% or more by an agency action under this 
section shall be compensated by the Federal Government for that 
amount. If the affected portion of the property is diminished 
by more than 50%, the property owner has the right to require 
the Federal Government to purchase the affected portion of the 
property for its fair market value. Compensation shall not be 
made with respect to any agency action taken to prevent a 
nuisance as defined by State law; an activity prohibited under 
local zoning ordinance; or a hazard to public health or safety 
or that is potentially damaging to other property. For example, 
if a permit is denied for a structure that would otherwise 
result in flooding to an adjacent property, the permit 
applicant would not be eligible for compensation under this 
title.
    Once compensation has been made under this title, the 
affected portion of the property generally cannot be used in a 
manner that is contrary to the limitation imposed by the 
regulatory action of the agency. Payment for compensation is to 
be made from the annual appropriation of the agency causing the 
reduction in property value. For example, if the Secretary's 
application of the public interest review for activity in a 
Type B wetland causes denial of the permit, the Secretary's 
civil works appropriation will be the source of funds for 
compensation. Another example would be action taken through the 
section 404 permit process by the Secretary of the Interior or 
Secretary of Commerce under the Endangered Species Act that 
prohibits or limits use of property. In this case funds would 
come from the appropriation of the Interior or Commerce 
Department.
    New section 404(e) addresses general procedures to be 
followed in reviewing permit applications. The procedures 
include application of a ``sequential analysis'' for activities 
in Type A wetlands. This sequence requires that, to the maximum 
extent practicable, impacts on wetlands shall be avoided as the 
first step in the evaluation of the permit application. 
Associated with this approach is the presumption that there is 
a non-wetland alternative location for the activity. An example 
of where a presumption that there is a non-wetland alternative 
could be inappropriate is the development of oil and gas or 
other mineral deposits. If no non-wetland alternative is 
practicable, the sequence requires that impacts be minimized 
through such means as project redesign. Any remaining impacts 
would then be mitigated through the application of compensatory 
mitigation.
    The term ``sequential analysis'' as used here refers to the 
process described in the Memorandum of Agreement, dated 
February 6, 1990, between the Secretary and the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency. Application of the 
sequential analysis procedures shall supplement, but not 
replace, a review of impacts of the proposed activity on the 
public interest. For mining activities, mitigation requirements 
will be deemed to be satisfied where State-approved reclamation 
plans or permits are in effect if normal reclamation activities 
are included and if the activity results in net environmental 
benefits. Permits for activities in Type A wetlands may contain 
appropriate terms and conditions to prevent unacceptable 
wetlands losses.
    Permit applications for activities in Type B wetlands are 
evaluated through application of a ``public interest'' review 
which balances environmental, economic and social concerns and 
reaches a conclusion on issuance of a permit based on the 
weighing of reasonably foreseeable benefits and detriments 
associated with the proposal. Among the factors to be 
considered are mitigation costs, overall social, economic and 
recreational benefits, the ability of the applicant to provide 
mitigation, the degree of wetlands impact in the context of the 
total watershed, and whether impacts of the activity are 
permanent. Unless the Secretary can clearly demonstrate to the 
contrary, the project purpose as defined by the applicant shall 
be binding on the Secretary and, in the case of applications 
from public agencies, the applicant's definition of project 
purpose shall always be binding on the Secretary.
    In evaluating terms and conditions that are necessary to 
preserve wetland functions, the Secretary shall consider new 
technologies and methods which have potential for reducing 
adverse impacts while providing a productive, cost-effective 
use for recycled resources. One such method incorporates the 
use of portable road-building mats for temporary, all-weather 
roads across wetlands, streams and soft ground. The mats, which 
are made from recycled scrap tires, have been used successfully 
in the United States and in Canada in the construction, 
logging, oil and gas, mining and cross-country pipeline 
industries. The committee encourages the Secretary, where 
practicable, to use or encourage contractors to use such 
portable road building mats made from scrap tires and to 
encourage permit applicants to consider this and other new 
technologies.
    Requirements for compensatory mitigation are addressed in 
detail in the legislation. These are applicable to activities 
in Type B and Type A wetlands when the Secretary determines 
that compensatory mitigation is appropriate in such wetlands. 
Mitigation shall not be required where the Secretary finds that 
adverse impacts to wetlands will be temporary or incidental. 
Mitigation requirements shall be determined based on the 
specific impact of the proposed activity at the site of such 
activity, not on the impacts of prior activities or activities 
occurring at different locations. The Secretary is to issue 
regulations applicable to mitigation requirements for permits 
issued under this section. Among the considerations to be 
addressed are allowance for mitigation through changes in 
project design as well as through compensatory actions; 
mitigation through the enhancement or restoration of degraded 
wetlands; mitigation through contribution to a mitigation bank; 
circumstances where off-site mitigation would be appropriate; 
contributions of in-kind value; construction of coastal wetland 
protection and enhancement projects; and circumstances where 
out-of-kind mitigation would be appropriate.
    In certain instances, the Secretary may determine that 
compensatory mitigation is not required. These instances 
include a finding that: there are limited adverse impacts 
associated with the permitted activity; practicable and 
reasonable means of providing mitigation are not available; 
wetlands functions are provided in the area of the permitted 
activity in relative abundance such that wetlands functions 
will continue to occur, taking into account project-specific 
and cumulative impacts; the adverse wetland impacts are 
temporary; and hardship factors limit the applicant's ability 
to provide mitigation.
    The use of ``mitigation banks'' is authorized as an 
additional means of accomplishing compensatory mitigation for 
activities under this title. Such banks will provide a greater 
degree of flexibility to the Secretary and to applicants in 
finding means of assuring that permitted activities do not 
result in significant wetlands losses. These procedures are 
similar to those proposed by the Administration in March 1995. 
The Secretary is required to issue regulations within 6 months. 
Such regulations are to address requirements that assure that 
chemical, physical and biological functions lost through 
permitted activities are compensated. Emphasis is to be placed 
on providing for in-kind replacement and proximity to the 
affected watershed to the extent that this is feasible and 
makes sense environmentally. This provision is not intended, 
however, to preclude out-of-kind mitigation where circumstances 
warrant. Mitigation banks may be operated by a public or 
private entity as long as such entity has the financial 
capability to assure the long-term viability of the bank. The 
means of determining wetland impacts and bank debit amounts are 
to be based on scientifically sound and consistent methods. 
Arrangements for mitigation banks are to provide for the 
transfer of credits for mitigation to be accomplished in the 
future as well as for mitigation that has already taken place.
    Deadlines for making decisions on permit issuance are 
included to give certainty to applicants and discipline to the 
regulatory program. Except for circumstances involving 
compliance with other federal law, such as the National 
Environmental Policy Act, the Secretary must take final action 
within 90 days of receipt of a complete permit application for 
an individual permit; otherwise the permit shall be presumed to 
be issued in accordance with the proposal's description as 
contained in the application. If the application's is not 
complete, the applicant must be notified within 15 days of 
receipt and must be advised of the additional information that 
is required. The applicant is also given a role in determining 
when the permit application is complete. Once the applicant 
advises the Secretary that the application is complete, the 
Secretary must either take final action on the application 
within 90 days or, if the application does not contain all of 
the requested information, deny the application, without 
prejudice, within 30 days. This will provide greater certainty 
to applicants regarding the status of their application. It 
will also place greater emphasis on advising the applicant of 
additional information that is required to evaluate the 
proposal and will result in more accurate statistics on the 
regulatory program.
    Activities occurring in Type C wetlands are those that do 
not impact wetland functions sufficiently to warrant the 
exercise of federal regulatory authority under this title. 
While such activities may be addressed under State and local 
regulatory programs, they do not require a federal permit under 
this title.
    States in which there are substantial conserved wetlands 
warrant regulatory procedures and restrictions that are 
commensurate to the relative abundance of wetlands within the 
State. For example, in the State of Alaska there is estimated 
to be 172,000,000 acres of remaining wetlands, more than the 
remaining wetlands in the other 49 states combined. An 
extremely small fraction of the State's historical wetlands 
base has been lost. Those losses are estimated to be less than 
200,000 acres. In cases such as this, permit applicants should 
have the option of regulatory review procedures that reflect 
the abundance of wetlands in the State. Procedures in this case 
will preclude requirements to avoid activities in wetlands. In 
addition, compensatory mitigation shall not be required and 
requirements for minimization of impacts shall be contingent on 
such minimization being economically practicable. Further, 
where activities occur on economic base lands in a State with 
substantial conserved wetlands, the Secretary is directed to 
issue permits that do not require minimization where the 
interests of economic development so warrant where Alaska 
Native lands are involved.
    Provisions in existing law to authorize the use of 
``general permits'' to streamline and shorten the review time 
for certain activities are retained and modified to facilitate 
use of this approach. General permits may apply to activities 
that are similar in nature and that do not have significant 
adverse effects when considered singly and cumulatively. For 
those inquiries that require the Secretary to determine whether 
the provisions of a general permit apply, the Secretary must 
make the determination and advise the applicant within 30 days; 
otherwise the application shall be deemed to be approved. 
Compensatory mitigation may be required for activities approved 
under general permits and, as with individually issued permits, 
mitigation requirements shall be determined based on the 
specific impact of the proposed activity at the site of such 
activity, not on the impacts of prior activities or activities 
occurring at different locations. In States with substantial 
conserved wetlands, such as the State of Alaska, the Secretary 
shall issue general permits when requested to do so by a State 
or local authority; such permits will not contain compensatory 
mitigation and avoidance requirements, but may contain 
requirements for minimization of adverse effects.
    While certain provisions (such as those relating to wetland 
classifications and delineations in new subsections 404 (c) and 
(g) and the sequential analysis addressed in new subsection 
404(e)(2)) are applicable to activities in wetlands, this title 
also applies to activities in waters of the United States that 
do not satisfy the criteria used to delineate wetlands, such as 
streams, rivers, and lakes. The regulation of activities in 
these areas shall be evaluated using the ``public interest'' 
balancing requirements as described for use in evaluating 
activities occurring in Type B wetlands. The procedural reforms 
in this title are to apply to activities in non-wetland areas. 
While this is clarified in most provisions of the bill through 
use of phrases such as ``or waters of the United States,'' the 
committee reiterates that procedural reform provisions of this 
title apply to activities in such areas. These provisions 
include, but are not necessarily intended to be limited to the 
following: the Secretary's authority to issue permits and 
impose conditions to permits (including the requirements for 
compensatory mitigation), determinations of project purpose, 
mitigation banking, processing of permit applications and 
deadlines for final actions, general permits, activities not 
requiring permits, administrative appeals, procedures 
applicable to rulemaking, enforcement and violations, 
assumption of regulatory programs by States, administrative 
provisions contained in new section 404(m), and definitions.
    New section 404(f) replaces existing section 404(f) to 
modify the categories of activities that do not require permits 
under this title. A modification is necessary to clarify 
congressional intent where agency and judicial interpretations 
have resulted in regulatory expansion beyond the original 
statute. The list of activities not originally envisioned as 
being regulated as ``discharges of dredged or fill material'' 
has grown to the point that a complete revision of the listing 
of exempted activities is necessary. While many of these 
activities merely repeat the exemptions under existing law or 
are a codification or clarification of existing regulatory 
exemptions taken through administrative action, several new 
activities are added to reflect the committee's views on 
routine, minor work that should not be regulated under this 
title. Reflecting the above factors, the groups of activities 
that do not require permits include activities such as: normal 
agricultural activities whether they be farming, silviculture, 
aquaculture or ranching; maintenance and emergency 
reconstruction of facilities for flood control, water supply 
reservoirs, transportation structures and utility lines; 
construction and maintenance of farm, stock and aquaculture 
ponds, wastewater retention features of certain feedlot 
operations, and irrigation canals and drainage ditches; 
activities to preserve and enhance aviation safety or to 
prevent an airport hazard; temporary sedimentation basins for 
construction projects and dredged material disposal areas in 
upland areas; and farm, forest, mining and utility access roads 
and short railroad lines, where such roads and railroad lines 
include application of best management practices; activities 
carried out in farmed wetlands where land use changes intended 
to circumvent regulatory requirements of this section are not 
involved; and activities that result from a State approved 
management plan, are consistent with a State or local land 
management plans approved by the Secretary, are in connection 
with a State-approved marsh management and conservation program 
in Louisiana, or are excluded under an approved State coastal 
zone management program.
    Activities undertaken in areas that may technically satisfy 
wetland delineation criteria, where one or more criteria result 
from human alterations or human induced alterations to the 
area's hydrology, are also exempt unless such areas have 
exhibited wetlands functions for more than 5 years. For 
example, areas adjacent to road fills and other engineered 
works that lack properly designed or maintained drainage 
facilities such that the creation of wetlands is an incidental 
result of the work may technically satisfy wetland delineation 
criteria prescribed in this title. However, since such areas 
are not intended to result in the creation of wetlands, 
activities in them shall not be subject to this section unless 
the areas have performed wetland functions for more than 5 
years.
    Activities intended to preserve and enhance aviation safety 
or to prevent an airport hazard are also exempt. This 
exemption, however, shall not preclude the applicability of the 
National Environmental Policy Act or other federal laws that 
may be applicable to projects such as construction of new 
runways. An example of work to be exempt from regulation under 
this provision is the clearing of vegetation blocking the 
control tower's view of the runway approach zone. The provision 
is intended to address situations such as this, not as a 
mechanism to bypass existing environmental requirements for 
construction of new runway projects at airports.
    Additional activities that do not require permits under 
this section include certain federal or State-approved mining 
activities where any required reclamation is completed within 5 
years of commencement of mining activities and activities 
associated with the placement of piling and related structural 
members for bridges, utility lines, piers, lighthouses, and 
houses built on stilts to reduce flooding and similar 
structures. Activities in States with substantially conserved 
wetlands, such as the State of Alaska, also do not require 
permits if they are to provide for critical infrastructure 
needs, are associated with log transfer facilities, are for 
certain tailings impoundments, or are for ice pads and roads.
    New section 404(g) provides the rules for delineating 
wetlands for purposes of this title. One of the most 
controversial and least understood aspects of this regulatory 
program is the geographic limits of federal regulatory 
jurisdiction as measured by ``wetlands.'' Scientists and 
regulatory professionals have debated the limits of federal 
jurisdiction for decades. While the committee does not presume 
to address wetlands as that term may relate to non-regulatory 
Federal programs, State and local regulatory programs, 
scientific study, academic endeavors and general conservation 
goals, it does intend to establish a reasonable relationship 
between water and the limits of federal regulation under this 
title. The Committee has heard criticisms of its efforts to 
establish such a relationship and its determination that 
regulatory jurisdiction be based upon specific criteria and 
parameters as not being ``scientific'' and as something that 
Congress cannot and should not define. The Committee's 
conclusion is that, while technical experts, regulatory 
personnel, and special interest groups may debate the use of 
specific criteria (especially ones with which they do agree), 
the establishment of geographic limits of federal regulatory 
jurisdiction is very much a policy matter that is Congress's 
responsibility to address. In addition to a closer nexus to 
water, the rules for delineating federal regulatory wetlands 
must be reasonable, consistent and understandable by the 
regulated public. The delineation criteria must remove the 
uncertainty that has plagued property owners for years due to 
changing wetlands delineation criteria and inconsistent 
application.
    The Secretary, in consultation with other federal agencies 
shall promulgate rules within one year for delineating lands as 
wetlands for purposes of this title. These rules may not result 
in an area being determined as ``wetland'' unless (1) there is 
clear evidence of three indicators: wetlands hydrology, 
hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil being present during the 
period in which the wetland delineation is made (which shall 
normally be made during the growing season); (2) vegetation 
classified as hydrophytic is more adapted to wet soil 
conditions than to dry soil conditions; (3) some obligate 
wetlands vegetation is present during the period of delineation 
(unless it has been removed in order to avoid jurisdiction 
under this title); (4) water is found to be present at the 
surface for at least 21 consecutive days during the growing 
season for a majority of years for which data is available; and 
(5) the area is not a wetland that is temporarily or 
incidentally created as a result of adjacent development 
activity. Rules promulgated by the Secretary shall also provide 
that current circumstances be used to delineate wetlands, 
provided that such circumstances have not been altered by 
activity prohibited under this title. To preclude excessive 
burdens on county, parish and borough governments having an 
abundance of wetlands, a cap of 20% is placed on the amount of 
wetlands in those jurisdictions that can be classified as Type 
A wetlands. Such wetlands in excess of the cap that would 
otherwise be classified as Type A shall be classified as Type B 
wetlands.
    Special rules are established for wetland delineations on 
agricultural lands and associated nonagricultural lands. 
Wetlands on such lands are to be delineated solely by the 
Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with the standards 
established by the Secretary of the Army through rulemaking. 
The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, has expertise and 
capability to conduct these delineations. Authorizing the 
Secretary of Agriculture to make delineations in agricultural 
areas and associated nonagricultural areas will end an era of 
confusion and frustration for agricultural land owners who have 
been subjected to conflicting wetlands programs under section 
404 provisions and provisions of Title XII of the Food Security 
Act of 1985 (``Swampbuster''). Areas that the Secretary of 
Agriculture determines to be exempt from the requirements of 
the Swampbuster program or that the Secretary determines to be 
exempt as a result of an appeal under Swampbuster shall also be 
exempt from regulation under this title. Such exemption from 
the requirements for section 404 permits shall remain in effect 
as long as such areas are used as agriculture lands.
    New section 404(h) requires public notice, including 
notices for posting near property records for site-specific 
information, of information relating to wetlands delineation, 
wetlands classification, and enforcement actions. For wetland 
delineations and classifications, notice will be made by the 
Secretary or, in the case of agricultural lands and associated 
nonagricultural lands, the Secretary of Agriculture. For 
enforcement actions, notice shall be made by the Secretary and 
shall be filed with the affected property records.
    The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
undertake a project to develop maps indicating the extent of 
wetlands in the United States delineated in accordance with the 
requirements of this title and wetland classifications in 
accordance with rules promulgated by the Secretary for that 
purpose. This mapping project is to be complete within 10 
years; however, the Secretaries are directed to accomplish this 
effort in less time if applicable. This mapping project is not 
intended to result in all cases in maps that are of sufficient 
detail to be used as the sole source of information for making 
regulatory decisions under this title; rather, they are 
intended to provide guidance to property owners, prospective 
permit applicants, Federal, State and local governments, 
regulatory personnel and the public and to supplement more 
detailed case-by-case decisions that may be required. The 
Committee directs the Secretaries to use existing data and 
resources to the maximum extent practicable in preparing these 
wetlands maps. As part of the mapping project, the Secretaries 
are to make maximum use of public notices and public hearings 
prior to finalizing the maps and shall assure widespread 
dissemination of information on completed maps.
    New section 404(i) establishes an administrative process 
for the appeal of regulatory actions by the Secretary, 
including jurisdictional determinations, wetlands 
classification, decisions regarding the applicability of 
exemptions from permit requirements, the applicability of 
general permits to particular proposals, permit denials, 
conditions imposed in permits, and certain enforcement orders. 
Persons filing an appeal must do so within 30 days of the 
Secretary's action prompting the appeal and a decision on the 
appeal must be rendered within 90 days after filing. Persons 
providing written comment on any regulatory action mentioned 
above that involves a public comment process may participate in 
the appeal process on any issue raised in their written 
comment. The decisionaker on matters brought to appeal shall be 
an impartial federal official who has not participated in the 
regulatory process leading to the appeal. Until a final 
decision is made on the appeal, the person filing the appeal 
shall not be required to pay any penalty or perform any 
mitigation or restoration that would otherwise be required.
    New section 404(j) establishes deadlines and transition 
rules for the issuance of regulations implementing this title, 
including those relating to wetland delineation and 
classification, State and local land management plans that 
relate to exemptions from permit requirements, individual and 
general permits, enforcement actions, guidelines applicable to 
navigational dredging, and other rules that may be necessary. 
The Secretary must issue interim regulations within 90 days and 
final regulations within 1 year.
    One of the principal reforms of this title is to place 
management responsibility and accountability to the Congress 
and the public in the hands of a single agency. Except where 
otherwise specified, this title shall be administered by the 
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers. 
Due to the unique yet extensive nature of agricultural lands 
and regulated activity on such lands, the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall be the sole agency making wetland 
delineations on agricultural lands and associated 
nonagricultural lands. These reforms will bring consistency and 
predictability to this program and eliminate interagency 
second-guessing.
    New section 404(k) describes procedures for enforcement, 
including conditions under which actions may be brought against 
unauthorized activities for civil penalties and criminal fines. 
Although much of this section is from existing law, several 
changes have been made. Regarding compliance orders: orders 
issued by the Secretary must be based on reliable and 
substantial information and can only be made after reasonable 
inquiry; persons disputing the Secretary's action may file an 
appeal and the Secretary must either pursue a civil action or 
rescind the order within 60 days; and if there is no appeal, 
the Secretary must take final action within 150 days. For civil 
penalties, changes include a requirement that the period during 
which civil monetary penalties accrue commences at the end of 
the compliance period (up to 30 days after receipt of the 
compliance order) or, if an appeal is filed, 30 days after 
denial of such an appeal. The amount of the penalty shall not 
exceed $25,000 per day for each violation but the exact amount 
shall be in proportion to the scale or scope of the project. 
Changes to procedures and requirements for criminal penalties 
include a requirement that a violation has resulted in actual 
degradation of the environment and a requirement that action 
may be brought only by the Attorney General.
    New section 404(l) creates a more flexible program for 
State assumption of the section 404 program or parts of the 
program. This is consistent with one of the legislation's 
central themes of encouraging a greater role for State and 
local governments in the decision making in and the management 
of water pollution programs affecting the States. The majority 
of these provisions are from existing law; however, several 
changes have been incorporated, including greater opportunity 
to assume the program within geographic subdivisions of the 
State, and periodic reviews of State performance under 
delegated programs rather than an ad-hoc approach that creates 
uncertainty. The committee directs the Secretary to encourage 
States to assume greater roles in the regulation of activities 
under this title that occur within State boundaries and to 
expedite the review and approval of State proposals. In 
addition, States may seek funds from grants made under section 
106 of the FWPCA, as modified by this Act, for purposes of 
administering delegated section 404 programs.
    New section 404(m) contains a number of provisions relating 
to administration of the program, several of which are from 
existing law. The provisions (1) emphasize the right of States 
to control activities in waters within their jurisdiction, 
including the activities of federal agencies; (2) require 
permit applications and permits be made available for public 
information; (3) require publication of all regulations, 
memoranda of agreement and guidance associated with this 
program in the Federal Register; (4) deem activities associated 
with cranberry production to be in compliance with key 
provisions of existing law, under certain conditions; (5) 
prohibit any increase in regulatory fees; (6) require the 
Secretary to balance wetlands conservation with economic growth 
in implementing this title and to minimize adverse effects on 
property values; (7) require the development of a procedures to 
address regulatory requirements for emergency conditions; (8) 
clarify that the use of property is limited by an agency action 
if a legal right to use that property no longer exists because 
of the action; (9) preclude federal regulatory jurisdiction 
from being applied in cases where such application would be 
based solely on the use or potential use by migratory birds; 
and (10) provide for a transition from the existing regulatory 
regime to the changes put into effect by this title. Transition 
provisions include (1) a requirement that all permits issued 
after the effective date of this title be issued in accordance 
with this title; (2) a provision that previously issued permits 
continue in force; (3) an allowance for reconsideration of 
previously issued permits under the new regulatory procedures, 
if requested by the permittee, regarding the extent of 
regulatory jurisdiction or conditions imposed under a permit; 
and (4) requirements applicable to activities for which permits 
have been previously denied.
    Section 404(m) also contains a number of definitions of 
terms used in the new section 404. One of the most significant 
terms is ``activity'' as used throughout this title, which 
means the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of 
the United States, including wetlands, or the draining, 
channelization, or excavation of wetlands. By using this term, 
this would be the first legislation to recognize actions other 
than the discharge of dredged or fill materials that have 
potential for the degradation of water quality and wetland 
functions. Other defined terms are ``agency'', ``agency 
action'', ``agricultural land'', ``conserved wetlands'', 
``economic base lands'', ``fair market value'', ``law of a 
State'', ``mitigation bank'', ``navigational dredging'', 
``property'', ``Secretary'', ``State with substantial conserved 
wetlands areas'', and ``wetlands''.
    Section 804 includes definitions used in section 502 of the 
FWPCA, including ``wetlands'', ``creation of wetlands'', 
``enhancement of wetlands'', ``fastlands'', ``wetlands 
functions'', ``growing season'', ``incidentally created 
wetlands'', ``maintenance'', ``mitigation banking'', ``normal 
farming, silviculture, aquaculture and ranching activities'', 
``prior converted cropland'', ``restoration'', ``temporary 
impacts'', and ``airport hazard''. This section also amends 
section 502 of existing law by making conforming changes to the 
existing definition of ``pollutant''.
    Section 805 amends section 309 of existing law to include 
conforming changes to reflect that wetlands enforcement 
provisions are to be centrally located in section 404 and 
implemented by the Secretary.
    Section 806 provides that this title and its amendments are 
effect 90 days after enactment of this Act.

                    TITLE IX--NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

    Title IX modifies the regulatory provisions of the Marine 
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to reassign 
responsibility for administering those provisions from the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to the 
Secretary of the Army. Consistent with a central theme of Title 
VIII, the committee believes that the regulation of the 
transportation and disposal of material in ocean waters should 
be managed by a single agency and is designating the Secretary, 
acting through the Chief of Engineers, as the lead federal 
agency.
    Section 901 states that amendments made by this title are 
to be considered as changes to the Marine Protection, Research, 
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
    Section 902 amends existing section 102 (relating to the 
transportation and dumping of material, other than dredged 
material, into ocean waters) by designating the Secretary of 
the Army as being the principal federal agency implementing the 
section, rather than the Administrator of the EPA.
    Section 903 amends existing section 103 (relating to the 
transportation and dumping of dredged material into ocean 
waters) by designating the Secretary of the Army as being the 
principal federal agency implementing the section, rather than 
the Administrator of the EPA.
    Section 904 amends existing section 104 (relating to 
conditions on ocean dumping permits) by designating the 
Secretary of the Army as being the principal federal agency 
implementing the section, rather than the Administrator of the 
EPA.
    Section 905 amends existing section 104A (relating to 
dumping of municipal sludge in the New York Bight Apex) by 
designating the Secretary of the Army as being the principal 
federal agency implementing the section, rather than the 
Administrator of the EPA.
    Section 906 specifies that references to the Administrator 
of EPA in any federal law with respect to any function 
transferred from EPA to the Secretary pursuant to this title 
shall be deemed as a reference to the Secretary of the Army.

                          Miscellaneous Issues

    The Committee does not intend this bill to amend, repeal, 
supersede or otherwise modify the application of Section 214(g) 
of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) (P.L. 98-
67, Section 214(g)). It is the intent of the Committee that the 
exemption contained therein shall remain in full force and 
effect. The Committee notes that representatives of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency have reviewed the relevant 
provisions of this bill and concur in the view that CBERA 
Section 214(g) is not affected by H.R. 961, as reported.
    The Committee recognizes that all indirect dischargers to a 
POTW must comply with all aspects and requirements of the Clean 
Water Act, including compliance with applicable pretreatment 
requirements, whether the indirect discharger that introduces 
pollutants to the treatment works is a municipality or special 
district which collects wastewater from individual indirect 
dischargers or whether the indirect discharger that introduces 
pollutants to the treatment works is itself an industrial 
facility.
    During the Committee's mark-up of H.R. 961, several 
amendments addressing the issue of environmental justice were 
offered, but withdrawn. The Committee did not include specific 
environmental justice provisions in H.R. 961 because the 
Committee believes that there is adequate flexibility in the 
current Act to address environmental justice concerns. The 
Committee encourages EPA to take into account disadvantaged, 
low-income, and high-risk populations when implementing the 
Act, including in the development of water quality criteria and 
the collection of data.

               Hearings and Previous Legislative Activity

    H.R. 961, the ``Clean Water Amendments of 1995,'' was 
introduced by Congressman Bud Shuster along with 15 additional 
bipartisan cosponsors, on February 15, 1995. The bill was 
referred solely to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. The legislation reflects the theme of 
devolution in authority over the nation's waters by increasing 
the role of State and local governments in the decision making 
process, and emphasizes flexibility and accountability.
    During the 103rd Congress the former Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation's Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment held 12 hearings on Clean Water Act (CWA) 
reauthorization issues including: (1) funding and 
infrastructure; (2) point source regulation; (3) nonpoint 
source regulation; and (4) wetlands. H.R. 961 originated in the 
103rd Congress last spring as the ``Bipartisan Alternative.'' 
The Bipartisan Alternative was produced in response to a bill 
drafted by then-Chairman Norm Mineta and Congressman Sherwood 
Boehlert (H.R. 3948).
    A bipartisan coalition of Committee members had strong 
objections to H.R. 3948, based largely on its command-and-
control nature and the top-down decision power given to the 
Federal EPA. The coalition used the base structure of H.R. 3948 
to craft the Bipartisan Alternative, but broadened its appeal 
by including additional input from State and local governments, 
industry, agriculture, and other affected stakeholders. The 
coalition's bill provided greater flexibility to State and 
local governments and fewer regulatory provisions, while it 
retained H.R. 3948's provisions on infrastructure and program 
funding. Ultimately, however, neither bill was considered or 
ever reported out of Subcommittee.
    In the 104th Congress, the newly named Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure included CWA reform as a 
priority on its agenda. Chairman Shuster directed Committee 
staff to continue the outreach efforts begun with the 
Bipartisan Alternative, to solicit views on how best to address 
the problems of the CWA while continuing its successes in a 
manner reflective of current conditions, and to develop a 
comprehensive ``Bipartisan Initiative'' to be considered by the 
Committee within the first 100 days of the new Congress.
    Prior to any Subcommittee action, the Full Committee held a 
January 31, 1995, oversight hearing on State perspectives on, 
among other things, unfunded mandates, regulatory reform, block 
grants and privatization issues relating to transportation and 
infrastructure programs. The National Governors Association 
(NGA) and other State organizations and officials praised the 
overall intent and effect of the CWA, but called for numerous 
reforms to reflect current needs. In particular, Governor 
Nelson of Nebraska, testifying on behalf of NGA, called for 
improved approaches to nonpoint pollution and stormwater; 
increased flexibility and cost effectiveness; and a renewed 
federal commitment to the SRF. Other themes included realistic 
time frames, performance-based standards, and risk-based 
approaches to water quality.
    The Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, 
next, divided CWA issues into five major areas--wetlands, 
nonpoint sources, funding, point sources, and stormwater--and 
held seven additional hearings, seeking views and input from 
all interested parties and officials.
    The first Subcommittee hearing, held February 9, 1995, 
focused on State and local perspectives. The witness list 
included representatives from the National Conference of 
Mayors, National League of cities, National Governors 
Association, Association of State and Interstate Water 
Pollution Control Administrators and various State water 
agencies. The witnesses provided testimony on the importance of 
continued funding of the State Revolving Fund, the necessity of 
incorporating cost-effective criteria into the regulation 
adoption process, the need for flexibility at the local level 
to design water treatment programs that will most effectively 
serve to address the water quality issues for a locale, and the 
financial burdens imposed on communities by current CWA 
unfunded mandates.
    The second hearing, held February 16, 1995, provided a 
forum for perspectives on business and economic development. 
The witness list included representatives of various industries 
including manufacturing, forestry, transportation, 
construction, textiles and realty. In addition to expressing 
views similar to those voiced in the first hearing on SRF 
funding and permitting programs, these panelists emphasized the 
following: cost effective risk reduction as the driving 
principle behind development of water quality requirements; the 
application of sound, state-of-the-art scientific information 
for establishing water quality standards; and flexibility to 
encourage industries to adopt pollution prevention methods 
which contribute significant environmental benefits, through 
innovative technology variances and reductions in multi-media 
discharges.
    The third hearing, held February 21, 1995, was reserved for 
presentation of the Administration's views. The witness panel 
included representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The EPA 
testimony expressed the Administration's recognition of the 
importance of continued SFR funding; the need to increase the 
role of State and local authorities in the process of 
addressing water quality issues, particularly in the area of 
watershed management; and emphasized common sense approaches to 
address water quality issues by combining flexible cost-
effective methods with realistic expectations. USDA addressed 
nonpoint source pollution issues. The agency highlighted the 
successes of their current land management programs, and 
provided suggestions for improving watershed management 
programs by increased local participation, program flexibility 
and increased coordination between Federal and State agencies. 
The NOAA discussed the Coastal Zone Management Act, 
specifically the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments of 
1990, in relation to controlling nonpoint source pollution.
    The panels for the fourth hearing, held February 24, 1995, 
represented various agricultural interests, environmental 
groups, and both public and private utilities. The agriculture 
panelists addressed issues concerning policies regulating both 
point and nonpoint sources of pollution and wetlands, 
emphasizing, again, themes of local control; cost-effective 
practices; continued funding; and sound, scientific information 
to be used in setting standards. As to nonpoint source 
pollution prevention policies in the area of agriculture, 
specifically, the panelists agreed that the voluntary, 
incentive-based methods provided under the current CWA scheme 
were the most effective means to achieve increased water 
quality. Environmental groups presented their positions on, 
among other things, wet weather flows; toxic discharges; and 
pollution prevention aspects, contending that CWA reform 
required strengthened programs to address remaining water 
quality problems. They acknowledged that increased flexibility, 
such as pollutant trading, could be an effective tool in 
achieving improved water quality at lower cost. The utilities, 
while expressing specific concern over State water quality 
certification and federal facility compliance in the hydropower 
licensing process, emphasized the need for the CWA to ensure 
reasonable, balanced, non-duplicative, cost-effective and 
environmentally sound approaches to regulation of remaining 
sources of pollution.
    The fifth hearing, held March 7, 1995, involved six panels 
of witnesses providing testimony specifically on reform of the 
Section 404 wetlands permitting program, and property rights. 
As an overview, the hearings primarily revolved around reform 
of the individual permitting program, as opposed to the general 
permitting program. The query which dominated the hearing was 
whether Congress had intended to include wetlands regulation in 
the description of ``navigable waters'' in the original CWA, 
and if so, whether Congress envisioned the current wetlands 
regulatory scheme. Repeatedly, witnesses requested Congress to 
clarify its position concerning the definition of wetlands, the 
protection of property rights, and the fairness of current 
permit procedures.
    Witnesses of the six panels included private citizens and 
representives of agriculture; industry; Federal, State and 
local government; and environmental groups. Testimony from the 
hearings identified several areas of the current program which 
cause the greatest problems to the regulated community, and 
additionally, provided helpful suggestions to correct these 
problems. Specifically, and repeatedly cited, were the 
following concerns: the need for a definition of a wetlands, 
and a system of classification where variances in wetlands 
value are considered; streamlining of the wetlands permitting 
process to reduce the time and costs involved, in addition to 
eliminating multi-agency authority over wetlands regulation; 
recognition that the State should play a greater role in 
wetlands regulation due to the unique regional nature of the 
issues; the importance of funding for education and research on 
wetlands preservation, to provide incentives to voluntarily 
adopt wetlands protective measures, and to promote restoration 
and creation of wetlands, and finally, the dilemma concerning 
regulatory ``takings'' of private property and compensation. 
These concerns were identified by all panel participants at the 
hearings in some form; however, views differed as how best to 
resolve the issues.
    The sixth hearing, held March 9, 1995, provided a forum for 
members of Congress to express their views on a variety of 
regional, local and miscellaneous CWA issues. Representatives 
from federal and local government agencies, industry and 
environmental groups also participated by discussing clean 
water issues related to specific regions. The panel of 
Congressional members highlighted the flaws in the current 
regulatory scheme and discussed clean water proposals of 
interest to their districts. The regional panels provided 
testimony on clean water issues concerning, among other things, 
harbors and estuaries, the Great Lakes region, and the western 
arid States.
    The seventh, and final hearing, was held in Utica, New 
York, March 11, 1995. The testimony of the three panels, 
comprised of representatives from local government, industry, 
agriculture and environmental groups, addressed issues 
concerning the control of nonpoint source water pollution. 
Representatives of government, industry and agriculture 
advocated a more localized approach to nonpoint source 
pollution, emphasizing the need for flexible, voluntary State/
regional programs, and federal financial and technical 
assistance. Environmental representatives advocated 
strengthening the nonpoint source program to better control 
pollution from nonpoint runoff.
    In sum, H.R. 961's history dates back to the 103rd Congress 
and the development of H.R. 3948 and the Bipartisan 
Alternative. The deliberative process of the 104th Congress 
continued the extensive efforts made to provide a forum for 
development of H.R. 961 and for all interested parties to 
express their views and ensure a role in the legislative 
process. Although H.R. 961 could not accommodate every single 
view and suggestion offered, the bill does reflect the 
prevailing themes repeatedly expressed throughout the 
information gathering process.

                        Committee Consideration

    Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to include the total number of votes cast for and against on 
each rollcall vote on a motion to report and on any amendment 
offered to the measure or matter, and the names of those 
members voting for and against.

                 Menendez Substitute to Franks (17-39)

    This amendment relates to the permiting process for the 
discharge of dredged material from navigational dredging. 
Discharges subject to permitting under this section do not have 
to obtain section 404 permits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................  .........  Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................  .........  Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................  .........  Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             franks amendment navigational dredging (56-4)

    This amendment establishes a permitting process for 
navigational dredging and would reduce EPA's role in the 
permitting process.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         Y   Mr. Hutchinson...         Y 
Mr. Bachus.....................         Y   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         Y 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         Y 
Mr. Bateman....................         Y   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         Y   Mr. Latham.......         Y 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. Latourette...         Y 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         Y 
Mr. Brewster...................         Y   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         Y   Mr. Mica.........         Y 
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         Y   Mr. Parker.......         Y 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         Y 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         Y   Mr. Quinn........         Y 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         Y   Mrs. Seastrand...         Y 
Mr. Ewing......................         Y   Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         Y   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         Y 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         Y   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         Y 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 mineta waivers risk assessment (18-38)

    This amendment would require EPA conduct risk assessments 
before issuing or granting any site-specific permit 
modifications or waivers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......  .........
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......  .........
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Mr. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........  .........
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  boehlert srf amendment no. 6 (23-35)

    This amendment would establish a separate $500 million/year 
state revolving fund to provide loans to farmers, loggers, and 
others implementing measures to control nonpoint source 
pollution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Mr. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................  .........  Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 ehlers great lakes initiative (27-24)

    This amendment would strike language clarifying that the 
Great Lakes Initiative in section 118 of the Clean Water Act is 
merely guidance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         Y   Ms. Johnson......  .........
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         Y 
Mr. Borski.....................  .........  Mr. Laughlin.....         Y 
Mr. Brewster...................         Y   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................  .........  Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         Y   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................  .........  Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....  .........
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................      PASS   Mr. Wise.........  .........
Mr. Horn.......................  .........  Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  lipinski allocation formula (30-30)

    This amendment sought to reinstate the allotment formula 
that was in H.R. 961 as introduced.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         Y 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         Y 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         N 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         Y 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......  .........
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         Y 
Mr. Ewing......................         Y   Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         Y   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 mineta risks and benefit-cost (20-28)

    This amendment limits the risks that can be used for 
comparison, changes the benefit-cost decision criterion, and 
strikes the retroactive application of the benefit-cost 
provisions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................  .........  Mr. LaTourette...  .........
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....  .........
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......  .........
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................  .........  Mr. Parker.......  .........
Mr. Deal.......................  .........  Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......  .........
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........  .........
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       mineta stormwater (23-31)

    This amendment modifies the existing section 402(p) 
stormwater program without repealing it as is done in H.R. 961.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...         N 
Mr. Bachus.....................  .........  Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......  .........
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........  .........
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....  .........
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................  .........  Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................  .........  Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  young motion to table barcia (33-25)

    Barcia amendment was to reoffer Lipinski amendment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         Y   Mr. Hutchinson...         Y 
Mr. Bachus.....................  .........  Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         Y   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         Y   Mr. Latham.......         Y 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         Y 
Mr. Borski.....................         N   Mr. Laughlin.....         Y 
Mr. Brewster...................         Y   Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         N   Mr. Martini......  .........
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         N 
Mr. Clinger....................         Y   Mr. Mica.........  .........
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         N   Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         Y   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         Y   Mr. Parker.......         Y 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         Y 
Mr. DeFazio....................         N   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................         Y   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         N 
Mr. Emerson....................         Y   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         Y   Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................         N   Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         N 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         Y 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         Y   Mr. Wise.........         N 
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         Y 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  mineta title viii substitute (11-39)

    This amendment would strike Title VIII of H.R. 961 and 
replace it with alternative wetlands protection language.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......  .........
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................  .........  Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....  .........
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........  .........
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Mr. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................  .........  Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         N 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         N 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      GILCHRIST NAS STUDY (17-38)

    This amendment would strike Title VIII of H.R. 961 and 
limit further action on revisions to Section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act until after the National Academy of Sciences 
publishes results of its study on wetlands.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member          Voted 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................  .........  Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....  .........
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  borski title VIII substitute (13-36)

    This amendment would strike Title VIII of H.R. 961 and 
replace it with a wetlands permitting proposal prepared by 
certain state officials and omitting any provisions on the 
definition of takings.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................  .........  Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................  .........  Mr. LaTourette...  .........
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         N   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................  .........  Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................  .........  Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....  .........
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             petri great lakes initiative amendment (34-18)

    This amendment provides that State water quality standards 
and policies must be consistent with guidance in the Great 
Lakes Initiative and provide a level of protection that is 
comparable to that guidance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         Y   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         Y 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         Y 
Mr. Bateman....................   Present   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         Y   Mr. Latham.......         Y 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         N   Mr. Laughlin.....         Y 
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         N   Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................  .........  Mr. Menendez.....         N 
Mr. Clinger....................         Y   Mr. Mica.........         Y 
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         N 
Mr. Cramer.....................         Y   Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         Y   Mr. Parker.......         Y 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         Y 
Mr. DeFazio....................         N   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         Y   Mr. Quinn........         Y 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         N 
Mr. Emerson....................         Y   Mrs. Seastrand...         Y 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................         N   Mr. Traficant....  .........
Mrs. Fowler....................         Y   Mr. Tucker.......  .........
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         Y 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         Y   Mr. Wise.........  .........
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         Y 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       NADLER NO CHLORINE (5-42)

    This amendment would have called on the pulp and paper 
industry to discontinue the use of chlorine in the making of 
paper products.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................  .........  Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................  .........  Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         N 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........  .........
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         N   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         N 
Mr. Emerson....................  .........  Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................  .........  Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....  .........
Mrs. Fowler....................  .........  Mr. Tucker.......  .........
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........  .........
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     emerson cooling ponds (44-10)

    This amendment limits the need for new section 402 or 404 
permits when a discharge is into an area used for detention, 
retention, treatment, settling, conveyance or cooling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         Y   Mr. Hutchinson...         Y 
Mr. Bachus.....................         Y   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         Y 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         Y 
Mr. Bateman....................         Y   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         Y   Mr. Latham.......         Y 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         Y 
Mr. Borski.....................         N   Mr. Laughlin.....  .........
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         N 
Mr. Clinger....................         Y   Mr. Mica.........         Y 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         N 
Mr. Cramer.....................         Y   Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         Y   Mr. Parker.......  .........
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         Y 
Mr. DeFazio....................         N   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................  .........  Mr. Quinn........         Y 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         Y   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         Y   Mrs. Seastrand...         Y 
Mr. Ewing......................         Y   Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................         N   Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         Y   Mr. Tucker.......         N 
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         Y 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         Y   Mr. Wise.........  .........
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         Y 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      mineta amendment nps (14-38)

    This amendment would strike the nonpoint source pollution 
language in H.R. 961 and in its place insert language relating 
to nonpoint source pollution and enforceable measures.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................  .........  Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....  .........
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................  .........  Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................  .........  Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....  .........
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         N   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     borski amendment czara (17-35)

    This amendment would modify rather than repeal the existing 
program under section 6217 of CZARA

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         Y   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....  .........
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................  .........  Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....  .........
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................  .........  Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         Y   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................  .........  Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    mineta amendment 301(h) (13-41)

    This amendment would delete provisions directing EPA to 
grant the City of San Diego a waiver from secondary sewage 
treatment under certain circumstances.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................   Present   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................  .........  Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....  .........
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................  .........  Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................  .........  Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................         N   Mr. Traficant....         N 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         N 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrist..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                MINETA SKELETAL REAUTHORIZATION (17-41)

    This amendment would strike all of H.R. 961 after the 
enacting clause and insert a less comprehensive Clean Water Act 
reauthorization package focused on continued funding and 
stormwater and combined sewer overflow revisions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         N   Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         Y 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         N   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         N 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................  .........  Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         Y   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         N 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             final passage of H.R. 961, as amended (42-16)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         Y   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................         Y   Ms. Johnson......         N 
Mr. Baker......................         Y   Mrs. Kelly.......         Y 
Mr. Barcia.....................         Y   Mr. Kim..........         Y 
Mr. Bateman....................         Y   Mr. LaHood.......         Y 
Mr. Blute......................         Y   Mr. Latham.......         Y 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         Y 
Mr. Borski.....................         N   Mr. Laughlin.....         Y 
Mr. Brewster...................         Y   Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         N   Mr. Martini......         Y 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         N 
Mr. Clinger....................         Y   Mr. Mica.........         Y 
Mr. Clyburn....................         N   Mr. Mineta.......         N 
Mr. Coble......................         Y   Ms. Molinari.....         Y 
Ms. Collins....................  .........  Mr. Nadler.......         N 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         N 
Mr. Cramer.....................         Y   Mr. Oberstar.....         N 
Ms. Danner.....................         Y   Mr. Parker.......         Y 
Mr. Deal.......................         Y   Mr. Petri........         Y 
Mr. DeFazio....................         N   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         Y   Mr. Quinn........         Y 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         N 
Mr. Emerson....................         Y   Mrs. Seastrand...         Y 
Mr. Ewing......................         Y   Mr. Tate.........         Y 
Mr. Filner.....................  .........  Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         Y   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         Y   Mr. Wamp.........         Y 
Mr. Gilchrist..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         Y 
Mr. Hayes......................         Y   Mr. Wise.........         N 
Mr. Horn.......................         Y   Mr. Young........         Y 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    MINETA UNFUNDED MANDATES (18-40)

    This motion would have directed that the Committee report 
on H.R. 961 comply with the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 prior to the effective date contained in 
that Act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member                Voted          Member         Voted  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Shuster....................         N   Mr. Hutchinson...  .........
Mr. Bachus.....................  .........  Ms. Johnson......         Y 
Mr. Baker......................         N   Mrs. Kelly.......         N 
Mr. Barcia.....................         N   Mr. Kim..........         N 
Mr. Bateman....................         N   Mr. LaHood.......         N 
Mr. Blute......................         N   Mr. Latham.......         N 
Mr. Boehlert...................         N   Mr. LaTourette...         N 
Mr. Borski.....................         Y   Mr. Laughlin.....         N 
Mr. Brewster...................         N   Mr. Lipinski.....         N 
Ms. Brown......................         Y   Mr. Martini......         N 
Mr. Clement....................         Y   Mr. Menendez.....         Y 
Mr. Clinger....................         N   Mr. Mica.........         N 
Mr. Clyburn....................         Y   Mr. Mineta.......         Y 
Mr. Coble......................         N   Ms. Molinari.....         N 
Ms. Collins....................         Y   Mr. Nadler.......         Y 
Mr. Costello...................         Y   Ms. Norton.......         Y 
Mr. Cramer.....................         N   Mr. Oberstar.....         Y 
Ms. Danner.....................         N   Mr. Parker.......         N 
Mr. Deal.......................         N   Mr. Petri........         N 
Mr. DeFazio....................         Y   Mr. Poshard......         Y 
Mr. Duncan.....................         N   Mr. Quinn........         N 
Mr. Ehlers.....................         N   Mr. Rahall.......         Y 
Mr. Emerson....................         N   Mrs. Seastrand...         N 
Mr. Ewing......................         N   Mr. Tate.........         N 
Mr. Filner.....................  .........  Mr. Traficant....         Y 
Mrs. Fowler....................         N   Mr. Tucker.......         Y 
Mr. Franks.....................         N   Mr. Wamp.........         N 
Mr. Gilchrest..................         N   Mr. Weller.......         N 
Mr. Hayes......................         N   Mr. Wise.........         Y 
Mr. Horn.......................         N   Mr. Young........         N 
                                            Mr. Zeliff.......         Y 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no 
specific oversight findings.

 Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee on Government 
                          Reform and Oversight

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure has received no such findings 
or recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI requires each committee report 
that accompanies a measure providing new budget authority, new 
spending authority, or new credit authority or changing 
revenues or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as 
required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, as amended, and, when practicable with respect to 
estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of the total 
estimated funding levels for the relevant program (or programs) 
to the appropriate levels under current law.
    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII requires committees to include 
their own cost estimates in certain committee reports, which 
include, where practicable, a comparison of the total estimated 
funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the 
appropriate levels under current law.
    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                 Congressional Budget Office Estimates

    Clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is 
timely submitted. The following is the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 1995.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed preliminary cost estimate for H.R. 961, 
the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. We have not completed our 
analysis of all the costs of this bill because we do not yet 
have sufficient information to project the costs of some of the 
authorizations. CBO will provide the committee with complete 
cost projections as soon as they are available.
    Enactment of H.R. 961 would affect direct spending and 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to 
the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                         Robert A. Sunshine
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
    Enclosure.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 961.
    2. Bill title: Clean Water Amendments of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure on April 6, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: This bill would amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), and would provide 
additional authorizations of appropriations to assist state and 
local governments in their efforts to correct water pollution 
problems. The bill also would authorize such sums as are 
necessary to continue Clean Water Act programs conducted by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, H.R. 961 
would repeal the current requirement for some local governments 
and industries to obtain permits to discharge stormwater 
runoff. Finally, the bill would replace the existing procedures 
and criteria for identifying and regulating wetlands.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Most of the 
spending that may occur under H.R. 961 would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds. For purposes of this 
estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted by the end 
of this fiscal year, and that all funds authorized by the bill 
for the 1996-2000 period will be appropriated. Estimated 
outlays are based on historical spending patterns of clean 
water programs administered by EPA. The following table 
summarizes the estimated budgetary impact for the bill's 
specified authorizations.
    The bill also would increase federal receipts from 
penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act, but these 
amounts would not be significant.
    The table below does not include any amounts of 
appropriated funds that might be necessary to compensate 
landowners because of the bill's amendments to section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act. It also does not include potential direct 
spending costs for the bill's provision that waives the federal 
government's sovereign immunity under the Clean Water Act. 
Costs for both of these provisions could be significant. 
Finally, the table does not include estimated authorizations 
for EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers to carry out their 
responsibilities under sections 517 and 404 of the act, 
respectively. CBO does not currently have sufficient 
information to estimate the budgetary impact of these 
provisions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizations of appropriations:                                                                               
    Specified authorizations.............................      3,801      3,501      3,551      3,597      3,647
    Estimated outlays....................................        341      1,432      2,586      3,243      3,544
    Estimated authorizations.............................        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\
    Estimated outlays....................................        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\
Direct spending:                                                                                                
    Estimated budget authority...........................        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\
    Estimated outlays....................................        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\        \1\
Estimated revenues.......................................        \2\        \2\        \2\        \2\        \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBO has insufficient information to estimate these amounts.                                                 
\2\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                         

    The costs of this bill fall primarily within budget 
function 300. Other budget functions, particularly defense 
(050), could be affected by the provision of the bill that 
waives the federal government's sovereign immunity under the 
Clean Water Act.
    6. Basis of estimate: Title I--Research and related 
programs. Section 102 would authorize appropriations of $250 
million over the 1996-2000 period for EPA to make grants to 
communities that are small or economically disadvantaged for 
planning, design, and construction of publicly owned treatment 
works (POTWs). An additional $250 million would be authorized 
over the five-year period for grants to state and local 
governments and nonprofit groups to research causes of water 
pollution, conduct technical training in water pollution 
abatement, and disseminate water pollution information. The 
bill would reauthorize EPA grants for assistance to state and 
interstate water pollution control programs, providing an 
authorization of $150 million annually over the five-year 
period. In addition, H.R. 961 would authorize a total of $25 
million for water sanitation grants to rural and Native Alaskan 
villages, $21 million annually over the 1996-2000 period for 
the ongoing Chesapeake Bay program, and $26 million annually 
over the same period for the continuing Great Lakes program.
    Title II--Construction grants. This title authorizes the 
appropriation of $300 million in 1996 for grants to fund water 
pollution infrastructure improvements in New Orleans, 
Louisiana, Bristol County, Massachusetts, and other communities 
with a population of less than 75,000. Half of this sum would 
be directed to communities with a severe need for wastewater 
treatment improvements. Under current law, federal construction 
grants made through Title II of the Clean Water Act cover 55 
percent of the total project cost. H.R. 961 would change the 
federal share to 80 percent.
    Title III--Standards and enforcement. Title III would 
change the way EPA established water quality criteria and 
standards, by requiring risk assessments and cost-benefit 
analysis before issuing new regulations. This title would 
revise the current program designed to control pollution from 
nonpoint sources, and would eliminate the stormwater permit 
program for discharges from municipalities and industries.
    Title III would authorize appropriations of $19 million 
annually over the 1996-2000 period to continue the National 
Estuary program, and an additional $10 million annually to 
support the existing Clean Lakes program.
    The bill would provide authorizations totalling $1 billion 
over the five-year period for grants to administer and 
implement land management practices and other projects to 
control nonpoint sources of pollution. In addition to these 
grants, the bill would authorize appropriations to state 
revolving loan funds to make loans for nonpoint source 
pollution control projects (see Title VI).
    H.R. 961 would define municipal and industrial stormwater 
discharges as a nonpoint source pollutant and would repeal the 
current stormwater permitting program. The bill would direct 
states to assess stormwater discharges and submit a program to 
manage such discharges for EPA approval. The goal of the new 
stormwater program is to attain water quality standards within 
15 years of EPA approval of each state's program. H.R. 961 
would authorize appropriations of $20 million annually over the 
1996-2000 period for grants to states to conduct stormwater 
research and demonstration programs.
    Section 316 would explicitly waive any federal immunity 
from administrative orders or civil or administrative fines or 
penalties assessed under Clean Water Act, and would clarify 
that federal facilities are subject to reasonable service 
charges assessed in connection with a federal or state program. 
This provision of the bill may encourage states to seek to 
impose fines and penalties against the federal government under 
the act. If federal agencies contest these fines and penalties, 
it is possible that payments would have to be made from the 
government's Claims and Judgments Fund, if not otherwise 
provided from appropriated funds. The Claims and Judgments Fund 
is a permanent, open-ended appropriation, and any amounts paid 
from it would be considered direct spending. CBO cannot predict 
the number or the dollar amount of judgments against the 
government that could result from enactment of this section. 
Further, it is impossible to determine whether those judgments 
would be paid from the Claims and Judgments Fund or from 
appropriated funds.
    H.R. 961 would provide that penalty assessments for 
violators of pollution laws be adjusted for inflation using the 
Consumer Price Index (CPI). The initial adjustment would occur 
no later than four years after the date of enactment of the 
bill; adjustments would be made every four years thereafter. 
CBO estimates that inflating penalty assessments would result 
in increased revenues of less than $500,000 annually.
    Title IV--Permits and licenses. This title would make 
several amendments to the National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System, and would codify EPA's current policy for 
controlling combined sewer overflows. In addition, the bill 
directs EPA to develop a national control policy for overflows 
from municipal separate sanitary sewers. No federal 
expenditures are explicitly authorized by this title, and CBO 
estimates that no significant additional resources would be 
needed to implement these changes.
    Title V--General provisions. This title would authorize 
appropriations of such sums as are necessary for conducting 
EPA's responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. Such funds 
would be in addition to the bill's specified authorizations, 
which are largely for grants to individual states and 
communities. CBO does not yet have sufficient information from 
EPA to estimate these amounts. Some costs would result from 
Title III's requirements regarding risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis of regulations expected to have an economic 
impact of $25 million or more annually. At the same time, the 
bill's provisions in Titles VIII and IX would save the agency 
about $40 million annually, because EPA would no longer have 
any responsibilities for wetlands or ocean dumping regulation.
    Title VI--State water pollution control revolving funds. 
EPA's major initiative for assisting local governments in 
complying with water treatment provisions of the Clean Water 
Act is the State Revolving Fund program (SRF). This title would 
authorize appropriations of $2.5 billion annually over the 
1996-2000 period for SRF grants. In addition, the bill would 
establish a new revolving fund to help pay for local management 
of nonpoint source water pollution. H.R. 961 would allow states 
to shift any part of their grant from EPA between these two 
revolving funds. Under current law, states may only use SRF 
grants to make loans to local communities for clean water 
infrastructure projects. Title VI would allow states to extend 
the payback period on these loans for certain communities, and 
would allow certain economically disadvantaged communities to 
receive a partial grant in addition to a loan to pay for the 
construction of clean water infrastructure projects through the 
SRF program.
    Title VII--Miscellaneous provisions. This title would 
authorize the appropriation of $50 million for grants to assist 
states along the U.S.-Mexican border with planning and 
constructing treatment works in U.S. border communities known 
as colonias. These communities were generally built without any 
water or wastewater infrastructure.
    Title VIII--Wetlands conservation and management. Title 
VIII would rewrite section 404 of the Clean Water Act to 
formalize the wetlands permitting process of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers. While the amended law would still require 
persons who wish to develop or alter wetlands to seek a permit 
from the Corps, the process would be made more responsive to 
property owners by: (1) instituting deadlines for processing 
permit applications, (2) specifying new standards for defining 
and classifying wetlands (along with a hierarchy of allowable 
permit conditions that can be applied to each classification), 
(3) allowing more activities to be exempt from permitting or to 
be addressed through general (non-individual) permits, (4) 
establishing an administrative process under which property 
owners could appeal agency findings and decisions, and (5) 
creating a mechanism for compensating owners of affected lands 
(subject to the appropriation of the necessary funds). Finally, 
the bill would require the Corps and the Department of 
Agriculture to begin a 10-year project of mapping all regulated 
wetlands in the United States.
    CBO cannot estimate the major cost of this title--
compensation for landowners whose property values are affected 
by regulatory actions taken by the Corps under section 401. 
Under this title, the federal government would be required to 
compensate property owners when an agency action reduces the 
value of the affected portion of their land by 20 percent or 
more. The property owner would be able to seek compensation 
through (1) a written request to the agency, (2) binding 
arbitration, and/or (3) a civil action. In all cases, any 
compensation amount negotiated or awarded would be paid by the 
agency from operating funds. All obligations of the government 
for such compensation would be subject to the availability of 
appropriations. The ultimate cost of this provision would 
depend on future actions taken by the agency, affected property 
owners, and on the outcome of future arbitration and court 
proceedings. CBO does not currently have sufficient basis to 
estimate such costs.
    Also, this title would raise to $5,000 and $50,000, 
respectively, the minimum and maximum assessments for those 
subject to criminal fines for violating permit requirements. 
The current minimum and maximum fines are $2,500 and $25,000, 
respectively. The fine assessed for a second offense would be 
raised from $50,000 to $100,000 per day of violation. Based on 
information provided by EPA, CBO estimates that additional 
revenues from these changes would be less than $500,000 
annually.
    Any criminal fines collected would be deposited in the 
Crime Victims Fund and spent in the following year. Thus, 
direct spending from the fund would match the increase in 
revenues from criminal fines with a one-year lag. Because 
collections from ciminal fines are expected to be 
insignificant, increased direct spending from the fund would 
also be insignificant.
    Title IX--Navigational dredging. This title would amend the 
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to 
designate the Corps as the lead agency for regulating ocean 
dumping and dredging permits. We estimate that this title would 
have no significant impact on federal spending.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. Enactment of the bill would 
increase governmental receipts from civil, criminal, and 
administrative penalties, as well as direct spending from the 
Crime Victims Fund. CBO estimates that any amounts involved 
would be insignificant.
    Section 316 would explicitly waive any federal immunity 
from administrative orders, or civil or administrative fines or 
penalties assessed under the Clean Water Act, and would clarify 
that federal facilities are subject to reasonable service 
charges assessed in connection with a federal or state Clean 
Water Act program.
    This provision may encourage states to seek to impose fines 
and penalties against the federal government under the Clean 
Water Act. If federal agencies contest these fines and 
penalties, it is possible that payments would have to be made 
from the government's Claims and Judgments Fund, if not 
otherwise provided from appropriated funds. The Claims and 
Judgments Fund is a permanent, open-ended appropriation, and 
any amounts paid from it would be considered direct spending. 
CBO cannot predict either the number or the dollar amount of 
judgments against the government that could result from 
enactment of this bill. Further, it is impossible to determine 
whether such potential judgments would be paid from the Claims 
and Judgments Fund or from appropriated funds.
    8. Estimated cost to state and local governments: Major 
changes made by H.R. 961. From the perspective of state and 
local governments, this legislation would make several 
important changes to current law. It would authorize increased 
appropriations for the SRF program and modify the criteria 
governing eligibility for the program; codify EPA's current 
permitting policy for combined sewer overflow (CSO); repeal the 
Clean Water Act's provisions regarding permits for separate 
storm water discharges; and provide significant increases in 
money available for projects to reduce NPS pollution.
    State revolving funds. Title VI would authorize 
appropriations of $12.5 billion over 5 years for EPA grants to 
state revolving funds. (Funding for SRFs in fiscal year 1995 is 
$1.2 billion.) Under the bill, the projects and activities that 
are eligible for SRF assistance would be expanded. This title 
also would authorize appropriations of $0.5 billion annually 
over the 1996-2000 period for a new SRF and for grants 
dedicated to managing nonpoint source pollution.
    Title VI would authorize states to provide additional 
assistance to small cities and economically disadvantaged local 
governments with SRF funds. It would direct EPA and the states 
to establish simplified procedures for small communities to use 
to obtain SRF loans. This title would aid disadvantaged 
communities by authorizing states to extent SRF loan terms up 
to 40 years. Current law requires SRF loans to be repaid within 
20 years. In addition, the bill would allow states to make 
partial grants for clean water infrastructure projects to 
disadvantaged communities with SRF money. The current SRF 
program only provides loans.
    Combined sewer overflow. Section 407 of the bill would 
codify the CSO control policy issued by EPA on April 11, 1994. 
Under this policy, National Pollution Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permits would be issued for up to 15 years to 
municipalities with combined storm and sanitary sewer systems 
that have a long-term plan to bring such discharges into 
compliance. Because enactment of this section would not change 
EPA's current policy, CBO estimates that this provision would 
not affect spending by municipalities over the next 5 years.)
    Some estimates of the total cost to correct CSO problems 
range from $40 billion to $100 billion over the next 20 years. 
EPA's estimate of the cost of correcting CSO problems is at the 
low end of this range. (Under the current policy, the agency 
estimates compliance costs for municipalities would average 
$3.5 billion annually over the next 15 years.)
    Storm water systems. Section 322 would call on states to 
establish new programs to manage municipal and industrial 
discharges of stormwater. The goal of these programs would be 
to ensure that stormwater discharges comply with the 
requirements of the Clean Water Act within 15 years following 
approval of state management plans. The new state programs 
would replace the current stormwater permitting system, which 
would be repealed by the bill. Title III authorizes 
appropriations of $20 million annually over the next 5 years to 
pay for grants to states to conduct research on stormwater 
discharge pollutants and demonstrate innovative solutions to 
solving this problem.
    EPA issued regulations in 1990 that govern the permitting 
of municipal separate storm sewer systems serving a population 
over 100,000, as well as storm water discharges associated with 
industrial activity. Phase II regulations are to cover 
municipal separate storm sewer systems serving fewer than 
100,000 people, and other light industrial, commercial, and 
residential facilities. EPA was required to issue regulations 
for storm water discharges from phase II facilities by October 
1, 1993--but has not done so. Depending on how the final phase 
II regulations are structured, EPA estimates that up to 82 
million people could be affected by the phase II stormwater 
program at an estimated cost to local governments of $1 billion 
to $3 billion annually under current law.
    The bill would repeal the phased permit systems that 
control stormwater discharges under current law, and would 
require EPA to issue technologically and financially feasible 
stormwater criteria by 2008. CBO believes that, over the long 
term, it is likely that repealing the storm water permit 
program would cost municipalities less than the permit program 
that would be developed under current law. But, based on 
information from EPA, CBO expects that it would take the agency 
3 to 5 years to issue final regulations for the phase II 
program. Therefore, we anticipate that any potential savings in 
municipal expenses for controlling stormwater would be small 
over the next 5 years.
    Nonpoint sources (NPS). This legislation would not impose 
significant additional spending requirements on states for 
dealing with nonpoint sources, which are largely in private 
hands. Nevertheless, the bill would authorize a large increase 
in federal assistance to states for developing and implementing 
management programs for controlling pollution added to waters 
from nonpoint sources. The bill would authorize appropriations 
of $1 billion over the 1996-2000 period for grants to state NPS 
programs. For 1995, EPA is allocating $100 million for this 
activity. Title III would increase the share of nonpoint source 
control projects that can be funded by federal grants from 60 
percent to 75 percent. In addition, Title VI would authorize 
$500 million annually over the next 5 years for grants to new 
state revolving funds for lands to public and private land 
owners carrying out management practices and measures under a 
state program for controlling nonpoint source pollution. These 
additional funds, if appropriated, would make possible greater 
state assistance to property owners for remedying nonpoint 
sources.
    Total grant funding. H.R. 961 would authorize 
appropriations for grants averaging $3.6 billion a year over 
the next five years, compared with about $2.1 billion 
appropriated for fiscal year 1995. Hence, state and local 
governments would receive 70 percent more federal assistance 
for compliance with the Clean Water Act if the amounts 
authorized are appropriated.
    In a significant departure from current law, H.R. 961 would 
link deadlines for state and local government compliance with 
Clean Water Act requirements for nonpoint source pollution 
control programs and for stormwater discharge control programs 
to the level of federal funding provided. Under the bill, if 
the amounts appropriated for these programs are less than the 
amounts authorized, compliance schedules would be pushed 
further into the future.
    State and local government clean water infrastructure 
needs. While the bill would authorize appropriations of grants 
to states that are substantially above current levels, it would 
not change the fact that most of the governmental costs for 
implementing the Clean Water Act are a state and local 
government responsibility. The primary cost to these 
governments of complying with the Clean Water Act is for 
constructing and operating projects for treating wastewater and 
controlling nonpoint sources of pollution.
    EPA conducts biennial surveys of the states that attempt to 
estimate the cost of infrastructure projects that are needed to 
comply with the Clean Water Act. EPA's 1992 Needs Survey 
concludes that local governments need to spend $137 billion 
over the next 20 years to build projects necessary to comply 
with the existing requirements of the Clean Water Act. 
Unfortunately, even this huge sum probably underestimates 
actual needs. From 1990 to 1992, EPA's estimate of the capital 
costs to build clean water infrastructure improvements rose 39 
percent (up $53 billion). EPA attributes most of this increase 
to improved documentation by states of their needs, and the use 
of models by EPA to include the full cost of combined sewer 
overflow improvements and partial costs for investments needed 
for urban storm water problems and for projects to reduce 
nonpoint source water pollution. As states improve their 
documentation of infrastructure needs, and EPA refines its 
models of undocumented needs, future needs surveys will likely 
describe even greater costs for complying with the Clean Water 
Act. The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution 
Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) estimates that $200 billion is 
required under current law to meet clean water infrastructure 
needs over the next 20 years.
    H.R. 961 would make a significant departure from current 
law, however, by linking the compliance schedules for two 
aspects of the Clean Water Act to the annual levels of federal 
funding provided to state and local governments for clean water 
planning, research, and infrastructure financing. First, the 
bill establishes a goal of attaining water quality standards 
within 15 years following approval of state nonpoint source 
control programs. This deadline would be extended by one year 
if annual appropriations for section 319 grants are less than 
the $1 billion authorized by the bill over the 1996-2000 
period. Second, the new state stormwater management programs 
that would be established by Title III also allow up to 15 
years following program approval for stormwater discharges to 
comply with the overall goals of the act. This deadline would 
slip by one year for every year that appropriations for grants 
to states to conduct stormwater discharge research and 
demonstration projects are less than the annual $20 million 
authorization specified in the bill. If EPA states agree that 
amounts appropriated for these activities are sufficient, but 
less than amounts authorized, EPA would not revise the 
compliance deadlines.
    9. Estimate comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Kim Cawley, Deborah Reis, and 
Melissa Sampson.
    12. Estimate approved by: Peter Fontaine for Paul N. Van de 
Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                     inflationary impact statement

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI requires each committee report on 
a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include an 
analytical statement describing what impact enactment of the 
measure would have on prices and costs in the operation of the 
national economy. The Committee has determined that H.R. 961 
has no inflationary impact on the national economy.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):

                  FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

                 TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                    declaration of goals and policy

      Sec. 101. (a) The objective of this Act is to restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of 
the Nation's waters. In order to achieve this objective it is 
hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this 
Act--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) it is the national policy that Federal financial 
        assistance be provided to construct publicly owned 
        waste treatment works and to reclaim waste water from 
        municipal and industrial sources;
          * * * * * * *
          (6) it is the national policy that a major research 
        and demonstration effort be made to develop technology 
        necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into 
        the navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone and 
        the oceans; [and]
          (7) it is the national policy that programs, 
        including public and private sector programs using 
        economic incentives, for the control of nonpoint 
        sources of pollution, including stormwater, be 
        developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so 
        as to enable the goals of this Act to be met through 
        the control of both point and nonpoint sources of 
        pollution[.];
          (8) it is the national policy to support State 
        efforts undertaken in consultation with tribal and 
        local governments to identify, prioritize, and 
        implement water pollution prevention and control 
        strategies;
          (9) it is the national policy to recognize, support, 
        and enhance the role of State, tribal, and local 
        governments in carrying out the provisions of this Act;
          (10) it is the national policy that beneficial reuse 
        of waste water effluent and biosolids be encouraged to 
        the fullest extent possible; and
          (11) it is the national policy that water use 
        efficiency be encouraged to the fullest extent 
        possible.
          * * * * * * *
      (g) It is the policy of Congress that the authority of 
each State to allocate quantities of water within its 
jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated or otherwise 
impaired by this Act. It is the further policy of Congress that 
nothing in this Act shall be construed to supersede or abrogate 
rights to quantities of water which have been established by 
any State. Federal agencies shall co-operate with State and 
local agencies to develop comprehensive solutions to prevent, 
reduce and eliminate pollution in concert with programs for 
managing water resources and in accordance with section 510(b) 
of this Act.
  (h) Net Benefits.--It is the national policy that the 
development and implementation of water quality protection 
programs pursuant to this Act--
          (1) be based on scientifically objective and unbiased 
        information concerning the nature and magnitude of 
        risk; and
          (2) maximize net benefits to society in order to 
        promote sound regulatory decisions and promote the 
        rational and coherent allocation of society's limited 
        resources.
          * * * * * * *

          research, investigations, training, and information

      Sec. 104. (a) The Administrator shall establish national 
programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of 
pollution and as part of such programs shall--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (5) in cooperation with the States, and their 
        political subdivisions, and other Federal agencies 
        establish, equip, and maintain a water quality 
        surveillance system for the purpose of monitoring the 
        quality of the navigable waters and ground waters and 
        the contiguous zone and the oceans and the 
        Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, conduct 
        such surveillance by utilizing the resources of the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
        Geological Survey, and the Coast Guard, and shall 
        report on such quality in the report required under 
        subsection (a) of section 516; [and]
          (6) initiate and promote the coordination and 
        acceleration of research designed to develop the most 
        effective practicable tools and techniques for 
        measuring the social and economic costs and benefits of 
        activities which are subject to regulations under this 
        Act; and shall transmit a report on the results of such 
        research to the Congress not later than January 1, 
        1974[.]; and
          (7) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, 
        and local agencies, conduct, promote, and encourage to 
        the maximum extent feasible, in watersheds that may be 
        significantly affected by nonpoint sources of 
        pollution, monitoring and measurement of water quality 
        by means and methods that will help to identify the 
        relative contributions of particular nonpoint sources.
      (b) In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of 
this section the Administrator is authorized to--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (3) make grants to State water pollution control 
        agencies, interstate agencies, local governments, other 
        public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, 
        organizations, and individuals, for purposes stated in 
        paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section;
          * * * * * * *
          (6) collect and disseminate, in cooperation with 
        other Federal departments and agencies, and with other 
        public or private agencies, institutions, and 
        organizations having related responsibilities, basic 
        data on chemical, physical, and biological effects of 
        varying water quality and other information pertaining 
        to pollution and the prevention, reduction, and 
        elimination thereof; [and]
          (7) develop effective and practical processes, 
        methods, and prototype devices for the prevention, 
        reduction, and elimination of pollution[.];
          (8) make grants to nonprofit organizations to provide 
        technical assistance and training to rural and small 
        publicly owned treatment works to enable such treatment 
        works to achieve and maintain compliance with the 
        requirements of this Act; and
          (9) disseminate information to rural, small, and 
        disadvantaged communities with respect to the planning, 
        design, construction, and operation of treatment works.
          * * * * * * *
    (q)(1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (5) Small impoverished communities.--
                  (A) Grants.--The Administrator may make 
                grants to States to provide assistance for 
                planning, design, and construction of publicly 
                owned treatment works to provide wastewater 
                services to rural communities of 3,000 or less 
                that are not currently served by any sewage 
                collection or water treatment system and are 
                severely economically disadvantaged, as 
                determined by the Administrator.
                  (B) Authorization.--There is authorized to be 
                appropriated to carry out this paragraph 
                $50,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years 
                1996 through 2000.
          * * * * * * *
    (u) There is authorized to be appropriated (1) not to 
exceed $100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1973, the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, not to exceed $14,039,000 for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, not to exceed 
$20,697,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1981, not 
to exceed $22,770,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1982, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1983 
through 1985, and not to exceed $22,770,000 per fiscal year for 
each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990, for carrying out 
the provisions of this section, other than subsections (g)(1) 
and (2), (p), (r), and (t), except that such authorizations are 
not for any research, development, or demonstration activity 
pursuant to such provisions; (2) not to exceed $7,500,000 for 
fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975, $2,000,000 for fiscal year 
1977, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1978, $3,000,000 for fiscal 
year 1979, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1980, $3,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1981, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1982, such sums as 
may be necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and 
$3,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal years 1986 
through 1990, for carrying out the provisions of subsection 
(g)(1); (3) not to exceed $2,500,000 for fiscal years 1973, 
1974, and 1975, $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1977, $1,500,000 for 
fiscal year 1978, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1979, $1,500,000 
for fiscal year 1980, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1981, 
$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1982, such sums as may be necessary 
for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, and $1,500,000 per fiscal 
year for each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990, for 
carrying out the provisions of subsection (g)(2); (4) not to 
exceed $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 
1973, June 30, 1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying out the 
provisions of subsection (p); (5) not to exceed $15,000,000 per 
fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, June 30, 
1974, and June 30, 1975, for carrying out the provisions of 
subsection (r); [and] (6) not to exceed $10,000,000 per fiscal 
year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, June 30, 1974, 
and June 30, 1975, for carrying out the provisions of 
subsection (t); and (7) not to exceed $50,000,000 per fiscal 
year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for carrying 
out the provisions of subsections (b)(3), (b)(8), and (b)(9), 
except that not less than 20 percent of the sums appropriated 
pursuant to this clause shall be available for carrying out the 
provisions of subsections (b)(8) and (b)(9).
          * * * * * * *

                 grants for pollution control programs

    Sec. 106. (a) There are hereby authorized to be 
appropriated the following sums, to remain available until 
expended, to carry out the purposes of this section--
          (1) $60,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1973; and 
          (2) $75,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
        1974, and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, 
        $100,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years 1977, 
        1978, 1979, and 1980, $75,000,000 per fiscal year for 
        the fiscal years 1981 and 1982, such sums as may be 
        necessary for fiscal years 1983 through 1985, [and] 
        $75,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal 
        years 1986 through 1990, such sums as may be necessary 
        for each of fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and 
        $150,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 
        1996 through 2000;
for grants to States and to interstate agencies to assist them 
in administering programs for the prevention, reduction, and 
elimination of pollution, including enforcement directly or 
through appropriate State law enforcement officers or agencies. 
States or interstate agencies receiving grants under this 
section may use such funds to finance, with other States or 
interstate agencies, studies and projects on interstate issues 
relating to such programs.
          * * * * * * *

              [mine water pollution control demonstrations

    [Sec. 107. (a) The Administrator in cooperation with the 
Appalachian Regional Commission and other Federal agencies is 
authorized to conduct, to make grants for, or to contract for, 
projects to demonstrate comprehensive approaches to the 
elimination or control of acid or other mine water pollution 
resulting from active or abandoned mining operations and other 
environmental pollution affecting water quality within all or 
part of a watershed or river basin, including siltation from 
surface mining. Such projects shall demonstrate the engineering 
and economic feasibility and practicality of various abatement 
techniques which will contribute substantially to effective and 
practical methods of acid or other mine water pollution 
elimination or control, and other pollution affecting water 
quality, including techniques that demonstrate the engineering 
and economic feasibility and practicality of using sewage 
sludge materials and other municipal wastes to diminish or 
prevent pollution affecting water quality from acid, 
sedimentation, or other pollutants and in such projects to 
restore affected lands to usefulness for forestry, agriculture, 
recreation, or other beneficial purposes.
    [(b) Prior to undertaking any demonstration project under 
this section in the Appalachian region (as defined in section 
403 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as 
amended), the Appalachian Regional Commission shall determine 
that such demonstration project is consistent with the 
objectives of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, 
as amended.
    [(c) The Administrator, in selecting watersheds for the 
purposes of this section, shall be satisfied that the project 
area will not be affected adversely by the influx of acid or 
other mine water pollution from nearby sources.
    [(d) Federal participation in such projects shall be 
subject to the conditions--
        [(1) that the State shall acquire any land or interests 
        therein necessary for such project; and
        [(2) that the State shall provide legal and practical 
        protection to the project area to insure against any 
        activities which will cause future acid or other mine 
        water pollution.
    [(e) There is authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 to 
carry out the provisions of this section, which sum shall be 
available until expended.]

SEC. 107. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

  (a) Acidic and Other Toxic Mine Drainage.--The Administrator 
shall establish a program to demonstrate the efficacy of 
measures for abatement of the causes and treatment of the 
effects of acidic and other toxic mine drainage within 
qualified hydrologic units affected by past coal mining 
practices for the purpose of restoring the biological integrity 
of waters within such units.
  (b) Grants.--
          (1) In general.--Any State or Indian tribe may apply 
        to the Administrator for a grant for any project which 
        provides for abatement of the causes or treatment of 
        the effects of acidic or other toxic mine drainage 
        within a qualified hydrologic unit affected by past 
        coal mining practices.
        (2) Application requirements.--An application submitted 
        to the Administrator under this section shall include 
        each of the following:
                (A) An identification of the qualified 
                hydrologic unit.
                (B) A description of the extent to which acidic 
                or other toxic mine drainage is affecting the 
                water quality and biological resources within 
                the hydrologic unit.
                (C) An identification of the sources of acidic 
                or other toxic mine drainage within the 
                hydrologic unit.
                (D) An identification of the project and the 
                measures proposed to be undertaken to abate the 
                causes or treat the effects of acidic or other 
                toxic mine drainage within the hydrologic unit.
                (E) The cost of undertaking the proposed 
                abatement or treatment measures.
(c) Federal Share.--
        (1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
        project receiving grant assistance under this section 
        shall be 50 percent.
        (2) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way.--Contributions 
        of lands, easements, and rights-of-way shall be 
        credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a 
        project under this section but not in an amount 
        exceeding 25 percent of the total project cost.
        (3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal 
        interest shall bear 100 percent of the cost of 
        operation and maintenance of a project under this 
        section.
(d) Prohibited Projects.--No acidic or other toxic mine 
drainage abatement or treatment project may receive assistance 
under this section if the project would adversely affect the 
free-flowing characteristics of any river segment within a 
qualified hydrologic unit.
(e) Applications From Federal Entities.--Any Federal entity may 
apply to the Administrator for a grant under this section for 
the purposes of an acidic or toxic mine drainage abatement or 
treatment project within a qualified hydrologic unit located on 
lands and waters under the administrative jurisdiction of such 
entity.
(f) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve an application 
submitted pursuant to subsection (b) or (e) after determining 
that the application meets the requirements of this section.
(g) Qualified Hydrologic Unit Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, the term ``qualified hydrologic unit'' means a 
hydrologic unit--
        (1) in which the water quality has been significantly 
        affected by acidic or other toxic mine drainage from 
        past coal mining practices in a manner which adversely 
        impacts biological resources; and
        (2) which contains lands and waters eligible for 
        assistance under title IV of the Surface Mining and 
        Reclamation Act of 1977.
          * * * * * * *

                 [alaska village demonstration projects

    [Sec. 113. (a) The Administrator is authorized to enter 
into agreements with the State of Alaska to carry out one or 
more projects to demonstrate methods to provide for central 
community facilities for safe water and elimination or control 
of pollution in those native villages of Alaska without such 
facilities. Such project shall include provisions for community 
safe water supply systems, toilets, bathing and laundry 
facilities, sewage disposal facilities, and other similar 
facilities, and educational and informational facilities and 
programs relating to health and hygiene. Such demonstration 
projects shall be for the further purpose of developing 
preliminary plans for providing such safe water and such 
elimination or control of pollution for all native villages in 
such State.
    [(b) In carrying out this section the Administrator shall 
cooperate with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare 
for the purpose of utilizing such of the personnel and 
facilities of that Department as may be appropriate.
    [(c) The Administrator shall report to Congress not later 
than July 1, 1973, the results of the demonstration projects 
authorized by this section together with his recommendations, 
including and necessary legislation, relating to the 
establishment of a statewide program.
    [(d) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed 
$2,000,000 to carry out this section. In addition, there is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section not to 
exceed $200,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, 
and $220,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979.
    [(e) The Administrator is authorized to coordinate with the 
Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, 
the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, and the heads 
of any other departments or agencies he may deem appropriate to 
conduct a joint study with representatives of the State of 
Alaska and the appropriate Native organizations (as defined in 
Public Law 92-203) to develop a comprehensive program for 
achieving adequate sanitation services in Alaska villages. This 
study shall be coordinated with the programs and projects 
authorized by sections 104(q) and 105(e)(2) of this Act. The 
Administrator shall submit a report of the results of the 
study, together with appropriate supporting data and such 
recommendations as he deems desirable, to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and to the Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation of the House of 
Representatives not later than December 31, 1979. The 
Administrator shall also submit recommended administrative 
actions, procedures, and any proposed legislation necessary to 
implement the recommendations of the study no later than June 
30, 1980.
    [(f) The Administrator is authorized to provide technical, 
financial and management assistance for operation and 
maintenance of the demonstration projects constructed under 
this section, until such time as the recommendations of 
subsection (e) are implemented.]

SEC. 113. ALASKA VILLAGE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.

  (a) Grants.--The Administrator is authorized to make grants--
          (1) for the development and construction of 
        facilities which provide sanitation services for rural 
        and Native Alaska villages;
          (2) for training, technical assistance, and 
        educational programs relating to operation and 
        maintenance for sanitation services in rural and Native 
        Alaska villages; and
          (3) for reasonable costs of administering and 
        managing grants made and programs and projects carried 
        out under this section; except that not to exceed 4 
        percent of the amount of any grant made under this 
        section may be made for such costs.
  (b) Federal Share.--A grant under this section shall be 50 
percent of the cost of the program or project being carried out 
with such grant.
  (c) Special Rule.--The Administrator shall award grants under 
this section for project construction following the rules 
specified in subpart H of part 1942 of title 7 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations.
  (d) Grants to State for Benefit of Villages.--Grants under 
this section may be made to the State for the benefit of rural 
Alaska villages and Alaska Native villages.
  (e) Coordination.--In carrying out activities under this 
subsection, the Administrator is directed to coordinate efforts 
between the State of Alaska, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the 
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and 
the recipients of grants.
  (f) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
$25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 
1995, to carry out this section.
    (g) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section, the term 
``village'' shall mean an incorporated or unincorporated 
community with a population of ten to six hundred people living 
within a two-mile radius. The term ``sanitation services'' 
shall mean water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal 
and other services necessary to maintain generally accepted 
standards of personal hygiene and public health.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 117. CHESAPEAKE BAY.

    (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are hereby 
authorized to be appropriated the following sums, to remain 
available until expended, to carry out the purposes of this 
section:
          (1) $3,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal 
        years 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, such sums as may be 
        necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and 
        $3,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 
        1996 through 2000 to carry out subsection (a); and
          (2) $10,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the 
        fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, such sums as 
        may be necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, 
        and $18,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal 
        years 1996 through 2000 for grants to States under 
        subsection (b).

 SEC. 118. GREAT LAKES.

    (a) Findings, Purpose, and Definitions.--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (3) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
        term--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  [(E) ``Research Office'' means the Great 
                Lakes Research Office established by subsection 
                (d);]
                  (E) ``Council'' means the Great Lakes 
                Research Council established by subsection 
                (d)(1);
          * * * * * * *
                  (I) ``Lakewide Management Plan'' means a 
                written document which embodies a systematic 
                and comprehensive ecosystem approach to 
                restoring and protecting the beneficial uses of 
                the open waters of each of the Great Lakes, in 
                accordance with article VI and Annex 2 of the 
                Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; [and]
                  (J) ``Remedial Action Plan'' means a written 
                document which embodies a systematic and 
                comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring 
                and protecting the beneficial uses of areas of 
                concern, in accordance with article VI and 
                Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality 
                Agreement[.]; and
                  (K) ``Great Lakes research'' means the 
                application of scientific or engineering 
                expertise to explain, understand, and predict a 
                physical, chemical, biological, or 
                socioeconomic process, or the interaction of 1 
                or more of the processes, in the Great Lakes 
                ecosystem.
          * * * * * * *
      (c) Great Lakes Management.--
          (1) Functions.--The Program Office shall--
                  (A) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, 
                State, tribal, and international agencies, and 
                in accordance with section 101(e) of this Act, 
                develop and implement specific action plans to 
                carry out the responsibilities of the United 
                States under the Great Lakes Water Quality 
                Agreement of 1978, as amended by the Water 
                Quality Agreement of 1987 and any other 
                agreements and amendments[,];
          * * * * * * *
          (2) Great lakes water quality guidance.--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  (C) Within two years after such Great Lakes 
                guidance is published, the Great Lakes States 
                shall adopt water quality standards, 
                antidegradation policies, and implementation 
                procedures for waters within the Great Lakes 
                System which are consistent with such guidance. 
                If a Great Lakes State fails to adopt such 
                standards, policies, and procedures, the 
                Administrator shall promulgate them not later 
                than the end of such two-year period. When 
                reviewing any Great Lakes State's water quality 
                plan, the agency shall consider the extent to 
                which the State has complied with the Great 
                Lakes guidance issued pursuant to this section. 
                For purposes of this section, a State's 
                standards, policies, and procedures shall be 
                considered consistent with such guidance if the 
                standards, policies, and procedures are based 
                on scientifically defensible judgments and 
                policy choices made by the State after 
                consideration of the guidance and provide an 
                overall level of protection comparable to that 
                provided by the guidance, taking into account 
                the specific circumstances of the State's 
                waters.
          (7) 5-year study and demonstration projects.--(A)  * 
        * *
          * * * * * * *
                  (D) Reauthorization of assessment and 
                remediation of contaminated sediments 
                program.--
                          (i) In general.--The Administrator, 
                        acting through the Program Office, in 
                        consultation and cooperation with the 
                        Assistant Secretary of the Army having 
                        responsibility for civil works, shall 
                        conduct at least 3 pilot projects 
                        involving promising technologies and 
                        practices to remedy contaminated 
                        sediments (including at least 1 full-
                        scale demonstration of a remediation 
                        technology) at sites in the Great Lakes 
                        System, as the Administrator determines 
                        appropriate.
                          (ii) Selection of sites.--In 
                        selecting sites for the pilot projects, 
                        the Administrator shall give priority 
                        consideration to--
                                  (I) the Ashtabula River in 
                                Ohio;
                                  (II) the Buffalo River in New 
                                York;
                                  (III) Duluth and Superior 
                                Harbor in Minnesota;
                                  (IV) the Fox River in 
                                Wisconsin;
                                  (V) the Grand Calumet River 
                                in Indiana; and
                                  (VI) Saginaw Bay in Michigan.
                          (iii) Deadlines.--In carrying out 
                        this subparagraph, the Administrator 
                        shall--
                                  (I) not later than 18 months 
                                after the date of the enactment 
                                of this subparagraph, identify 
                                at least 3 sites and the 
                                technologies and practices to 
                                be demonstrated at the sites 
                                (including at least 1 full-
                                scale demonstration of a 
                                remediation technology); and
                                  (II) not later than 5 years 
                                after such date of enactment, 
                                complete at least 3 pilot 
                                projects (including at least 1 
                                full-scale demonstration of a 
                                remediation technology).
                          (iv) Additional projects.--The 
                        Administrator, acting through the 
                        Program Office, in consultation and 
                        cooperation with the Assistant 
                        Secretary of the Army having 
                        responsibility for civil works, may 
                        conduct additional pilot- and full-
                        scale pilot projects involving 
                        promising technologies and practices at 
                        sites in the Great Lakes System other 
                        than the sites selected under clause 
                        (i).
                          (v) Execution of projects.--The 
                        Administrator may cooperate with the 
                        Assistant Secretary of the Army having 
                        responsibility for civil works to plan, 
                        engineer, design, and execute pilot 
                        projects under this subparagraph.
                          (vi) Non-federal contributions.--The 
                        Administrator may accept non-Federal 
                        contributions to carry out pilot 
                        projects under this subparagraph.
                          (vii) Authorization of 
                        appropriations.--There are authorized 
                        to be appropriated to carry out this 
                        subparagraph $3,500,000 for each of 
                        fiscal years 1996 through 2000.
                  (E) Technical information and assistance.--
                          (i) In general.--The Administrator, 
                        acting through the Program Office, may 
                        provide technical information and 
                        assistance involving technologies and 
                        practices for remediation of 
                        contaminated sediments to persons that 
                        request the information or assistance.
                          (ii) Technical assistance 
                        priorities.--In providing technical 
                        assistance under this subparagraph, the 
                        Administrator, acting through the 
                        Program Office, shall give special 
                        priority to requests for integrated 
                        assessments of, and recommendations 
                        regarding, remediation technologies and 
                        practices for contaminated sediments at 
                        Great Lakes areas of concern.
                          (iii) Coordination with other 
                        demonstrations.--The Administrator 
                        shall--
                                  (I) coordinate technology 
                                demonstrations conducted under 
                                this subparagraph with other 
                                federally assisted 
                                demonstrations of contaminated 
                                sediment remediation 
                                technologies; and
                                  (II) share information from 
                                the demonstrations conducted 
                                under this subparagraph with 
                                the other demonstrations.
                          (iv) Other sediment remediation 
                        activities.--Nothing in this 
                        subparagraph limits the authority of 
                        the Administrator to carry out sediment 
                        remediation activities under other 
                        laws.
                          (v) Authorization of 
                        appropriations.--There are authorized 
                        to be appropriated to carry out this 
                        subparagraph $1,000,000 for each of 
                        fiscal years 1996 through 2000.
          * * * * * * *
    [(d) Great Lakes Research.--
          [(1) Establishment of research office.--There is 
        established within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration the Great Lakes Research Office.
          [(2) Identification of issues.--The Research Office 
        shall identify issues relating to the Great Lakes 
        resources on which research is needed. The Research 
        Office shall submit a report to Congress on such issues 
        before the end of each fiscal year which shall identify 
        any changes in the Great Lakes system with respect to 
        such issues.
          [(3) Inventory.--The Research Office shall identify 
        and inventory, Federal, State, university, and tribal 
        environmental research programs (and, to the extent 
        feasible, those of private organizations and other 
        nations) relating to the Great Lakes system, and shall 
        update that inventory every four years.
          [(4) Research exchange.--The Research Office shall 
        establish a Great Lakes research exchange for the 
        purpose of facilitating the rapid identification, 
        acquisition, retrieval, dissemination, and use of 
        information concerning research projects which are 
        ongoing or completed and which affect the Great Lakes 
        system.
          [(5) Research program.--The Research Office shall 
        develop, in cooperation with the Coordination Office, a 
        comprehensive environmental research program and data 
        base for the Great Lakes system. The data base shall 
        include, but not be limited to, data relating to water 
        quality, fisheries, and biota.
          [(6) Monitoring.--The Research Office shall conduct, 
        through the Great Lakes Environmental Research 
        Laboratory, the National Sea Grant College program, 
        other Federal laboratories, and the private sector, 
        appropriate research and monitoring activities which 
        address priority issues and current needs relating to 
        the Great Lakes.
          [(7) Location.--The Research Office shall be located 
        in a Great Lakes State.]
  (d) Great Lakes Research Council.--
          (1) Establishment of council.--There is established a 
        Great Lakes Research Council.
          (2) Duties of council.--The Council--
                  (A) shall advise and promote the coordination 
                of Federal Great Lakes research activities to 
                avoid unnecessary duplication and ensure 
                greater effectiveness in achieving protection 
                of the Great Lakes ecosystem through the goals 
                of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
                  (B) not later than 1 year after the date of 
                the enactment of this subparagraph and 
                biennially thereafter and after providing 
                opportunity for public review and comment, 
                shall prepare and provide to interested parties 
                a document that includes--
                          (i) an assessment of the Great Lakes 
                        research activities needed to fulfill 
                        the goals of the Great Lakes Water 
                        Quality Agreement;
                          (ii) an assessment of Federal 
                        expertise and capabilities in the 
                        activities needed to fulfill the goals 
                        of the Great Lakes Water Quality 
                        Agreement, including an inventory of 
                        Federal Great Lakes research programs, 
                        projects, facilities, and personnel; 
                        and
                          (iii) recommendations for long-term 
                        and short-term priorities for Federal 
                        Great Lakes research, based on a 
                        comparison of the assessments conducted 
                        under clauses (i) and (ii);
                  (C) shall identify topics for and participate 
                in meetings, workshops, symposia, and 
                conferences on Great Lakes research issues;
                  (D) shall make recommendations for the 
                uniform collection of data for enhancing Great 
                Lakes research and management protocols 
                relating to the Great Lakes ecosystem;
                  (E) shall advise and cooperate in--
                          (i) improving the compatible 
                        integration of multimedia data 
                        concerning the Great Lakes ecosystem; 
                        and
                          (ii) any effort to establish a 
                        comprehensive multimedia data base for 
                        the Great Lakes ecosystem; and
                  (F) shall ensure that the results, findings, 
                and information regarding Great Lakes research 
                programs conducted or sponsored by the Federal 
                Government are disseminated in a timely manner, 
                and in useful forms, to interested persons, 
                using to the maximum extent practicable 
                mechanisms in existence on the date of the 
                dissemination, such as the Great Lakes Research 
                Inventory prepared by the International Joint 
                Commission.
          (3) Membership.--
                  (A) In general.--The Council shall consist of 
                1 research manager with extensive knowledge of, 
                and scientific expertise and experience in, the 
                Great Lakes ecosystem from each of the 
                following agencies and instrumentalities:
                          (i) The Agency.
                          (ii) The National Oceanic and 
                        Atmospheric Administration.
                          (iii) The National Biological 
                        Service.
                          (iv) The United States Fish and 
                        Wildlife Service.
                          (v) Any other Federal agency or 
                        instrumentality that expends $1,000,000 
                        or more for a fiscal year on Great 
                        Lakes research.
                          (vi) Any other Federal agency or 
                        instrumentality that a majority of the 
                        Council membership determines should be 
                        represented on the Council.
                  (B) Nonvoting members.--At the request of a 
                majority of the Council membership, any person 
                who is a representative of a Federal agency or 
                instrumentality not described in subparagraph 
                (A) or any person who is not a Federal employee 
                may serve as a nonvoting member of the Council.
          (4) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the Council 
        shall be a member of the Council from an agency 
        specified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph 
        (3)(A) who is elected by a majority vote of the members 
        of the Council. The chairperson shall serve as 
        chairperson for a period of 2 years. A member of the 
        Council may not serve as chairperson for more than 2 
        consecutive terms.
          (5) Expenses.--While performing official duties as a 
        member of the Council, a member shall be allowed travel 
        or transportation expenses under section 5703 of title 
        5, United States Code.
          (6) Interagency cooperation.--The head of each 
        Federal agency or instrumentality that is represented 
        on the Council--
                  (A) shall cooperate with the Council in 
                implementing the recommendations developed 
                under paragraph (2);
                  (B) on written request of the chairperson of 
                the Council, may make available, on a 
                reimbursable basis or otherwise, such 
                personnel, services, or facilities as may be 
                necessary to assist the Council in carrying out 
                the duties of the Council under this section; 
                and
                  (C) on written request of the chairperson, 
                shall furnish data or information necessary to 
                carry out the duties of the Council under this 
                section.
          (7) International cooperation.--The Council shall 
        cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with the 
        research coordination efforts of the Council of Great 
        Lakes Research Managers of the International Joint 
        Commission.
          (8) Reimbursement for requested activities.--Each 
        Federal agency or instrumentality represented on the 
        Council may reimburse another Federal agency or 
        instrumentality or a non-Federal entity for costs 
        associated with activities authorized under this 
        subsection that are carried out by the other agency, 
        instrumentality, or entity at the request of the 
        Council.
          (9) Federal advisory committee act.--The Federal 
        Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply 
        to the Council.
          (10) Effect on other law.--Nothing in this subsection 
        affects the authority of any Federal agency or 
        instrumentality, under any law, to undertake Great 
        Lakes research activities.
    (e) Research and Management Coordination.--
          (1) Joint plan.--Before October 1 of each year, [the 
        Program Office and the Research Office shall prepare a 
        joint research plan] the Program Office, in 
        consultation with the Council, shall prepare a research 
        plan for the fiscal year which begins in the following 
        calendar year.
          * * * * * * *
          (3) Health research report.--(A) Not later than 
        September 30, 1994, the Program Office, in consultation 
        with [the Research Office, the Agency for Toxic 
        Substances and Disease Registry, and Great Lakes 
        States] the Council, the Agency for Toxic Substances 
        and Disease Registry, and Great Lakes States, shall 
        submit to the Congress a report assessing the adverse 
        effects of water pollutants in the Great Lakes System 
        on the health of persons in Great Lakes States and the 
        health of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the Great 
        Lakes System. In conducting research in support of this 
        report, the Administrator may, where appropriate, 
        provide for research to be conducted under cooperative 
        agreements with Great Lakes States.
          (B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Administrator to carry out this section not to exceed 
        $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 
        1994, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
        1995, and $4,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal 
        years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
          * * * * * * *
    (h) Authorizations of Great Lakes Appropriations.--There 
are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry 
out this section not to exceed $11,000,000 per fiscal year for 
the fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, [and] $25,000,000 
for fiscal year 1991, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
years 1992 through 1995, and $17,500,000 per fiscal year for 
each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000. Of the amounts 
appropriated each fiscal year--
          (1) 40 percent shall be used by the Great Lakes 
        National Program Office on demonstration projects on 
        the feasibility of controlling and removing toxic 
        pollutants; and
          (2) 7 percent shall be used by the Great Lakes 
        National Program Office for the program of nutrient 
        monitoring[; and].
          [(3) 30 percent or $3,300,000, whichever is the 
        lesser, shall be transferred to the National Oceanic 
        and Atmospheric Administration for use by the Great 
        Lakes Research Office.]
          * * * * * * *

                  Lake Champlain Management Conference

   Sec. 120. (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Research Program.--[(1)] The Management Conference shall 
establish a multi-disciplinary environmental research program 
for Lake Champlain. Such research program shall be planned and 
conducted jointly with the Lake Champlain Research Consortium.
          * * * * * * * deg.


          TITLE II--GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT WORKS

                                purpose

    Sec. 201. (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (g)(1) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to 
any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency 
for the construction of publicly owned treatment works[. On and 
after October 1, 1984, grants under this title shall be made 
only for projects for secondary treatment or more stringent 
treatment, or any cost effective alternative thereto, new 
interceptors and appurtenances, and infiltration-in-flow 
correction. Notwithstanding the preceding sentences, the 
Administrator may make grants on and after October 1, 1984, for 
(A) any project within the definition set forth in section 
212(2) of this Act, other than for a project referred to in the 
preceding sentence, and (B) any purpose for which a grant may 
be made under sections 319 (h) and (i) of this Act (including 
any innovative and alternative approaches for the control of 
nonpoint sources of pollution), except that not more than 20 
per centum (as determined by the Governor of the State) of the 
amount allotted to a State under section 205 of this Act for 
any fiscal year shall be obligated in such State under 
authority of this sentence.] and for any purpose for which a 
grant may be made under sections 319(h) and 319(i) of this Act 
(including any innovative and alternative approaches for the 
control of nonpoint sources of pollution). The Administrator, 
with the concurrence of the States, shall develop procedures to 
facilitate and expedite the retroactive eligibility and 
provision of grant funding for facilities already under 
construction.
          * * * * * * *

                       limitations and conditions

    Sec. 204. (a) Before approving grants for any project for 
any treatment works under section 201(g)(1) the Administrator 
shall determine--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (3) that such works have been certified by the 
        appropriate State water pollution control agency as 
        entitled to priority over such other works in the State 
        in accordance with any applicable State plan under 
        section 303(e) of this Act, except that any priority 
        list developed pursuant to section 303(e)(3)(H) may be 
        modified by such State in accordance with regulations 
        promulgated by the Administrator to give higher 
        priority for grants for the Federal share of the cost 
        of preparing construction drawings and specifications 
        for any treatment works utilizing processes and 
        techniques meeting the guidelines promulgated under 
        section 304(d)(3) of this Act for grants for the 
        combined Federal share of the cost of preparing 
        construction drawings and specifications and the 
        building and erection of any treatment works meeting 
        the requirements of the next to the last sentence of 
        section 203(a) of this Act which utilizes processes and 
        techniques meeting the guidelines promulgated under 
        section 304(d)(3) of this Act[.];
          * * * * * * *

                               allotment

    Sec. 205. (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c)(1)  * * *
    (2) Sums authorized to be appropriated pursuant to section 
207 for the fiscal years 1982, 1983, 1984, [and 1985] 1985, and 
1986 shall be allotted for each such year by the Administrator 
not later than the tenth day which begins after the date of 
enactment of the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction 
Grant Amendments of 1981. Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, sums authorized for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1982, shall be allotted in accordance with table 3 of 
Committee Print Numbered 95-30 of the Committee on Public Works 
and Transportation of the House of Representatives. Sums 
authorized for the fiscal years ending September 30, 1983, 
September 30, 1984, September 30, 1985, and September 30, 1986, 
shall be allotted in accordance with the following table:
  
                                                       Fiscal years 1983
  
                                                          [through 1985]
States:
                                                            through 1986
    Alabama...................................................   .011398
          * * * * * * *
    (g)(1) The Administrator is authorized to reserve each 
fiscal year not to exceed 2 per centum of the amount authorized 
under section 207 of this title for purposes of the allotment 
made to each State under this section on or after October 1, 
1977, except in the case of any fiscal year beginning on or 
after October 1, 1981, and ending before October 1, 1994, in 
which case the percentage authorized to be reserved shall not 
exceed 4 per centum[.] or $400,000 whichever amount is the 
greater. Sums so reserved shall be available for making grants 
to such State under paragraph (2) of this subsection for the 
same period as sums are available from such allotment under 
subsection (d) of this section, and any such grant shall be 
available for obligation only during such period. Any grant 
made from sums reserved under this subsection which has not 
been obligated by the end of the period for which available 
shall be added to the amount last allotted to such State under 
this section and shall be immediately available for obligation 
in the same manner and to the same extent as such last 
allotment. Sums authorized to be reserved by this paragraph 
shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any other funds 
which may be authorized to carry out this subsection. The 
Administrator may negotiate an annual budget with a State for 
the purpose of administering the closeout of the State's 
construction grants program under this title. Sums made 
available for administering such closeout shall be subtracted 
from amounts remaining available for obligation under the 
State's construction grant program under this title.
          * * * * * * *
    (m) Discretionary Deposits Into State Water Pollution 
Control Revolving Funds.--
          (1) From construction grant allotments.--In addition 
        to any amounts deposited in a water pollution control 
        revolving fund established by a State under title VI, 
        upon request of the Governor of such State, the 
        Administrator shall make available to the State for 
        deposit, as capitalization grants, in such fund in any 
        fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1986, such 
        portion of the amounts allotted to such State under 
        this section for such fiscal year as the Governor 
        considers appropriate; except that (A) in fiscal year 
        1987 such deposit may not exceed 50 percent of the 
        amounts allotted to such State under this section for 
        such fiscal year, and (B) in fiscal year 1988, such 
        deposit may not exceed 75 percent of the amounts 
        allotted to such State under this section for [this] 
        such fiscal year.
          * * * * * * *

                  areawide waste treatment management

    Sec. 208. (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (h)(1) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 
of Engineers, in cooperation with the Administrator is 
authorized and directed, upon request of the Governor or the 
designated planning organization, to consult with, and provide 
technical assistance to, any agency [designed] designated under 
subsection (a) of this section in developing and operating a 
continuing areawide waste treatment management planning process 
under subsection (b) of this section.
          * * * * * * *
    (j)(1) The Secretary of Agriculture, with the concurrence 
of the Administrator, and acting through the Soil Conservation 
Service and such other agencies of the Department of 
Agriculture as the Secretary may designate, is authorized and 
directed to establish and administer a program to enter into 
contracts, subject to such amounts as are provided in advance 
by appropriation acts, of not less than five years nor more 
than ten years with owners and operators having control of 
rural land for the purpose of installing and maintaining 
measures incorporating best management practices to control 
nonpoint source pollution for improved water quality in those 
States or areas for which the Administrator has approved a plan 
under subsection (b) of this section where the practices to 
which the contracts apply are certified by the management 
agency designated under subsection (c)(1) of this section to be 
consistent with such plans and will result in improved water 
quality. Such contracts may be entered into during the period 
ending not later than [September 31, 1988] September 30, 1988. 
Under such contracts the land owners or operator shall agree--
        (i)  * * *
          * * * * * * *

                       sewage collection systems

    Sec. 211. (a) No grant shall be made for a sewage 
collection system under this title unless such grant (1) is for 
replacement or major rehabilitation of [an existing collection 
system] a collection system existing on the date of the 
enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995 and is 
necessary to the total integrity and performance of the waste 
treatment works serving such community, or (2) is for a new 
collection system in [an existing community] a community 
existing on such date of enactment with [sufficient existing] 
sufficient capacity existing on such date of enactment or 
planned capacity adequately to treat such collected sewage and 
is consistent with section 201 of this Act.
          * * * * * * *

                              definitions

    Sec. 212. As used in this title--
      (1)  * * *
    (2)(A) The term ``treatment works'' means any devices and 
systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and 
reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a 
liquid nature to implement section 201 of this act, or 
necessary to recycle or reuse water at the most economical cost 
over the estimated life of the works, including intercepting 
sewers, outfall sewers, sewage collection systems, pumping, 
power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances; 
extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and 
alterations thereof; elements essential to provide a reliable 
recycled supply such as standby treatment units and clear well 
facilities; and [any works, including site] acquisition of the 
land that will be an integral part of the treatment process 
(including land use for the storage of treated wastewater in 
land treatment systems prior to land application) or [is used 
for ultimate] will be used for ultimate disposal of residues 
resulting from such treatment and acquisition of other lands, 
and interests in lands, which are necessary for construction.
          * * * * * * *

                           cost effectiveness

    Sec. 218. (a) It is the policy of Congress that a project 
for waste treatment and management undertaken with Federal 
financial assistance under this Act by any State, municipality, 
or intermunicipal or interstate agency shall be considered as 
an overall waste treatment system for waste treatment and 
management, and shall be that system which constitutes the most 
economical and cost-effective [combination of devices and 
systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and 
reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a 
liquid nature to implement section 201 of this Act, or 
necessary to recycle or reuse water at the most economical cost 
over the estimated life of the works, including intercepting 
sewers, outfall sewers, sewage collection systems, pumping 
power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances; extension, 
improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations thereof; 
elements essential to provide a reliable recycled supply such 
as standby treatment units and clear well facilities; and any 
works, including site acquisition of the land that will be an 
integral part of the treatment process (including land use for 
the storage of treated wastewater in land treatment systems 
prior to land application) or which is used for ultimate 
disposal of residues resulting from such treatment;] treatment 
works; water efficiency measures and devices; and any other 
method or system for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, 
treating, separating, or disposing of municipal waste, 
including storm water runoff, or industrial waste, including 
waste in combined storm water and sanitary sewer systems; to 
meet the requirements of this Act.
          * * * * * * *
    (c) In furtherance of the policy set forth in subsection 
(a) of this section, the Administrator shall require value 
engineering review in connection with any treatment works, 
prior to approval of any grant for the erection, building, 
acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension 
of such treatment works, in any case in which the cost of such 
erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, 
improvement, or extension is projected to be in excess of 
[$10,000,000] $25,000,000. For purposes of this subsection, the 
term ``value engineering review'' means a specialized cost 
control technique which uses a systematic and creative approach 
to identify and to focus on unnecessarily high cost in a 
project in order to arrive at a cost saving without sacrificing 
the reliability or efficiency of the project.
          * * * * * * *

                  TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

                          effluent limitations

    Sec. 301. (a) Except as in compliance with this section and 
sections 302, 306, 307, 318, [402, and 404] and 402 of this 
Act, the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be 
unlawful. Except as in compliance with this section and section 
404, the undertaking of any activity in wetlands or waters of 
the United States shall be unlawful.
    (b) In order to carry out the objective of this Act there 
shall be achieved--
          (1)(A) not later than July 1, 1977, effluent 
        limitations for point sources, other than publicly 
        owned treatment works, (i) which shall require the 
        application of the best practicable control technology 
        currently available as defined by the Administrator 
        pursuant to section 304(b) of this Act, or (ii) in the 
        case of a discharge into a publicly owned treatment 
        works which meets the requirements of subparagraph (B) 
        of this paragraph, which shall require compliance with 
        any applicable pretreatment requirements and any 
        requirements under section 307 of this Act; and
          (B) for publicly owned treatment works in existence 
        on July 1, 1977, or approved pursuant to section 203 of 
        this Act prior to June 30, 1974 (for which construction 
        must be completed within four years of approval), 
        effluent limitations based upon secondary treatment as 
        defined by the Administrator pursuant to section 
        304(d)(1) of this Act; or,
          (C) [not later than July 1, 1977,] any more stringent 
        limitation, including those necessary to meet water 
        quality standards, treatment standards, or schedule of 
        compliance, established pursuant to any State law or 
        regulations, (under authority preserved by section 510) 
        or any other Federal law or regulation, or required to 
        implement any applicable water quality standard 
        established pursuant to this Act[.] not later than 3 
        years after the date such limitations are established;
          (2)(A) for pollutants identified in subparagraphs 
        (C), (D), and (F) of this paragraph, effluent 
        limitations for categories and classes of point 
        sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, 
        which (i) shall require application of the best 
        available technology economically achievable for such 
        category or class, which will result in reasonable 
        further progress toward the national goal of 
        eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as 
        determined in accordance with regulations issued by the 
        Administrator pursuant to section 304(b)(2) of this 
        Act, which such effluent limitations shall require the 
        elimination of discharges of all pollutants if the 
        Administrator finds, on the basis of information 
        available to him (including information developed 
        pursuant to section 315), that such elimination is 
        technologically and economically achievable for 
        category or class of point sources as determined in 
        accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator 
        pursuant to section 304(b)(2) of this Act, or (ii) in 
        the case of the introduction of a pollutant into a 
        publicly owned treatment works which meets the 
        requirements of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, 
        shall require compliance with any applicable 
        pretreatment requirements and any other requirement 
        under section 307 of this Act;
          (C) with respect to all toxic pollutants referred to 
        in table 1 of Committee Print Numbered 95-30 of the 
        Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the 
        House of Representatives compliance with effluent 
        limitations in accordance with subparagraph (A) of this 
        paragraph as expeditiously as practicable but in no 
        case later than three years after the date such 
        limitations are promulgated under section 304(b)[, and 
        in no case later than March 31, 1989];
          (D) for all toxic pollutants listed under paragraph 
        (1) of subsection (a) of section 307 of this Act which 
        are not referred to in subparagraph (C) of this 
        paragraph compliance with effluent limitation in 
        accordance with subparagraph (A) of this paragraph as 
        expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than 
        three years after the date such limitations are 
        promulgated under section 304(b)[, and in no case later 
        than March 31, 1989];
          (E) as expeditiously as practicable but in no case 
        later than three years after the date such limitations 
        are promulgated under section 304(b)[, and in no case 
        later than March 31, 1989], compliance with effluent 
        limitations for categories and classes of point 
        sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, 
        which in the case of pollutants identified pursuant to 
        section 304(a)(4) of this Act shall require application 
        of the best conventional pollutant control technology 
        as determined in accordance with regulations issued by 
        the Administrator pursuant to section 304(b)(4) of this 
        Act; and
          (F) for all pollutants (other than those subject to 
        subparagraphs (C), (D), or (E) of this paragraph) 
        compliance with effluent limitations in accordance with 
        subparagraph (A) of this paragraph as expeditiously as 
        practicable but in no case later than 3 years after the 
        date such limitations are established[, and in no case 
        later than March 31, 1989].
          (3)(A) for effluent limitations under paragraph 
        (1)(A)(i) of this subsection promulgated after January 
        1, 1982, and requiring a level of control substantially 
        greater or based on fundamentally different control 
        technology than under permits for an industrial 
        category issued before such date, compliance as 
        expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than 
        three years after the date such limitations are 
        promulgated under section 304(b)[, and in no case later 
        than March 31, 1989]; and
          (B) for any effluent limitation in accordance with 
        paragraph (1)(A)(i), (2)(A)(i), or (2)(E) of this 
        subsection established only on the basis of section 
        402(a)(1) in a permit issued after enactment of the 
        Water Quality Act of 1987, compliance as expeditiously 
        as practicable but in no case later than three years 
        after the date such limitations are established[, and 
        in no case later than March 31, 1989].
          * * * * * * *
    [(d) Any effluent limitation required by paragraph (2) of 
subsection (b) of this section shall be reviewed at least every 
five years and, if appropriate, revised pursuant to the 
procedure established under such paragraph.]
  (d) Review of Effluent Limitations.--Any effluent limitation 
required by subsection (b)(2) that is established in a permit 
under section 402 shall be reviewed at least every 10 years 
when the permit is reissued, and, if appropriate, revised.
          * * * * * * *
    (g) Modifications for Certain Nonconventional Pollutants.--
          (1) General authority.--The Administrator, with the 
        concurrence of the State, may modify the requirements 
        of subsection (b)(2)(A) of this section with respect to 
        the discharge from any point source of ammonia, 
        chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols (4AAP) [(when 
        determined by the Administrator to be a pollutant 
        covered by subsection (b)(2)(F)) and any other 
        pollutant which the Administrator lists under paragraph 
        (4) of this subsection] and any other pollutant covered 
        by subsection (b)(2)(F).
          * * * * * * *
          [(4) Procedures for listing additional pollutants.--
                  [(A) General authority.--Upon petition of any 
                person, the Administrator may add any pollutant 
                to the list of pollutants for which 
                modification under this section is authorized 
                (except for pollutants identified pursuant to 
                section 304(a)(4) of this Act, toxic pollutants 
                subject to section 307(a) of this Act, and the 
                thermal component of discharges) in accordance 
                with the provisions of this paragraph.
                  [(B) Requirements for listing.--
                          [(i) Sufficient information.--The 
                        person petitioning for listing of an 
                        additional pollutant under this 
                        subsection shall submit to the 
                        Administrator sufficient information to 
                        make the determinations required by 
                        this subparagraph.
                          [(ii) Toxic criteria determination.--
                        The Administrator shall determine 
                        whether or not the pollutant meets the 
                        criteria for listing as a toxic 
                        pollutant under section 307(a) of this 
                        Act.
                          [(iii) Listing as toxic pollutant.--
                        If the Administrator determines that 
                        the pollutant meets the criteria for 
                        listing as a toxic pollutant under 
                        section 307(a), the Administrator shall 
                        list the pollutant as a toxic pollutant 
                        under section 307(a).
                          [(iv) Nonconventional criteria 
                        determination.--If the Administrator 
                        determines that the pollutant does not 
                        meet the criteria for listing as a 
                        toxic pollutant under such section and 
                        determines that adequate test methods 
                        and sufficient data are available to 
                        make the determinations required by 
                        paragraph (2) of this subsection with 
                        respect to the pollutant, the 
                        Administrator shall add the pollutant 
                        to the list of pollutants specified in 
                        paragraph (1) of this subsection for 
                        which modifications are authorized 
                        under this subsection.
                  [(C) Requirements for filing of petitions.--A 
                petition for listing of a pollutant under this 
                paragraph--
                          [(i) must be filed not later than 270 
                        days after the date of promulgation of 
                        an applicable effluent guideline under 
                        section 304;
                          [(ii) may be filed before 
                        promulgation of such guideline; and
                          [(iii) may be filed with an 
                        application for a modification under 
                        paragraph (1) with respect to the 
                        discharge of such pollutant.
                  [(D) Deadline for approval of petition.--A 
                decision to add a pollutant to the list of 
                pollutants for which modifications under this 
                subsection are authorized must be made within 
                270 days after the date of promulgation of an 
                applicable effluent guideline under section 
                304.
                  [(E) Burden of proof.--The burden of proof 
                for making the determinations under 
                subparagraph (B) shall be on the petitioner.
          [(5) Removal of pollutants.--The Administrator may 
        remove any pollutant from the list of pollutants for 
        which modifications are authorized under this 
        subsection if the Administrator determines that 
        adequate test methods and sufficient data are no longer 
        available for determining whether or not modifications 
        may be granted with respect to such pollutant under 
        paragraph (2) of this subsection.]
          * * * * * * *
    (j)(1) Any application filed under this section for a 
modification of the provisions of--
          (A) subsection (b)(1)(B) under subsection (h) of this 
        section shall be filed not later [that] than the 365th 
        day which begins after the date of enactment of the 
        Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant 
        Amendments of 1981, except that a publicly owned 
        treatment works which prior to December 31, 1982, had a 
        contractual arrangement to use a portion of the 
        capacity of an ocean outfall operated by another 
        publicly owned treatment works which has applied for or 
        received modification under subsection (h), may apply 
        for a modification of subsection (h) in its own right 
        not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment 
        of the Water Quality Act of 1987, and except as 
        provided in paragraph (5);
          * * * * * * *
          (6) Extension of application deadline.--In the 365-
        day period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
        this paragraph, municipalities may apply for a 
        modification pursuant to subsection (s) of the 
        requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section.
    [(k) In the case of any facility subject to a permit under 
section 402 which proposes to comply with the requirements of 
subsection (b)(2)(A) or (b)(2)(E) of this section by replacing 
existing production capacity with an innovative production 
process which will result in an effluent reduction 
significantly greater than that required by the limitation 
otherwise applicable to such facility and moves toward the 
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, 
or with the installation of an innovative control technique 
that has a substantial likelihood for enabling the facility to 
comply with the applicable effluent limitation by achieving a 
significantly greater effluent reduction than that required by 
the applicable effluent limitation and moves toward the 
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, 
or by achieving the required reduction with an innovative 
system that has the potential for significantly lower costs 
than the systems which have been determined by the 
Administrator to be economically achievable, the Administrator 
(or the State with an approved program under section 402, in 
consultation with the Administrator) may establish a date for 
compliance under subsection (b)(2)(A) or (b)(2)(E) of this 
section no later than two years after the date for compliance 
with such effluent limitation which would otherwise be 
applicable under such subsection, if it is also determined that 
such innovative system has the potential for industrywide 
application.]
  (k) Innovative Production Processes, Technologies, and 
Methods.--
          (1) In general.--In the case of any point source 
        subject to a permit under section 402, the 
        Administrator, with the consent of the State in which 
        the point source is located, or the State in 
        consultation with the Administrator, in the case of a 
        State with an approved program under section 402, may, 
        at the request of the permittee and after public notice 
        and opportunity for comment, extend the deadline for 
        the point source to comply with any limitation 
        established pursuant to subsection (b)(1)(A), 
        (b)(2)(A), or (b)(2)(E) and make other appropriate 
        modifications to the conditions of the point source 
        permit, for the purpose of encouraging the development 
        and use of an innovative pollution prevention 
        technology (including an innovative production process 
        change, innovative pollution control technology, or 
        innovative recycling method) that has the potential 
        to--
                  (A) achieve an effluent reduction which is 
                greater than that required by the limitation 
                otherwise applicable;
                  (B) meet the applicable effluent limitation 
                to water while achieving a reduction of total 
                emissions to other media which is greater than 
                that required by the otherwise applicable 
                emissions limitations for the other media;
                  (C) meet the applicable effluent limitation 
                to water while achieving a reduction in energy 
                consumption; or
                  (D) achieve the required reduction with the 
                potential for significantly lower costs than 
                the systems determined by the Administrator to 
                be economically achievable.
          (2) Duration of extensions.--The extension of the 
        compliance deadlines under paragraph (1) shall not 
        extend beyond the period necessary for the owner of the 
        point source to install and use the innovative process, 
        technology, or method in full-scale production 
        operations, but in no case shall the compliance 
        extensions extend beyond 3 years from the date for 
        compliance with the otherwise applicable limitations.
          (3) Consequences of failure.--In determining the 
        amount of any civil or administrative penalty pursuant 
        to section 309(d) or 309(g) for any violations of a 
        section 402 permit during the extension period referred 
        to in paragraph (1) that are caused by the unexpected 
        failure of an innovative process, technology, or 
        method, a court or the Administrator, as appropriate, 
        shall reduce or eliminate the penalty for such 
        violation if the permittee has made good-faith efforts 
        both to implement the innovation and to comply with any 
        interim limitations.
          (4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
        the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator 
        shall review, analyze, and compile in a report 
        information on innovative and alternative technologies 
        which are available for preventing and reducing 
        pollution of navigable waters, submit such report to 
        Congress, and publish in the Federal Register a summary 
        of such report and a notice of the availability of such 
        report. The Administrator shall annually update the 
        report prepared under this paragraph, submit the 
        updated report to Congress, and publish in the Federal 
        Register a summary of the updated report and a notice 
        of its availability.
    (l) Other than as provided in [subsection (n)] subsections 
(n), (q), and (r) of this section, the Administrator may not 
modify any requirement of this section as it applies to any 
specific pollutant which is on the toxic pollutant list under 
section 307(a)(1) of this Act.
          * * * * * * *
    (p) Modified Permit for Coal Remining Operations.--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (2) Limitations.--The Administrator or the State may 
        only issue a permit pursuant to paragraph (1) if the 
        applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
        Administrator or the State, as the case may be, that 
        the coal remining operation will result in the 
        potential for improved water quality from the remining 
        operation but in no event shall such a permit allow the 
        pH level of any discharge, and in no event shall such a 
        permit allow the discharges of iron and manganese, to 
        exceed the levels being discharged from the remined 
        area before the coal remining operation begins. No 
        discharge from, or affected by, the remining operation 
        shall exceed State water quality standards established 
        under section 303 of this Act; except where monitoring 
        demonstrates that the receiving waters do not meet such 
        water quality standards prior to commencement of 
        remining and where the applicant submits a plan which 
        demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator 
        or the State, as the case may be, that identified 
        measures will be utilized to improve the existing water 
        quality of the receiving waters.
          * * * * * * *
          (5) Preexisting coal remining operations.--Any 
        operator of a coal mining operation who conducted 
        remining at a site on which coal mining originally was 
        conducted before the effective date of the Surface 
        Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 shall be 
        deemed to be in compliance with sections 301, 302, 306, 
        307, and 402 of this Act if--
                  (A) such operator commenced remining at such 
                operation prior to the adoption of this 
                subsection in a State program approved under 
                section 402 and performed such remining under a 
                permit pursuant to such Act; and
                  (B) the post-mining discharges from such 
                operation do not add pollutants to the waters 
                of the United States in excess of those 
                pollutants discharged from the remined area 
                before the coal remining operation began.
  (q) Pollution Prevention Programs.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of this Act, the Administrator (with the concurrence of 
        the State) or a State with an approved program under 
        section 402, after public notice and an opportunity for 
        comment, may issue a permit under section 402 which 
        modifies the requirements of subsection (b) of this 
        section or section 306 and makes appropriate 
        modifications to the conditions of the permit, or may 
        modify the requirements of section 307, if the 
        Administrator or State determines that pollution 
        prevention measures or practices (including recycling, 
        source reduction, and other measures to reduce 
        discharges or other releases of pollutants to the 
        environment beyond those otherwise required by law) 
        together with such modifications will achieve an 
        overall reduction in emissions to the environment 
        (including emissions to water and air and disposal of 
        solid wastes) from the facility at which the permitted 
        discharge is located that is greater than would 
        otherwise be achievable if the source complied with the 
        requirements of subsection (b) or section 306 or 307 
        and will result in an overall net benefit to the 
        environment.
          (2) Term of modification.--A modification made 
        pursuant to paragraph (1) shall extend for the term of 
        the permit or, in the case of modifications under 
        section 307(b), for up to 10 years, and may be extended 
        further if the Administrator or State determines at the 
        expiration of the initial modifications that such 
        modifications will continue to enable the source to 
        achieve greater emissions reduction than would 
        otherwise be attainable.
          (3) Nonextension of modification.--Upon expiration of 
        a modification that is not extended further under 
        paragraph (2), the source shall have a reasonable 
        period of time, not to exceed 2 years, to come into 
        compliance with otherwise applicable requirements of 
        this Act.
          (4) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
        the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator 
        shall submit to Congress a report on the implementation 
        of this subsection and the emissions reductions 
        achieved as a result of modifications made pursuant to 
        this subsection.
  (r) Pollution Reduction Agreements.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of this Act, the Administrator (with the concurrence of 
        the State) or a State with an approved program under 
        section 402, after public notice and an opportunity for 
        comment, may issue a permit under section 402 which 
        modifies the requirements of subsection (b) of this 
        section or section 306 and makes appropriate 
        modifications to the conditions of the permit, or may 
        modify the requirements of section 307, if the 
        Administrator or State determines that the owner or 
        operator of the source of the discharge has entered 
        into a binding contractual agreement with any other 
        source of discharge in the same watershed to implement 
        pollution reduction controls or measures beyond those 
        otherwise required by law and that the agreement is 
        being implemented through modifications of a permit 
        issued under section 402 to the other source, by 
        modifications of the requirements of section 307 
        applicable to the other source, or by nonpoint source 
        control practices and measures under section 319 
        applicable to the other source. The Administrator or 
        State may modify otherwise applicable requirements 
        pursuant to this section whenever the Administrator or 
        State determines that such pollution reduction control 
        or measures will result collectively in an overall 
        reduction in discharges to the watershed that is 
        greater than would otherwise be achievable if the 
        parties to the pollution reduction agreement each 
        complied with applicable requirements of subsection 
        (b), section 306 or 307 resulting in a net benefit to 
        the watershed.
          (2) Notification to affected states.--Before issuing 
        or modifying a permit under this subsection allowing 
        discharges into a watershed that is within the 
        jurisdiction of 2 or more States, the Administrator or 
        State shall provide written notice of the proposed 
        permit to all States with jurisdiction over the 
        watershed. The Administrator or State shall not issue 
        or modify such permit unless all States with 
        jurisdiction over the watershed have approved such 
        permit or unless such States do not disapprove such 
        permit within 90 days of receiving such written notice.
          (3) Term of modification.--Modifications made 
        pursuant to this subsection shall extend for the term 
        of the modified permits or, in the case of 
        modifications under section 307, for up to 10 years, 
        and may be extended further if the Administrator or 
        State determines, at the expiration of the initial 
        modifications, that such modifications will continue to 
        enable the sources trading credits to achieve greater 
        reduction in discharges to the watershed collectively 
        than would otherwise be attainable.
          (4) Nonextension of modification.--Upon expiration of 
        a modification that is not extended further under 
        paragraph (3), the source shall have a reasonable 
        period of time, not to exceed 2 years, to come into 
        compliance with otherwise applicable requirements of 
        this Act.
          (5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
        this subsection shall be construed to authorize the 
        Administrator or a State, as appropriate, to compel 
        trading among sources or to impose nonpoint source 
        control practices without the consent of the nonpoint 
        source discharger.
          (6) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
        the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator 
        shall submit a report to Congress on the implementation 
        of paragraph (1) and the discharge reductions achieved 
        as a result of modifications made pursuant to paragraph 
        (1).
  (s) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator, with the 
        concurrence of the State, shall issue a 10-year permit 
        under section 402 which modifies the requirements of 
        subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section with respect to 
        the discharge of any pollutant from a publicly owned 
        treatment works into marine waters which are at least 
        150 feet deep through an ocean outfall which discharges 
        at least 1 mile offshore, if the applicant demonstrates 
        that--
                  (A) there is an applicable ocean plan and the 
                facility's discharge is in compliance with all 
                local and State water quality standards for the 
                receiving waters;
                  (B) the facility's discharge will be subject 
                to an ocean monitoring program determined to be 
                acceptable by relevant Federal and State 
                regulatory agencies;
                  (C) the applicant has an Agency approved 
                pretreatment plan in place; and
                  (D) the applicant, at the time such 
                modification becomes effective, will be 
                discharging effluent which has received at 
                least chemically enhanced primary treatment and 
                achieves a monthly average of 75 percent 
                removal of suspended solids.
          (2) Discharge of any pollutant into marine waters 
        defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
        ``discharge of any pollutant into marine waters'' means 
        a discharge into deep waters of the territorial sea or 
        the waters of the contiguous zone, or into saline 
        estuarine waters where there is strong tidal movement.
          (3) Deadline.--On or before the 90th day after the 
        date of submittal of an application for a modification 
        under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall issue to 
        the applicant a modified permit under section 402 or a 
        written determination that the application does not 
        meet the terms and conditions of this subsection.
          (4) Effect of failure to respond.--If the 
        Administrator does not respond to an application for a 
        modification under paragraph (1) on or before the 90th 
        day referred to in paragraph (3), the application shall 
        be deemed approved and the modification sought by the 
        applicant shall be in effect for the succeeding 10-year 
        period.
  (t) Modifications for Small System Treatment Technologies.--
The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, or a 
State with an approved program under section 402 may issue a 
permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements of 
subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section with respect to the 
discharge of any pollutant from a publicly owned treatment 
works serving a community of 20,000 people or fewer if the 
applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator 
that--
          (1) the effluent from such facility originates 
        primarily from domestic users; and
          (2) such facility utilizes a properly constructed and 
        operated alternative treatment system (including 
        recirculating sand filter systems, constructed 
        wetlands, and oxidation lagoons) which is equivalent to 
        secondary treatment or will provide in the receiving 
        waters and watershed an adequate level of protection to 
        human health and the environment and contribute to the 
        attainment of water quality standards.
  (u) Puerto Rico.--
          (1) Study by government of puerto rico.--Not later 
        than 3 months after the date of the enactment of this 
        section, the Government of Puerto Rico may, after 
        consultation with the Administrator, initiate a study 
        of the marine environment of Anasco Bay off the coast 
        of the Mayaguez region of Puerto Rico to determine the 
        feasibility of constructing a deepwater outfall for the 
        publicly owned treatment works located at Mayaguez, 
        Puerto Rico. Such study shall recommend one or more 
        technically feasible locations for the deepwater 
        outfall based on the effects of such outfall on the 
        marine environment.
          (2) Application for modification.--Notwithstanding 
        subsection (j)(1)(A), not later than 18 months after 
        the date of the enactment of this section, an 
        application may be submitted for a modification 
        pursuant to subsection (h) of the requirements of 
        subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section by the owner of 
        the publicly owned treatment works at Mayaguez, Puerto 
        Rico, for a deepwater outfall at a location recommended 
        in the study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).
          (3) Initial determination.--On or before the 90th day 
        after the date of submittal of an application for 
        modification under paragraph (2), the Administrator 
        shall issue to the applicant a draft initial 
        determination regarding the modification of the 
        existing permit.
          (4) Final determination.--On or before the 270th day 
        after the date of submittal of an application for 
        modification under paragraph (2), the Administrator 
        shall issue a final determination regarding such 
        modification.
          (5) Effectiveness.--If a modification is granted 
        pursuant to an application submitted under this 
        subsection, such modification shall be effective only 
        if the new deepwater outfall is operational within 5 
        years after the date of the enactment of this 
        subsection. In all other aspects, such modification 
        shall be effective for the period applicable to all 
        modifications granted under subsection (h).
          * * * * * * *

            Water quality standards and implementation plans

    Sec. 303. (a)  * * *
    (b)(1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (3) No reasonable relationship.--No water quality standard 
shall be established under this subsection where there is no 
reasonable relationship between the costs and anticipated 
benefits of attaining such standard.
    (c)(1) The Governor of a State or the State water pollution 
control agency of such State shall from time to time (but at 
least once each [three year period beginning with the date of 
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 
of 1972] 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment 
of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995 and, for criteria that 
are revised by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(a), on 
or before the 180th day after the date of such revision by the 
Administrator) hold public hearings for the purpose of 
reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as 
appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. Results of such 
review shall be made available to the Administrator.
    [(2)(A) Whenever the State revises or adopts a new 
standard, such revised or new standard shall be submitted to 
the Administrator. Such revised or new water quality standard 
shall consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters 
involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based 
upon such uses. Such standards shall be such as to protect the 
public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and 
serve the purposes of this Act. Such standards shall be 
established taking into consideration their use and value for 
public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, 
recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other 
purposes, and also taking into consideration their use and 
value for navigation.]
    (2) State adoption of water quality standards.--
          (A) In general.--
                  (i) Submission to administrator.--Whenever 
                the State revises or adopts a new water quality 
                standard, such standard shall be submitted to 
                the Administrator.
                  (ii) Designated uses and water quality 
                criteria.--The revised or new standard shall 
                consist of the designated uses of the navigable 
                waters involved and the water quality criteria 
                for such waters based upon such uses.
                  (iii) Protection of human health.--The 
                revised or new standard shall protect human 
                health and the environment and enhance water 
                quality.
                  (iv) Development of standards.--In developing 
                revised or new standards, the State may 
                consider information reasonably available on 
                the likely social, economic, energy use, and 
                environmental cost associated with attaining 
                such standards in relation to the benefits to 
                be attained. The State may provide a 
                description of the considerations used in the 
                establishment of the standards.
                  (v) Record of state's review.--The record of 
                a State's review under paragraph (1) of an 
                existing standard or adoption of a new standard 
                that includes water quality criteria issued or 
                revised by the Administrator after the date of 
                the enactment of this sentence shall contain 
                available estimates of costs of compliance with 
                the water quality criteria published by the 
                Administrator under section 304(a)(12) and any 
                comments received by the State on such 
                estimate.
                  (vi) Limitation on statutory construction.--
                Nothing in this subsection shall be construed 
                to limit or delay the use of any guidance of 
                the Administrator interpreting water quality 
                criteria to allow the use of a dissolved metals 
                concentration measurement or similar adjustment 
                in determining compliance with a water quality 
                standard or establishing effluent limitations.
          (B) Criteria for toxic pollutants.--Whenever a State 
        reviews water quality standards pursuant to paragraph 
        (1) of this subsection, or revises or adopts new 
        standards pursuant to this paragraph, such State shall 
        adopt criteria for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant 
        to section 307(a)(1) of this Act for which criteria 
        have been published under section 304(a), the discharge 
        or presence of which in the affected waters could 
        reasonably be expected to interfere with those 
        designated uses adopted by the State, as necessary to 
        support such designated uses. Such criteria shall be 
        specific numerical criteria for such toxic pollutants. 
        Criteria for whole effluent toxicity based on 
        laboratory biological monitoring or assessment methods 
        shall employ an aquatic species indigenous, or 
        representative of indigenous, and relevant to the type 
        of waters covered by such criteria and shall take into 
        account the accepted analytical variability associated 
        with such methods in defining an exceedance of such 
        criteria. Where such numerical criteria are not 
        available, whenever a State reviews water quality 
        standards pursuant to paragraph (1), or revises or 
        adopts new standards pursuant to this paragraph, such 
        State shall adopt criteria based on biological 
        monitoring or assessment methods consistent with 
        information published pursuant to section 304(a)(8). 
        Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or 
        delay the use of effluent limitations or other permit 
        conditions based on or involving biological monitoring 
        or assessment methods or previously adopted numerical 
        criteria.
          (C) Revision of designated uses.--
                  (i) Regulations.--After consultation with 
                State officials and not later than 1 year after 
                the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, 
                the Administrator shall propose, and not later 
                than 2 years after such date of enactment shall 
                issue, a revision to the Administrator's 
                regulations regarding designation of uses of 
                waters by States.
                  (ii) Waters not attaining designated uses.--
                For navigable waters not attaining designated 
                uses, the Administrator shall identify 
                conditions that make attainment of the 
                designated use infeasible and shall allow a 
                State to modify the designated use if the State 
                determines that such condition or conditions 
                are present with respect to a particular 
                receiving water, or if the State determines 
                that the costs of achieving the designated use 
                are not justified by the benefits.
                  (iii) Waters attaining designated uses.--For 
                navigable waters attaining the designated use 
                applicable to such waters for all pollutants, 
                the Administrator shall allow a State to modify 
                the designated use only if the State determines 
                that continued maintenance of the water quality 
                necessary to support the designated use will 
                result in significant social or economic 
                dislocations substantially out of proportion to 
                the benefits to be achieved from maintenance of 
                the designated use.
                  (iv) Modification of point source limits.--
                Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
                Act, water quality based limits applicable to 
                point sources may be modified as appropriate to 
                conform to any modified designated use under 
                this section.
          (D) Standards for constructed water conveyances.--
                  (i) Relevant factors.--If a State exercises 
                jurisdiction over constructed water conveyances 
                in establishing standards under this section, 
                the State may consider the following:
                          (I) The existing and planned uses of 
                        water transported in a conveyance 
                        system.
                          (II) Any water quality impacts 
                        resulting from any return flow from a 
                        constructed water conveyance to 
                        navigable waters and the need to 
                        protect downstream users.
                          (III) Management practices necessary 
                        to maintain the conveyance system.
                          (IV) State or regional water 
                        resources management and water 
                        conservation plans.
                          (V) The authorized purpose for the 
                        constructed conveyance.
                  (ii) Relevant uses.--If a State adopts or 
                reviews water quality standards for constructed 
                water conveyances, it shall not be required to 
                establish recreation, aquatic life, or fish 
                consumption uses for such systems if the uses 
                are not existing or reasonably foreseeable or 
                such uses impede the authorized uses of the 
                conveyance system.
          * * * * * * *
    (4) The Administrator shall promptly prepare and publish 
proposed regulations setting forth a revised or new water 
quality standard for the navigable waters involved--
          (A) if a revised or new water quality standard 
        submitted by such State under paragraph (3) of this 
        subsection for such waters is determined by the 
        Administrator not to be consistent with the applicable 
        requirements of this Act, or
          (B) in any case where the Administrator determines 
        that a revised or new standard is necessary to meet the 
        requirements of this Act.
The Administrator shall promulgate any revised or new standard 
under this paragraph not later than ninety days after he 
publishes such proposed standards, unless prior to such 
promulgation, such State has adopted a revised or new water 
quality standard which the Administrator determines to be in 
accordance with this Act. In revising or adopting any new 
standard for ephemeral or effluent-dependent streams under this 
paragraph, the Administrator shall consider the factors 
referred to in section 304(a)(9)(B).
    (d)(1)(A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
    [(C) Each State shall establish for the waters identified 
in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with 
the priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those 
pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 
304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation. Such load shall be 
established at a level necessary to implement the applicable 
water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin 
of safety which takes into account any lack of knowledge 
concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and 
water quality.]
    (C) Total maximum daily loads.--
          (i) State determination of reasonable progress.--Each 
        State shall establish, to the extent and according to a 
        schedule the State determines is necessary to achieve 
        reasonable progress toward the attainment or 
        maintenance of water quality standards, for the waters 
        identified in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and 
        in accordance with the priority ranking, the total 
        maximum daily load, for those pollutants which the 
        Administrator identifies under section 304(a)(2) as 
        suitable for such calculation.
          (ii) Phased total maximum daily loads.--Total maximum 
        daily loads may reflect load reductions the State 
        expects will be realized over time resulting from 
        anticipated implementation of best management 
        practices, storm water controls, or other nonpoint or 
        point source controls; so long as by December 31, 2015, 
        such loads are established at levels necessary to 
        implement the applicable water quality standards with 
        seasonal variations and a margin of safety.
          (iii) Considerations.--In establishing each load, the 
        State shall consider the availability of scientifically 
        valid data and information, the projected reductions 
        achievable by control measures or practices for all 
        sources or categories of sources, and the relative 
        cost-effectiveness of implementing such control 
        measures or practices for such sources.
          * * * * * * *
    (5) Antidegradation review.--The Administrator may not 
require a State, in implementing the antidegradation policy 
established under this section, to conduct an antidegradation 
review in the case of--
          (A) increases in a discharge which are authorized 
        under section 301(g), 301(k), 301(q), 301(r), or 
        301(t);
          (B) increases in the concentration of a pollutant in 
        a discharge caused by a reduction in wastewater flow;
          (C) increases in the discharge of a pollutant or 
        pollutants from one or more outfalls at a permittee's 
        facility, when accompanied by offsetting decreases in 
        the discharge of a pollutant or pollutants from other 
        outfalls at the permittee's facility;
          (D) reissuance of a permit where there is no increase 
        in existing effluent limitations and, if a new effluent 
        limitation is being added to the permit, where the new 
        limitation is for a pollutant that is newly found in an 
        existing discharge due solely to improved monitoring 
        methods; or
          (E) a new or increased discharge which is temporary 
        or short-term or which the State determines represents 
        an insignificant increased pollutant loading.

                       information and guidelines

    Sec. 304. (a)(1) The Administrator, after consultation with 
appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested 
persons, shall develop and publish, within one year after the 
date of enactment of this title (and from time to time 
thereafter revise) criteria for water quality accurately 
reflecting the latest scientific knowledge (A) on the kind and 
extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare 
including, but not limited to, plankton, fish, shellfish, 
wildlife, plant life, shorelines, beaches, esthetics, and 
recreation which may be expected from the presence of 
pollutants in any body of water, including ground water; (B) on 
the concentration and dispersal of pollutants, or their 
byproducts, through biological, physical, and chemical 
processes; [and] (C) on the effects of pollutants on biological 
community diversity, productivity, and stability, including 
information on the factors affecting rates of eutrophication 
and rates of organic and inorganic sedimentation for varying 
types of receiving waters[.] (D) on the organisms that are 
likely to be present in various ecosystems; (E) on the 
bioavailability of pollutants under various natural and man 
induced conditions; (F) on the magnitude, duration, and 
frequency of exposure reasonably required to induce the adverse 
effects of concern; and (G) on the bioaccumulation threat 
presented under various natural conditions.
          * * * * * * *
          (8) Information on water quality criteria.--The 
        Administrator[, after consultation with appropriate 
        State agencies and within 2 years after the date of the 
        enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987,] shall 
        develop and publish, consistent with section 
        303(c)(2)(B) of this Act, information on methods for 
        establishing and measuring water quality criteria for 
        toxic pollutants on other bases than pollutant-by-
        pollutant criteria, including biological monitoring and 
        assessment methods.
          (9) Criteria and guidance for ephemeral and effluent-
        dependent streams.--
                  (A) Development.--Not later than 2 years 
                after the date of the enactment of this 
                paragraph, and after providing notice and 
                opportunity for public comment, the 
                Administrator shall develop and publish--
                          (i) criteria for ephemeral and 
                        effluent-dependent streams; and
                          (ii) guidance to the States on 
                        development and adoption of water 
                        quality standards applicable to such 
                        streams.
                  (B) Factors.--The criteria and guidance 
                developed under subparagraph (A) shall take 
                into account the limited ability of ephemeral 
                and effluent-dependent streams to support 
                aquatic life and certain designated uses, shall 
                include consideration of the role the discharge 
                may play in maintaining the flow or level of 
                such waters, and shall promote the beneficial 
                use of reclaimed water pursuant to section 
                101(a)(10).
          (10) Certification.--
                  (A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after 
                the date of the enactment of this paragraph, 
                and at least once every 5 years thereafter, the 
                Administrator shall publish a written 
                certification that the criteria for water 
                quality developed under paragraph (1) reflect 
                the latest and best scientific knowledge.
                  (B) Updating of existing criteria.--Not later 
                than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
                this paragraph, the Administrator shall publish 
                a schedule for updating, by not later than 5 
                years after the date of the enactment of this 
                paragraph, the criteria for water quality 
                developed under paragraph (1) before the date 
                of the enactment of this subsection.
                  (C) Deadline for revision of certain 
                criteria.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
                of the enactment of this paragraph, the 
                Administrator shall revise and publish criteria 
                under paragraph (1) for ammonia, chronic whole 
                effluent toxicity, and metals as necessary to 
                allow the Administrator to make the 
                certification under subparagraph (A).
          (11) Consideration of certain contaminants.--In 
        developing and revising criteria for water quality 
        criteria under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall 
        consider addressing, at a minimum, each contaminant 
        regulated pursuant to section 1412 of the Public Health 
        Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-1).
          (12) Cost estimate.--Whenever the Administrator 
        issues or revises a criteria for water quality under 
        paragraph (1), the Administrator, after consultation 
        with Federal and State agencies and other interested 
        persons, shall develop and publish an estimate of the 
        costs that would likely be incurred if sources were 
        required to comply with the criteria and an analysis to 
        support the estimate. Such analysis shall meet the 
        requirements relevant to the estimation of costs 
        published in guidance issued under section 324(b).
    (b) For the purposes of adopting or revising effluent 
limitations under this Act the Administrator shall, after 
consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and 
other interested persons, publish within one year of enactment 
of this title, regulations, providing guidelines for effluent 
limitations, [and, at least annually thereafter,] and 
thereafter shall revise, if appropriate, such regulations[.]; 
except that guidelines issued under paragraph (1)(A) addressing 
pollutants identified pursuant to subsection (a)(4) shall not 
be revised after February 15, 1995, to be more stringent unless 
such revised guidelines meet the requirements of paragraph 
(4)(A). Such regulations shall--
          (1)(A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
      (d)(1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (5) Coastal discharges.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, any municipal wastewater treatment facility 
        shall be deemed the equivalent of a secondary treatment 
        facility if each of the following requirements is met:
                  (A) The facility employs chemically enhanced 
                primary treatment.
                  (B) The facility, on the date of the 
                enactment of this paragraph, discharges through 
                an ocean outfall into an open marine 
                environment greater than 4 miles offshore into 
                a depth greater than 300 feet.
                  (C) The facility's discharge is in compliance 
                with all local and State water quality 
                standards for the receiving waters.
                  (D) The facility's discharge will be subject 
                to an ocean monitoring program acceptable to 
                relevant Federal and State regulatory agencies.
          * * * * * * *
    (g)(1) For the purpose of assisting States in carrying out 
programs under section 402 of this Act, the Administrator shall 
publish, within one hundred and twenty days after the date of 
enactment of this title, [and review at least annually 
thereafter and, if appropriate, revise] and thereafter revise, 
as appropriate, guidelines for pretreatment of pollutants which 
he determines are not susceptible to treatment by publicly 
owned treatment works. Guidelines under this subsection shall 
be established to control and prevent the discharge into the 
navigable waters, the contiguous zone, or the ocean (either 
directly or through publicly owned treatment works) of any 
pollutant which interferes with, passes through, or otherwise 
is incompatible with such works.
          * * * * * * *
    (i) The Administrator shall (1) within sixty days after the 
enactment of this title promulgate guidelines for the purpose 
of establishing uniform application forms and other minimum 
requirements for the acquisition of information from owners and 
operators of point-sources of discharge subject to any State 
program under section 402 of this Act, and (2) within sixty 
days from the date of enactment of this title promulgate 
guidelines establishing the minimum procedural and other 
elements of any State program under section 402 of this Act 
which shall include:
          (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (D) funding, personnel qualifications, and manpower 
        requirements (including a requirement that no board or 
        body which approves permit applications or portions 
        thereof shall include, as a member, [any person who 
        receives, or has during the previous two years 
        received, a significant portion of his income directly 
        or indirectly from permit holders or applicants for a 
        permit).] any person (other than a retiree or an 
        employee or official of a city, county, or local 
        governmental agency) who receives a significant portion 
        of his or her income during the period of service on 
        the board or body directly or indirectly from permit 
        holders or applicants for a permit).
          * * * * * * *
    (m) Schedule for Review of Guidelines.--
          [(1) Publication.--Within 12 months after the date of 
        the enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987, and 
        biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall publish 
        in the Federal Register a plan which shall--
                  [(A) establish a schedule for the annual 
                review and revision of promulgated effluent 
                guidelines, in accordance with subsection (b) 
                of this section;
                  [(B) identify categories of sources 
                discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants 
                for which guidelines under subsection (b)(2) of 
                this section and section 306 have not 
                previously been published; and
                  [(C) establish a schedule for promulgation of 
                effluent guidelines for categories identified 
                in subparagraph (B), under which promulgation 
                of such guidelines shall be no later than 4 
                years after such date of enactment for 
                categories identified in the first published 
                plan or 3 years after the publication of the 
                plan for categories identified in later 
                published plans.]
          (1) Publication.--Not later than 3 years after the 
        date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 
        1995, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal 
        Register a plan which shall--
                  (A) identify categories of sources 
                discharging pollutants for which guidelines 
                under subsection (b)(2) of this section and 
                section 306 have not been previously published;
                  (B) establish a schedule for determining 
                whether such discharge presents a significant 
                risk to human health and the environment and 
                whether such risk is sufficient, when compared 
                to other sources of pollutants in navigable 
                waters, to warrant regulation by the 
                Administrator; and
                  (C) establish a schedule for issuance of 
                effluent guidelines for those categories 
                identified pursuant to subparagraph (B).
          * * * * * * *
  (n) Central Treatment Facility Exemption.--The exemption from 
effluent guidelines for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point 
Source Category set forth in section 420.01(b) of title 40, 
Code of Federal Regulations, for the facilities listed in such 
section shall remain in effect for any facility that met the 
requirements of such section on or before July 26, 1982, until 
the Administrator develops alternative effluent guidelines for 
the facility.
  (o) Beach Water Quality Monitoring.--After consultation with 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and after 
providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the 
Administrator shall develop and issue, not later than 18 months 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, guidance that 
States may use in monitoring water quality at beaches and 
issuing health advisories with respect to beaches, including 
testing protocols, recommendations on frequency of testing and 
monitoring, recommendations on pollutants for which monitoring 
and testing should be conducted, and recommendations on when 
health advisories should be issued. Such guidance shall be 
based on the best available scientific information and be 
sufficient to protect public health and safety in the case of 
any reasonably expected exposure to pollutants as a result of 
swimming or bathing.
          * * * * * * *

               toxic and pretreatment effluent standards

    Sec. 307. (a)(1)  * * *
          [(2) Each] (2) Toxic effluent limitations and 
        standards.--
                  (A) In general.--Each toxic pollutant listed 
                in accordance with paragraph (1) of this 
                subsection shall be subject to effluent 
                limitations resulting from the application of 
                the best available technology economically 
                achieveable for the applicable category or 
                class of point sources established in 
                accordance with section 301(b)(2)(A) and 
                304(b)(2) of this Act. The Administrator, in 
                his discretion, may publish in the Federal 
                Register a proposed effluent standard (which 
                may include a prohibition) establishing 
                requirements for a toxic pollutant which, if an 
                effluent limitation is applicable to a class or 
                category of point sources, shall be applicable 
                to such category or class only if such standard 
                imposes more stringent requirements. [Such 
                published effluent standard (or prohibition) 
                shall take into account the toxicity of the 
                pollutant, its persistence, degradability, the 
                usual or potential presence of the affected 
                organisms in any waters, the importance of the 
                affected organisms and the nature and extent of 
                the effect of the toxic pollutant on such 
                organisms, and the extent to which effective 
                control is being or may be achieved under other 
                regulatory authority.] The Administrator shall 
                allow a period of not less than sixty days 
                following publication of any such proposed 
                effluent standard (or prohibition) for written 
                comment by interested persons on such proposed 
                standard. In addition, if within thirty days of 
                publication of any such proposed effluent 
                standard (or prohibition) any interested person 
                so requests, the Administrator shall hold a 
                public hearing in connection therewith. Such a 
                public hearing shall provide an opportunity for 
                oral and written presentations, such cross-
                examination as the Administrator determines is 
                appropriate on disputed issues of material 
                fact, and the transcription of a verbatim 
                record which shall be available to the public. 
                After consideration of such comments and any 
                information and material presented at any 
                public hearing held on such proposed standard 
                or prohibition, the Administrator shall 
                promulgate such standards (or prohibition) with 
                such modifications as the Administrator finds 
                are justified. Such promulgation by the 
                Administrator shall be made within two hundred 
                and seventy days after publication of proposed 
                standard (or prohibition). Such standard (or 
                prohibition) shall be final except that if, on 
                judicial review, such standard was not based on 
                substantial evidence, the Administrator shall 
                promulgate a revised standard. Effluent 
                limitations shall be established in accordance 
                with sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2) for 
                every toxic pollutant referred to in table 1 of 
                Committee Print Numbered 95-30 of the Committee 
                on Public Works and Transportation of the House 
                of Representatives as soon as practicable after 
                the date of enactment of the Clean Water Act of 
                1977, but no later than July 1, 1980. Such 
                effluent limitations or effluent standards (or 
                prohibitions) shall be established for every 
                other toxic pollutant listed under paragraph 
                (1) of this subsection as soon as practicable 
                after it is so listed.
                  (B) Factors.--The published effluent standard 
                (or prohibition) shall take into account--
                          (i) the pollutant's persistence, 
                        toxicity, degradability, and 
                        bioaccumulation potential;
                          (ii) the magnitude and risk of 
                        exposure to the pollutant, including 
                        risks to affected organisms and the 
                        importance of such organisms;
                          (iii) the relative contribution of 
                        point source discharges of the 
                        pollutant to the overall risk from the 
                        pollutant;
                          (iv) the availability of, costs 
                        associated with, and risk posed by 
                        substitute chemicals or processes or 
                        the availability of treatment processes 
                        or control technology;
                          (v) the beneficial and adverse social 
                        and economic effects of the effluent 
                        standard, including the impact on 
                        energy resources;
                          (vi) the extent to which effective 
                        control is being or may be achieved in 
                        an expeditious manner under other 
                        regulatory authorities;
                          (vii) the impact on national security 
                        interests; and
                          (viii) such other factors as the 
                        Administrator considers appropriate.
          * * * * * * *
    (d) After the effective date of any effluent standard or 
prohibition or pretreatment standard promulgated under this 
section, it shall be unlawful for any owner or operator of any 
source to operate any source in violation of any such effluent 
standard or prohibition or pretreatment standard. In any 
enforcement action or citizen suit under section 309 or 505 of 
this Act or applicable State law alleging noncompliance with a 
categorical pretreatment standard or local pretreatment limit 
established pursuant to this section, a person who demonstrates 
through reference to information contained in the applicable 
rulemaking record--
          (1) that the number of excursions from the 
        categorical pretreatment standard or local pretreatment 
        limit are no greater, on an annual basis, than the 
        number of excursions expected from the technology on 
        which the pretreatment standard or local pretreatment 
        limit is based, and
          (2) that the introduction of pollutants into a 
        publicly owned treatment works does not cause 
        interference with such works or cause a violation by 
        such works of an applicable water-quality based 
        limitation or standard,
shall be deemed in compliance with the standard under the Act.
    [(e) Compliance Date Extension for Innovative Pretreatment 
Systems.--In the case of any existing facility that proposes to 
comply with the pretreatment standards of subsection (b) of 
this section by applying an innovative system that meets the 
requirements of section 301(k) of this Act, the owner or 
operator of the publicly owned treatment works receiving the 
treated effluent from such facility may extend the date for 
compliance with the applicable pretreatment standard 
established under this section for a period not to exceed 2 
years--
          [(1) if the Administrator determines that the 
        innovative system has the potential for industrywide 
        application, and
          [(2) if the Administrator (or the State in 
        consultation with the Administrator, in any case in 
        which the State has a pretreatment program approved by 
        the Administrator)--
                  [(A) determines that the proposed extension 
                will not cause the publicly owned treatment 
                works to be in violation of its permit under 
                section 402 or of section 405 or to contribute 
                to such a violation, and
                  [(B) concurs with the proposed extension.]
  (e) Innovative Pretreatment Production Processes, 
Technologies, and Methods.--
          (1) In general.--In the case of any facility that 
        proposes to comply with the national categorical 
        pretreatment standards developed under subsection (b) 
        by applying an innovative pollution prevention 
        technology (including an innovative production process 
        change, innovative pollution control technology, or 
        innovative recycling method) that meets the 
        requirements of section 301(k), the Administrator or 
        the State, in consultation with the Administrator, in 
        the case of a State which has a pretreatment program 
        approved by the Administrator, upon application of the 
        facility and with the concurrence of the treatment 
        works into which the facility introduces pollutants, 
        may extend the deadlines for compliance with the 
        applicable national categorical pretreatment standards 
        established under this section and make other 
        appropriate modifications to the facility's 
        pretreatment requirements if the Administrator or the 
        State, in consultation with the Administrator, in the 
        case of a State which has a pretreatment program 
        approved by the Administrator determines that--
                  (A) the treatment works will require the 
                owner of the source to conduct such tests and 
                monitoring during the period of the 
                modification as are necessary to ensure that 
                the modification does not cause or contribute 
                to a violation by the treatment works under 
                section 402 or a violation of section 405;
                  (B) the treatment works will require the 
                owner of the source to report on progress at 
                prescribed milestones during the period of 
                modification to ensure that attainment of the 
                pollution reduction goals and conditions set 
                forth in this section is being achieved; and
                  (C) the proposed extensions or modifications 
                will not cause or contribute to any violation 
                of a permit granted to the treatment works 
                under section 402, any violation of section 
                405, or a pass through of pollutants such that 
                water quality standards are exceeded in the 
                body of water into which the treatment works 
                discharges.
          (2) Interim limitations.--A modification granted 
        pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include interim 
        standards that shall apply during the temporary period 
        of the modification and shall be the more stringent 
        of--
                  (A) those necessary to ensure that the 
                discharge will not interfere with the operation 
                of the treatment works;
                  (B) those necessary to ensure that the 
                discharge will not pass through pollutants at a 
                level that will cause water quality standards 
                to be exceeded in the navigable waters into 
                which the treatment works discharges;
                  (C) the limits established in the previously 
                applicable control mechanism, in those cases in 
                which the limit from which a modification is 
                being sought is more stringent than the limit 
                established in a previous control mechanism 
                applicable to such source.
          (3) Duration of extensions and modifications.--The 
        extension of the compliance deadlines and the modified 
        pretreatment requirements established pursuant to 
        paragraph (1) shall not extend beyond the period 
        necessary for the owner to install and use the 
        innovative process, technology, or method in full-scale 
        production operation, but in no case shall the 
        compliance extensions and modified requirements extend 
        beyond 3 years from the date for compliance with the 
        otherwise applicable standards.
          (4) Consequences of failure.--In determining the 
        amount of any civil or administrative penalty pursuant 
        to section 309(d) or 309(g) for any pretreatment 
        violations, or violations by a publicly owned treatment 
        works, caused by the unexpected failure of an 
        innovative process, technology, or method, a court or 
        the Administrator, as appropriate, shall reduce, or 
        eliminate, the penalty amount for such violations 
        provided the facility made good-faith efforts both to 
        implement the innovation and to comply with the interim 
        standards and, in the case of a publicly owned 
        treatment works, good-faith efforts were made to 
        implement the pretreatment program.
  (f) Local Pretreatment Authority.--
          (1) Demonstration.--If, to carry out the purposes 
        identified in paragraph (2), a publicly owned treatment 
        works with an approved pretreatment program 
        demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator, 
        or a State with an approved program under section 402, 
        that--
                  (A) such publicly owned treatment works is in 
                compliance, and is likely to remain in 
                compliance, with its permit under section 402, 
                including applicable effluent limitations and 
                narrative standards;
                  (B) such publicly owned treatment works is in 
                compliance, and is likely to remain in 
                compliance, with applicable air emission 
                limitations;
                  (C) biosolids produced by such publicly owned 
                treatment works meet beneficial use 
                requirements under section 405; and
                  (D) such publicly owned treatment works is 
                likely to continue to meet all applicable State 
                requirements;
        the approved pretreatment program shall be modified to 
        allow the publicly owned treatment works to apply local 
        limits in lieu of categorical pretreatment standards 
        promulgated under this section.
          (2) Purposes.--The publicly owned treatment works may 
        make the demonstration to the Administrator or the 
        State, as the case may be, to apply local limits in 
        lieu of categorical pretreatment standards, as the 
        treatment works deems necessary, for the purposes of--
                  (A) reducing the administrative burden 
                associated with the designation of an 
                ``industrial user'' as a ``categorical 
                industrial user''; or
                  (B) eliminating additional redundant or 
                unnecessary treatment by industrial users which 
                has little or no environmental benefit.
          (3) Limitations.--
                  (A) Significant noncompliance.--The publicly 
                owned treatment works may not apply local 
                limits in lieu of categorical pretreatment 
                standards to any industrial user which is in 
                significant noncompliance (as defined by the 
                Administrator) with its approved pretreatment 
                program.
                  (B) Procedures.--A demonstration to the 
                Administrator or the State under paragraph (1) 
                must be made under the procedures for 
                pretreatment program modification provided 
                under this section and section 402.
          (4) Annual review.--
                  (A) Demonstration relating to ability to meet 
                criteria.--As part of the annual pretreatment 
                report of the publicly owned treatment works to 
                the Administrator or State, the treatment works 
                shall demonstrate that application of local 
                limits in lieu of categorical pretreatment 
                standards has not resulted in the inability of 
                the treatment works to meet the criteria of 
                paragraph (1).
                  (B) Termination of authority.--If the 
                Administrator or State determines that 
                application of local limits in lieu of 
                categorical pretreatment standards has resulted 
                in the inability of the treatment works to meet 
                the criteria of paragraph (1), the authority of 
                a publicly owned treatment works under this 
                section shall be terminated and any affected 
                industrial user shall have a reasonable period 
                of time to be determined by the Administrator 
                or State, but not to exceed 2 years, to come 
                into compliance with any otherwise applicable 
                requirements of this Act.
  (g) Compliance With Management Practices.--
          (1) Special rule.--The Administrator or a State with 
        a permit program approved under section 402 may allow 
        any person that introduces silver into a publicly owned 
        treatment works to comply with a code of management 
        practices with respect to the introduction of silver 
        into the treatment works for a period not to exceed 5 
        years beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
        subsection in lieu of complying with any pretreatment 
        requirement (including any local limit) based on an 
        effluent limitation for the treatment works derived 
        from a water quality standard for silver--
                  (A) if the treatment works has accepted the 
                code of management practices;
                  (B) if the code of management practices meets 
                the requirements of paragraph (2); and
                  (C) if the facility is--
                          (i) part of a class of facilities for 
                        which the code of management practices 
                        has been approved by the Administrator 
                        or the State;
                          (ii) in compliance with a mass 
                        limitation or concentration level for 
                        silver attainable with the application 
                        of the best available technology 
                        economically achievable for such 
                        facilities, as established by the 
                        Administrator after a review of the 
                        treatment and management practices of 
                        such class of facilities; and
                          (iii) implementing the code of 
                        management practices.
          (2) Code of management practices.--A code of 
        management practices meets the requirements of this 
        paragraph if the code of management practices--
                  (A) is developed and adopted by 
                representatives of industry and publicly owned 
                treatment works of major urban areas;
                  (B) is approved by the Administrator or the 
                State, as the case may be;
                  (C) reflects acceptable industry practices to 
                minimize the amount of silver introduced into 
                publicly owned treatment works or otherwise 
                entering the environment from the class of 
                facilities for which the code of management 
                practices is approved; and
                  (D) addresses, at a minimum--
                          (i) the use of the best available 
                        technology economically achievable, 
                        based on a review of the current state 
                        of such technology for such class of 
                        facilities and of the effluent 
                        guidelines for such facilities;
                          (ii) water conservation measures 
                        available to reduce the total quantity 
                        of discharge from such facilities to 
                        publicly owned treatment works;
                          (iii) opportunities to recover silver 
                        (and other pollutants) from the waste 
                        stream prior to introduction into a 
                        publicly owned treatment works; and
                          (iv) operating and maintenance 
                        practices to minimize the amount of 
                        silver introduced into publicly owned 
                        treatment works and to assure 
                        consistent performance of the 
                        management practices and treatment 
                        technology specified under this 
                        paragraph.
          (3) Interim extension for potws receiving silver.--In 
        any case in which the Administrator or a State with a 
        permit program approved under section 402 allows under 
        paragraph (1) a person to comply with a code of 
        management practices for a period of not to exceed 5 
        years in lieu of complying with a pretreatment 
        requirement (including a local limit) for silver, the 
        Administrator or State, as applicable, shall modify the 
        permit conditions and effluent limitations for any 
        affected publicly owned treatment works to defer for 
        such period compliance with any effluent limitation 
        derived from a water quality standard for silver beyond 
        that required by section 301(b)(2), notwithstanding the 
        provisions of section 303(d)(4) and 402(o), if the 
        Administrator or the State, as applicable, finds that--
                  (A) the quality of any affected waters and 
                the operation of the treatment works will be 
                adequately protected during such period by 
                implementation of the code of management 
                practices and the use of best technology 
                economically achievable by persons introducing 
                silver into the treatment works;
                  (B) the introduction of pollutants into such 
                treatment works is in compliance with 
                paragraphs (1) and (2); and
                  (C) a program of enforcement by such 
                treatment works and the State ensures such 
                compliance.
          * * * * * * *

                          federal enforcement

    Sec. 309. (a)(1) Whenever, on the basis of any information 
available to him, the Administrator finds that any person is in 
violation of any condition or limitation which implements 
section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of this Act in a 
permit issued by a State under an approved permit program under 
section 402 [or 404] of this Act, he shall proceed under his 
authority in paragraph (3) of this subsection or he shall 
notify the person in alleged violation and such State of such 
finding. If beyond the thirtieth day after the Administrator's 
notification the State has not commenced appropriate 
enforcement action, the Administrator shall issue an order 
requiring such person to comply with such condition or 
limitation or shall bring a civil action in accordance with 
subsection (b) of this section.
          * * * * * * *
    (3) Whenever on the basis of any information available to 
him the Administrator finds that any person is in violation of 
section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of this Act, or is 
in violation of any permit condition or limitation implementing 
any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of 
this Act by him or by a State [or in a permit issued under 
section 404 of this Act by a State], he shall issue an order 
requiring such person to comply with such section or 
requirement, or he shall bring a civil action in accordance 
with subsection (b) of this section.
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Criminal Penalties.--
          (1) Negligent violations.--Any person who--
                  (A) negligently violates section 301, 302, 
                306, 307, 308, 311(b)(3), 318, or 405 of this 
                Act, or any permit condition or limitation 
                implementing any of such sections in a permit 
                issued under section 402 of this Act by the 
                Administrator or by a State, or any requirement 
                imposed in a pretreatment program approved 
                under section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of this 
                Act [or in a permit issued under section 404 of 
                this Act by the Secretary of the Army or by a 
                State]; or
          * * * * * * *
          (2) Knowing violations.--Any person who--
                  (A) knowingly violates section 301, 302, 306, 
                307, 308, 311(b)(3), 318, or 405 of this Act, 
                or any permit condition or limitation 
                implementing any of such sections in a permit 
                issued under section 402 of this Act by the 
                Administrator or by a State, or any requirement 
                imposed in a pretreatment program approved 
                under section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of this 
                Act [or in a permit issued under section 404 of 
                this Act by the Secretary of the Army or by a 
                State]; or
          * * * * * * *
          (3) Knowing endangerment.--
                  (A) General rule.--Any person who knowingly 
                violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 
                311(b)(3), 318, or 405 of this Act, or any 
                permit condition or limitation implementing any 
                of such sections in a permit issued under 
                section 402 of this Act by the Administrator or 
                by a State, [or in a permit issued under 
                section 404 of this Act by the Secretary of the 
                Army or by a State,] and who knows at that time 
                that he thereby places another person in 
                imminent danger of death or serious bodily 
                injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a 
                fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment 
                of not more than 15 years, or both. A person 
                which is an organization shall, upon conviction 
                of violating this subparagraph, be subject to a 
                fine of not more than $1,000,000. If a 
                conviction of a person is for a violation 
                committed after a first conviction of such 
                person under this paragraph, the maximum 
                punishment shall be doubled with respect to 
                both fine and imprisonment.
          * * * * * * *
          (8) Treatment of certain violations.--Any person who 
        violates section 301 with respect to an activity in 
        wetlands or waters of the United States for which a 
        permit is required under section 404 shall not be 
        subject to punishment under this subsection but shall 
        be subject to punishment under section 404(k)(5).
    (d) Any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 
308, 311(b)(3), 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition 
or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit 
issued under section 402 of this Act by the Administrator, or 
by a State[, or in a permit issued under section 404 of this 
Act by a State,], or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment 
program approved under section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of this 
Act, and any person who violates any order issued by the 
Administrator under subsection (a) of this section, shall be 
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for 
each violation. In determining the amount of a civil penalty 
the court shall consider the seriousness of the violation or 
violations, the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the 
violation, any history of such violations, any good-faith 
efforts to comply with the applicable requirements, the 
economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and such other 
matters as justice may require. For purposes of this 
subsection, a single operational upset which leads to 
simultaneous violations of more than one pollutant parameter 
shall be treated as a single violation. Any person who violates 
section 301 with respect to an activity in wetlands or waters 
of the United States for which a permit is required under 
section 404 shall not be subject to a civil penalty under this 
subsection but shall be subject to a civil penalty under 
section 404(k)(4).
    (e) Whenever a municipality is a party to a civil action 
brought by the United States under this section, the State in 
which such municipality is located [shall be joined as a party. 
Such State] may be joined as a party. Any State so joined as a 
party shall be liable for payment of any judgment, or any 
expenses incurred as a result of complying with any judgment, 
entered against the municipality in such action to the extent 
that the laws of that State prevent the municipality from 
raising revenues needed to comply with such judgment.
          * * * * * * *
    (g) Administrative Penalties.--
          (1) Violations.--Whenever on the basis of any 
        information available[--
                  (A)] the Administrator finds that any person 
                has violated section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 
                318, or 405 of this Act, or has violated any 
                permit condition or limitation implementing any 
                of such sections in a permit issued under 
                section 402 of this Act by the Administrator or 
                by a State, [or in a permit issued under 
                section 404 by a State, or]
                  [(B) the Secretary of the Army (hereinafter 
                in this subsection referred to as the 
                ``Secretary'') finds that any person has 
                violated any permit condition or limitation in 
                a permit issued under section 404 of this Act 
                by the Secretary,
        the Administrator or Secretary, as the case may be,] 
        the Administrator may, after consultation with the 
        State in which the violation occurs, assess a class I 
        civil penalty or a class II civil penalty under this 
        subsection.
          (2) Classes of penalties.--
                  (A) Class i.--The amount of a class I civil 
                penalty under paragraph (1) may not exceed 
                $10,000 per violation, except that the maximum 
                amount of any class I civil penalty under this 
                subparagraph shall not exceed $25,000. Before 
                issuing an order assessing a civil penalty 
                under this subparagraph, the Administrator [or 
                the Secretary, as the case may be,] shall give 
                to the person to be assessed such penalty 
                written notice of the Administrator's [or 
                Secretary's] proposal to issue such order and 
                the opportunity to request, within 30 days of 
                the date the notice is received by such person, 
                a hearing on the proposed order. Such hearing 
                shall not be subject to section 554 or 556 of 
                title 5, United States Code, but shall provide 
                a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to 
                represent evidence.
                  (B) Class ii.--The amount of a class II civil 
                penalty under paragraph (1) may not exceed 
                $10,000 per day for each day during which the 
                violation continues; except that the maximum 
                amount of any class II civil penalty under this 
                subparagraph shall not exceed $125,000. Except 
                as otherwise provided in this subsection, a 
                class II civil penalty shall be assessed and 
                collected in the same manner, and subject to 
                the same provisions, as in the case of civil 
                penalties assessed and collected after notice 
                and opportunity for a hearing on the record in 
                accordance with section 554 of title 5, United 
                States Code. The Administrator [and the 
                Secretary] may issue rules for discovery 
                procedures for hearings under this 
                subparagraph.
          (3) Determining amount.--In determining the amount of 
        any penalty assessed under this subsection, the 
        Administrator [or the Secretary, as the case may be,] 
        shall take into account the nature, circumstances, 
        extent and gravity of the violation, or violations, 
        and, with respect to the violator, ability to pay, any 
        prior history of such violations, the degree of 
        culpability, economic benefit or savings (if any) 
        resulting from the violation, and such other matters as 
        justice may require. For purposes of this subsection, a 
        single operational upset which leads to simultaneous 
        violations of more than one pollutant parameter shall 
        be treated as a single violation.
          (4) Rights of interested persons.--
                  (A) Public notice.--Before issuing an order 
                assessing a civil penalty under this subsection 
                the Administrator [or Secretary, as the case 
                may be,] shall provide public notice of and 
                reasonable opportunity to comment on the 
                proposed issuance of such order.
          * * * * * * *
                  (C) Rights of interested persons to a 
                hearing.--If no hearing is held under paragraph 
                (2) before issuance of an order assessing a 
                penalty under this subsection, any person who 
                commented on the proposed assessment may 
                petition, within 30 days after the issuance of 
                such order, the Administrator [or Secretary, as 
                the case may be,] to set aside such order and 
                to provide a hearing on the penalty. If the 
                evidence presented by the petitioner in support 
                of the petition is material and was not 
                considered in the issuance of the order, the 
                Administrator [or Secretary] shall immediately 
                set aside such order and provide a hearing in 
                accordance with paragraph (2)(A) in the case of 
                a class I civil penalty and paragraph (2)(B) in 
                the case of a class II civil penalty. If the 
                Administrator [or Secretary] denies a hearing 
                under this subparagraph, the Administrator [or 
                Secretary] shall provide to the petitioner, and 
                publish in the Federal Register, notice of and 
                the reasons for such denial.
          * * * * * * *
          (6) Effect of order.--
                  (A) Limitation on actions under other 
                sections.--Action taken by the Administrator 
                [or the Secretary, as the case may be,] under 
                this subsection shall not affect or limit the 
                Administrator's [or Secretary's] authority to 
                enforce any provision of this Act; except that 
                any violation--
                          (i) with respect to which the 
                        Administrator [or the Secretary] has 
                        commenced and is diligently prosecuting 
                        an action under this subsection,
          * * * * * * *
          (7) Effect of action on compliance.--No action by the 
        Administrator [or the Secretary] under this subsection 
        shall affect any person's obligation to comply with any 
        section of this Act or with the terms and conditions of 
        any permit issued pursuant to section 402 or 404 of 
        this Act.
          (8) Judicial review.--Any person against whom a civil 
        penalty is assessed under this subsection or who 
        commented on the proposed assessment of such penalty in 
        accordance with paragraph (4) may obtain review of such 
        assessment--
                  (A) in the case of assessment of a class I 
                civil penalty, in the United States District 
                Court for the District of Columbia or in the 
                district in which the violation is alleged to 
                have occurred, or
                  (B) in the case of assessment of a class II 
                civil penalty, in United States Court of 
                Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or 
                for any other circuit in which such person 
                resides or transacts business,
        by filing a notice of appeal in such court within the 
        30-day period beginning on the date the civil penalty 
        order is issued and by simultaneously sending a copy of 
        such notice by certified mail to the Administrator [or 
        the Secretary, as the case may be,] and the Attorney 
        General. The Administrator [or the Secretary] shall 
        promptly file in such court a certified copy of the 
        record on which the order was issued. Such court shall 
        not set aside or remand such order unless there is not 
        substantial evidence in the record, taken as a whole, 
        to support the finding of a violation or unless the 
        Administrator's [or Secretary's] assessment of the 
        penalty constitutes an abuse of discretion and shall 
        not impose additional civil penalties for the same 
        violation unless the Administrator's [or Secretary's] 
        assessment of the penalty constitutes an abuse of 
        discretion.
          (9) Collection.--If any person fails to pay an 
        assessment of a civil penalty--
                  (A) after the order making the assessment has 
                become final, or
                  (B) after a court in an action brought under 
                paragraph (8) has entered a final judgment in 
                favor of the Administrator, [or the Secretary, 
                as the case may be,]
        the Administrator [or the Secretary] shall request the 
        Attorney General to bring a civil action in an 
        appropriate district court to recover the amount 
        assessed (plus interest at currently prevailing rates 
        from the date of the final order or the date of the 
        final judgment, as the case may be). In such an action, 
        the validity, amount, and appropriateness of such 
        penalty shall not be subject to review. Any person who 
        fails to pay on a timely basis the amount of an 
        assessment of a civil penalty as described in the first 
        sentence of this paragraph shall be required to pay, in 
        addition to such amount and interest, attorneys fees 
        and costs for collection proceedings and a quarterly 
        nonpayment penalty for each quarter during which such 
        failure to pay persists. Such nonpayment penalty shall 
        be in an amount equal to 20 percent of the aggregate 
        amount of such person's penalties and nonpayment 
        penalties which are unpaid as of the beginning of such 
        quarter.
          (10) Subpoenas.--The Administrator [or Secretary, as 
        the case may be,] may issue subpoenas for the 
        attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 
        production of relevant papers, books, or documents in 
        connection with hearings under this subsection. In case 
        of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued 
        pursuant to this paragraph and served upon any person, 
        the district court of the United States for any 
        district in which such person is found, resides, or 
        transacts business, upon application by the United 
        States and after notice to such person, shall have 
        jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such person to 
        appear and give testimony before the administrative law 
        judge or to appear and produce documents before the 
        administrative law judge, or both, and any failure to 
        obey such order of the court may be punished by such 
        court as a contempt thereof.
          * * * * * * *
          (12) Treatment of certain violations.--Any person who 
        violates section 301 with respect to an activity in 
        wetlands or waters of the United States for which a 
        permit is required under section 404 shall not be 
        subject to assessment of a civil penalty under this 
        subsection but shall be subject to assessment of a 
        civil penalty under section 404(k)(4).
  (h) Adjustment of Monetary Penalties for Inflation.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the 
        date of the enactment of this subsection, and at least 
        once every 4 years thereafter, the Administrator shall 
        adjust each monetary penalty provided by this section 
        in accordance with paragraph (2) and publish such 
        adjustment in the Federal Register.
          (2) Method.--An adjustment to be made pursuant to 
        paragraph (1) shall be determined by increasing or 
        decreasing the maximum monetary penalty or the range of 
        maximum monetary penalties, as appropriate, by 
        multiplying the cost-of-living adjustment and the 
        amount of such penalty.
          (3) Cost-of-living adjustment defined.--In this 
        subsection, the term ``cost-of-living'' adjustment 
        means the percentage (if any) for each monetary penalty 
        by which--
                  (A) the Consumer Price Index for the month of 
                June of the calendar year preceding the 
                adjustment; is greater or less than
                  (B) the Consumer Price Index for--
                          (i) with respect to the first 
                        adjustment under this subsection, the 
                        month of June of the calendar year 
                        preceding the date of the enactment of 
                        this subsection; and
                          (ii) with respect to each subsequent 
                        adjustment under this subsection, the 
                        month of June of the calendar year in 
                        which the amount of such monetary 
                        penalty was last adjusted under this 
                        subsection.
          (4) Rounding.--In making adjustments under this 
        subsection, the Administrator may round the dollar 
        amount of a penalty, as appropriate.
          (5) Applicability.--Any increase or decrease to a 
        monetary penalty resulting from this subsection shall 
        apply only to violations which occur after the date any 
        such increase takes effect.
          * * * * * * *

                 oil and hazardous substance liability

    Sec. 311. (a)  * * *
    (b)(1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (12) Withholding Clearance.--If any owner, operator, 
        or person in charge of a vessel is liable for a civil 
        penalty under this subsection, or if reasonable cause 
        exists to believe that the owner, operator, or person 
        in charge may be subject to a civil penalty under this 
        subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the 
        request of the Secretary of the department in which the 
        Coast Guard is operating or the Administrator, shall 
        with respect to such vessel refuse or revoke--
                  (A) the clearance required by section 4197 of 
                the Revised Statutes of the United States (46 
                U.S.C. App. 91);
                  (B) a permit to proceed under section 4367 of 
                the Revised Statutes of the United States (46 
                U.S.C. App. 313); and
                  (C) a permit to depart required under section 
                443 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1443);
        as applicable. Clearance or a permit refused or revoked 
        under this paragraph may be granted upon the filing of 
        a bond or other surety satisfactory to the Secretary of 
        the department in which the Coast Guard is operating or 
        the Administrator.
          * * * * * * *
    (h) The liabilities established by this section shall in no 
way affect any rights which (1) the owner or operator of a 
vessel or of an onshore facility or an offshore facility may 
have against any third party whose acts may in any way have 
caused or contributed to such discharge, or (2) [The] the 
United States Government may have against any third party whose 
actions may in any way have caused or contributed to the 
discharge of oil or hazardous substance.
          * * * * * * *

                       marine sanitation devices

    Sec. 312. (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c)(1)(A) Initial standards and regulations under this 
section shall become effective for new vessels two years after 
promulgation; and for existing vessels five years after 
promulgation. Revisions of standards and regulations shall be 
effective upon promulgation, unless another effective date is 
specified, except that no revision shall take effect before the 
effective date of the standard or regulation being revised. Not 
later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
sentence, and at least once every 5 years thereafter, the 
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
Department in which the Coast Guard is operating and after 
providing notice and opportunity for public comment, shall 
review such standards and regulations to take into account 
improvements in technology relating to marine sanitation 
devices and based on such review shall make such revisions to 
such standards and regulations as may be necessary.
          * * * * * * *

                 [federal facilities pollution control

    [Sec. 313. (a) Each department, agency, or instrumentality 
of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the 
Federal Government (1) having jurisdiction over any property or 
facility, or (2) engaged in any activity resulting, or which 
may result, in the discharge or runoff of pollutants, and each 
officer, agent, or employee thereof in the performance of his 
official duties, shall be subject to, and comply with, all 
Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, 
administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting 
the control and abatement of water pollution in the same 
manner, and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity 
including the payment of reasonable service charges. The 
preceding sentence shall apply (A) to any requirement whether 
substantive or procedural (including any recordkeeping or 
reporting requirement, any requirement respecting permits and 
any other requirement, whatsoever), (B) to the exercise of any 
Federal, State, or local administrative authority, and (C) to 
any process and sanction, whether enforced in Federal, State, 
or local courts or in any other manner. This subsection shall 
apply notwithstanding any immunity of such agencies, officers, 
agents, or employees under any law or rule of law. Nothing in 
this section shall be construed to prevent any department, 
agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government, or any 
officer, agent, or employee thereof in the performance of his 
official duties, from removing to the appropriate Federal 
district court any proceeding to which the department, agency, 
or instrumentality or officer, agent, or employee thereof is 
subject pursuant to this section, and any such proceeding may 
be removed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1441 et seq. No 
officer, agent, or employee of the United States shall be 
personally liable for any civil penalty arising from the 
performance of his official duties, for which he is not 
otherwise liable, and the United States shall be liable only 
for those civil penalties arising under Federal law or imposed 
by a State or local court to enforce an order or the process of 
such court. The President may exempt any effluent source of any 
department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch 
from compliance with any such a requirement if he determines it 
to be in the paramount interest of the United States to do so; 
except that no exemption may be granted from the requirements 
of section 306 or 307 of this Act. No such exemptions shall be 
granted due to lack of appropriation unless the President shall 
have specifically requested such appropriation as a part of the 
budgetary process and the Congress shall have failed to make 
available such requested appropriation. Any exemption shall be 
for a period not in excess of one year, but additional 
exemptions may be granted for periods of not to exceed one year 
upon the President's making a new determination. The President 
shall report each January to the Congress all exemptions from 
the requirements of this section granted during the preceding 
calendar year, together with his reason for granting such 
exemption. In addition to any such exemption of a particular 
effluent source, the President may, if he determines it to be 
in the paramount interest of the United States to do so, issue 
regulations exempting from compliance with the requirements of 
this section any weaponry, equipment, aircraft, vessels, 
vehicles, or other classes or categories of property, and 
access to such property, which are owned or operated by the 
Armed Forces of the United States (including the Coast Guard) 
or by the National Guard of any State and which are uniquely 
military in nature. The President shall reconsider the need for 
such regulations at three-year intervals.]

SEC. 313. FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION CONTROL.

  (a) Applicability of Federal, State, Interstate, and Local 
Laws.--
          (1) In general.--Each department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and 
        judicial branches of the Federal Government--
                  (A) having jurisdiction over any property or 
                facility, or
                  (B) engaged in any activity resulting, or 
                which may result, in the discharge or runoff of 
                pollutants,
        and each officer, agent, or employee thereof in the 
        performance of his official duties, shall be subject 
        to, and comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, 
        and local requirements, administrative authority, and 
        process and sanctions respecting the control and 
        abatement of water pollution in the same manner and to 
        the same extent as any nongovernmental entity, 
        including the payment of reasonable service charges.
          (2) Types of actions covered.--Paragraph (1) shall 
        apply--
                  (A) to any requirement whether substantive or 
                procedural (including any recordkeeping or 
                reporting requirement, any requirement 
                respecting permits, and any other requirement),
                  (B) to the exercise of any Federal, State, or 
                local administrative authority, and
                  (C) to any process and sanction, whether 
                enforced in Federal, State, or local courts or 
                in any other manner.
          (3) Penalties and fines.--The Federal, State, 
        interstate, and local substantive and procedural 
        requirements, administrative authority, and process and 
        sanctions referred to in paragraph (1) include all 
        administrative orders and all civil and administrative 
        penalties and fines, regardless of whether such 
        penalties or fines are punitive or coercive in nature 
        or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or 
        continuing violations.
          (4) Sovereign immunity.--
                  (A) Waiver.--The United States hereby 
                expressly waives any immunity otherwise 
                applicable to the United States with respect to 
                any requirement, administrative authority, and 
                process and sanctions referred to in paragraph 
                (1) (including any injunctive relief, any 
                administrative order, any civil or 
                administrative penalty or fine referred to in 
                paragraph (3), or any reasonable service 
                charge).
                  (B) Processing fees.--The reasonable service 
                charges referred to in this paragraph include 
                fees or charges assessed in connection with the 
                processing and issuance of permits, renewal of 
                permits, amendments to permits, review of 
                plans, studies, and other documents, and 
                inspection and monitoring of facilities, as 
                well as any other nondiscriminatory charges 
                that are assessed in connection with a Federal, 
                State, interstate, or local water pollution 
                regulatory program.
          (5) Exemptions.--
                  (A) General authority of president.--The 
                President may exempt any effluent source of any 
                department, agency, or instrumentality in the 
                executive branch from compliance with any 
                requirement to which paragraph (1) applies if 
                the President determines it to be in the 
                paramount interest of the United States to do 
                so; except that no exemption may be granted 
                from the requirements of section 306 or 307 of 
                this Act.
                  (B) Limitation.--No exemptions shall be 
                granted under subparagraph (A) due to lack of 
                appropriation unless the President shall have 
                specifically requested such appropriation as a 
                part of the budgetary process and the Congress 
                shall have failed to make available such 
                requested appropriation.
                  (C) Time period.--Any exemption under 
                subparagraph (A) shall be for a period not in 
                excess of 1 year, but additional exemptions may 
                be granted for periods of not to exceed 1 year 
                upon the President's making a new 
                determination.
                  (D) Military property.--In addition to any 
                exemption of a particular effluent source, the 
                President may, if the President determines it 
                to be in the paramount interest of the United 
                States to do so, issue regulations exempting 
                from compliance with the requirements of this 
                section any weaponry, equipment, aircraft, 
                vessels, vehicles, or other classes or 
                categories of property, and access to such 
                property, which are owned or operated by the 
                Armed Forces of the United States (including 
                the Coast Guard) or by the National Guard of 
                any State and which are uniquely military in 
                nature. The President shall reconsider the need 
                for such regulations at 3-year intervals.
                  (E) Reports.--The President shall report each 
                January to the Congress all exemptions from the 
                requirements of this section granted during the 
                preceding calendar year, together with the 
                President's reason for granting such exemption.
          (6) Venue.--Nothing in this section shall be 
        construed to prevent any department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the Federal Government, or any 
        officer, agent, or employee thereof in the performance 
        of official duties, from removing to the appropriate 
        Federal district court any proceeding to which the 
        department, agency, or instrumentality or officer, 
        agent, or employee thereof is subject pursuant to this 
        section, and any such proceeding may be removed in 
        accordance with chapter 89 of title 28, United States 
        Code.
          (7) Personal liability of federal employees.--No 
        agent, employee, or officer of the United States shall 
        be personally liable for any civil penalty under any 
        Federal, State, interstate, or local water pollution 
        law with respect to any act or omission within the 
        scope of the official duties of the agent, employee, or 
        officer.
          (8) Criminal sanctions.--An agent, employee, or 
        officer of the United States shall be subject to any 
        criminal sanction (including any fine or imprisonment) 
        under any Federal or State water pollution law, but no 
        department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
        executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the 
        Federal Government shall be subject to any such 
        sanction.
    [(b)(1)]
  (b) Wastewater Facilities.--
          (1) Cooperation for use of wastewater control 
        systems.--The Administrator shall coordinate with the 
        head of each department, agency, or instrumentality of 
        the Federal Government having jurisdiction over any 
        property or facility utilizing federally owned 
        wastewater facilities to develop a program of 
        cooperation for utilizing wastewater control systems 
        utilizing those innovative treatment processes and 
        techniques for which guidelines have been promulgated 
        under section 304(d)(3). Such program shall include an 
        inventory of property and facilities which could 
        utilize such processes and techniques.
          (2) Limitation on construction.--Construction shall 
        not be initiated for facilities for treatment of 
        wastewater at any Federal property or facility after 
        September 30, 1979, if alternative methods for 
        wastewater treatment at such property or facility 
        utilizing innovative treatment processes and 
        techniques, including but not limited to methods 
        utilizing recycle and reuse techniques and land 
        treatment are not utilized, unless the life cycle cost 
        of the alternative treatment works exceeds the life 
        cycle cost of the most cost effective alternative by 
        more than 15 per centum. The Administrator may waive 
        the application of this paragraph in any case where the 
        Administrator determines it to be in the public 
        interest, or that compliance with this paragraph would 
        interfere with the orderly compliance with the 
        conditions of a permit issued pursuant to section 402 
        of this Act.
  (c) Limitation on State Use of Funds.--Unless a State law in 
effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection or a 
State constitution requires the funds to be used in a different 
manner, all funds collected by a State from the Federal 
Government in penalties and fines imposed for the violation of 
a substantive or procedural requirement referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be used by a State only for projects 
designed to improve or protect the environment or to defray the 
costs of environmental protection or enforcement.
  (d) Federal Facility Enforcement.--
          (1) Administrative enforcement by epa.--The 
        Administrator may commence an administrative 
        enforcement action against any department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or 
        judicial branch of the Federal Government pursuant to 
        the enforcement authorities contained in this Act.
          (2) Procedure.--The Administrator shall initiate an 
        administrative enforcement action against a department, 
        agency, or instrumentality under this subsection in the 
        same manner and under the same circumstances as an 
        action would be initiated against any other person 
        under this Act. The amount of any administrative 
        penalty imposed under this subsection shall be 
        determined in accordance with section 309(d) of this 
        Act.
          (3) Voluntary settlement.--Any voluntary resolution 
        or settlement of an action under this subsection shall 
        be set forth in an administrative consent order.
          (4) Conferral with epa.--No administrative order 
        issued to a department, agency, or instrumentality 
        under this section shall become final until such 
        department, agency, or instrumentality has had the 
        opportunity to confer with the Administrator.
  (e) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--Any 
violation with respect to which the Administrator has commenced 
and is diligently prosecuting an action under this subsection, 
or for which the Administrator has issued a final order and the 
violator has either paid a penalty or fine assessed under this 
subsection or is subject to an enforceable schedule of 
corrective actions, shall not be the subject of an action under 
section 505 of this Act. In any action under this subsection, 
any citizen may intervene as a matter of right.

                              clean lakes

    Sec. 314. (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (d) Demonstration Program.--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) Geographical requirements.--Demonstration 
        projects authorized by this subsection shall be 
        undertaken to reflect a variety of geographical and 
        environmental conditions. As a priority, the 
        Administrator shall undertake demonstration projects at 
        Lake Champlain, New York and Vermont; Lake Houston, 
        Texas; Beaver Lake, Arkansas; Greenwood Lake and 
        Belcher Creek, New Jersey; Deal Lake, New Jersey; 
        Alcyon Lake, New Jersey; Gorton's Pond, Rhode Island; 
        Lake Washington, Rhode Island; Lake Bomoseen, Vermont; 
        Sauk Lake, Minnesota; Paris Twin Lakes, Illinois; 
        Otsego Lake, New York; Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania; and 
        Lake Worth, Texas.
  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 per 
fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.
          * * * * * * *

                           thermal discharges

    Sec. 316. (a)  * * *
    (b) Standard for Cooling Water Intake Structures.--
          (1) In general.--Any standard established pursuant to 
        section 301 or section 306 of this Act and applicable 
        to a point source shall require that the location, 
        design, construction, and capacity of cooling water 
        intake structures reflect the best technology available 
        for minimizing adverse environmental impact.
          (2) New point source considerations.--In establishing 
        a standard referred to in paragraph (1) for cooling 
        water intake structures located at new point sources, 
        the Administrator shall consider, at a minimum, the 
        following:
                  (A) The relative technological, engineering, 
                and economic feasibility of possible 
                technologies or techniques for minimizing any 
                such adverse environmental impacts.
                  (B) The relative technological, engineering, 
                and economic feasibility of possible site 
                locations, intake structure designs, and 
                cooling water flow techniques.
                  (C) The relative environmental, social, and 
                economic costs and benefits of possible 
                technologies, techniques, site locations, 
                intake structure designs, and cooling water 
                flow techniques.
                  (D) The projected useful life of the new 
                point source.
          (3) Existing point sources.--For existing point 
        sources, the Administrator may require the use of best 
        technology available in the case of existing cooling 
        water intake structures if the Administrator determines 
        such structures are having or could have a significant 
        adverse impact on the aquatic environment. In 
        establishing a standard referred to in paragraph (1) 
        for such existing point sources, the Administrator 
        shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
                  (A) The relative technological, engineering, 
                and economic feasibility of reasonably 
                available retrofit technologies or techniques 
                for minimizing any such adverse environmental 
                impacts.
                  (B) Other mitigation measures for offsetting 
                the anticipated adverse environmental impacts 
                resulting from the withdrawal of cooling water.
                  (C) Relative environmental, social, and 
                economic costs and benefits of possible 
                retrofit technologies, techniques, and 
                mitigation measures.
                  (D) The projected remaining useful life of 
                the existing point source.
          (4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
        definitions apply:
                  (A) New point source.--The term ``new point 
                source'' means any point source the 
                construction of which will commence after the 
                publication of proposed regulations prescribing 
                a standard for intake structures that will be 
                applicable to such source if such standard is 
                promulgated in accordance with paragraph (2).
                  (B) Existing point source.--The term 
                ``existing point source'' means any point 
                source that is not a new point source.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

    (a) State Assessment Reports.--
          (1) Contents.--The Governor of each State shall, 
        after notice and opportunity for public comment, 
        prepare and submit to the Administrator for approval, a 
        report which--
                  (A) * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  (C) describes the process, including 
                intergovernmental coordination and public 
                participation, for identifying [best management 
                practices and] measures to control each 
                category and subcategory of nonpoint sources 
                and, where appropriate, particular nonpoint 
                sources identified under subparagraph (B) and 
                to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, 
                the level of pollution resulting from such 
                category, subcategory, or source; [and]
                  (D) identifies and describes State and local 
                programs for controlling pollution added from 
                nonpoint sources to, and improving the quality 
                of, each such portion of the navigable waters, 
                including but not limited to those programs 
                which are receiving Federal assistance under 
                subsections (h) and (i)[.] (including State 
                management programs approved under section 306 
                of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972); 
                and
                  (E) identifies critical areas, giving 
                consideration to the variety of natural, 
                commercial, recreational, ecological, 
                industrial, and aesthetic resources of 
                immediate and potential value to the present 
                and future of the Nation's waters in the 
                Coastal Zone.
          (2) Information used in preparation.--In developing, 
        reviewing, and revising the report required by this 
        [section] subsection, the State (A) may rely upon 
        information developed pursuant to sections 208, 303(e), 
        304(f), 305(b), and 314, any management program of the 
        State approved under section 306 of the Coastal Zone 
        Management Act of 1972, and other information as 
        appropriate, and (B) may utilize appropriate elements 
        of the waste treatment management plans developed 
        pursuant to sections 208(b) and 303, to the extent such 
        elements are consistent with and fulfill the 
        requirements of this section.
          (3) Review and revision.--Not later than 18 months 
        after the date of the enactment of the Clean Water 
        Amendments of 1995, and every 5 years thereafter, the 
        State shall review, revise, and submit to the 
        Administrator the report required by this subsection.
    (b) State Management Programs.--
          (1) In general.--The Governor of each State, for that 
        State or in combination with adjacent States, shall, 
        after notice and opportunity for public comment, 
        prepare and submit to the Administrator for approval a 
        management program which such State proposes to 
        implement in the first [four] 5 fiscal years beginning 
        after the date of submission of such management program 
        for controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources 
        to the navigable waters within the State and improving 
        the quality of such waters.
          (2) Specific contents.--Each management program 
        proposed for implementation under this subsection shall 
        include each of the following:
                  (A) An identification of the [best] 
                management practices and measures which will be 
                undertaken to reduce pollutant loadings 
                resulting from each category, subcategory, or 
                particular nonpoint source designated under 
                [paragraph (1)(B)] subsection (a)(1)(B), taking 
                into account the impact of the practice and 
                measure on ground water quality.
                  (B) An identification of programs (including, 
                as appropriate, [nonregulatory or regulatory 
                programs for enforcement,] one or more of the 
                following: voluntary programs, incentive-based 
                programs, regulatory programs, enforceable 
                policies and mechanisms, State management 
                programs approved under section 306 of the 
                Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, technical 
                assistance, financial assistance, education, 
                training, technology transfer, and 
                demonstration projects) to [achieve 
                implementation of the best management practices 
                by the categories, subcategories, and 
                particular nonpoint sources designated under 
                subparagraph (A)] manage categories, 
                subcategories, or particular nonpoint sources 
                to the degree necessary to provide for 
                reasonable further progress toward the goal of 
                attaining water quality standards within 15 
                years of approval of the State program for 
                those waters identified under subsection 
                (a)(1)(A).
                  [(C) A schedule containing annual milestones 
                for (i) utilization of the program 
                implementation methods identified in 
                subparagraph (B), and (ii) implementation of 
                the best management practices identified in 
                subparagraph (A) by the categories, 
                subcategories, or particular nonpoint sources 
                designated under paragraph (1)(B). Such 
                schedule shall provide for utilization of the 
                best management practices at the earliest 
                practicable date.]
                  (C) A schedule containing interim goals and 
                milestones for making reasonable progress 
                toward the attainment of standards, which may 
                be demonstrated by one or any combination of 
                the following: improvements in water quality 
                (including biological indicators), documented 
                implementation of voluntary nonpoint source 
                control practices and measures, and adoption of 
                enforceable policies and mechanisms.
                  (D) [A certification of] After the date of 
                the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 
                1995, a certification by the attorney general 
                of the State or States (or the chief attorney 
                of any State water pollution control agency 
                which has independent legal counsel) that the 
                laws of the State or States, as the case may 
                be, provide adequate authority to implement 
                such management program or, if there is not 
                such adequate authority, a list of such 
                additional authorities as will be necessary to 
                implement such management program. A schedule 
                and commitment by the State or States to seek 
                such additional authorities as expeditiously as 
                practicable.
          * * * * * * *
                  (G) A description of the monitoring or other 
                assessment which will be carried out under the 
                program for the purposes of monitoring and 
                assessing the effectiveness of the program, 
                including the attainment of interim goals and 
                milestones.
                  (H) An identification of activities on 
                Federal lands in the State that are 
                inconsistent with the State management program.
                  (I) An identification of goals and milestones 
                for progress in attaining water quality 
                standards, including a projected date for 
                attaining such standards as expeditiously as 
                practicable but not later than 15 years after 
                the date of approval of the State program for 
                each of the waters listed pursuant to 
                subsection (a).
                  (J) For coastal areas, the identification of, 
                and continuing process for identifying, land 
                uses which individually or cumulatively may 
                cause or contribute significantly to 
                degradation of--
                          (i) those coastal waters where there 
                        is a failure to attain or maintain 
                        applicable water quality standards or 
                        protected designated uses, as 
                        determined by the State pursuant to the 
                        State's water quality planning 
                        processes or watershed planning 
                        efforts; and
                          (ii) those coastal waters that are 
                        threatened by reasonably foreseeable 
                        increases in pollution loadings.
          (3) Utilization of local and private experts.--In 
        developing and implementing a management program under 
        this subsection, a State shall, to the maximum extent 
        practicable, involve local public and private agencies 
        and organizations which have expertise in control of 
        nonpoint sources of pollution, including academic 
        institutions, private industry experts, and other 
        individual experts in water resource conservation and 
        planning.
          * * * * * * *
          (5) Recognition of new technologies.--In developing 
        and implementing a management program under this 
        subsection, a State may recognize and utilize new 
        practices, technologies, processes, products, and other 
        alternatives.
          (6) Efficient and effective use of resources.--In 
        developing and implementing a management program under 
        this subsection, a State may recognize and provide for 
        a methodology which takes into account situations in 
        which management measures used to control one pollutant 
        have an adverse impact with respect to another 
        pollutant. The methodology should encourage the 
        balanced combination of measures which best address the 
        various impairments on the watershed or site.
          (7) Recognition of agricultural programs.--Any 
        agricultural producer who has voluntarily developed and 
        is implementing an approved whole farm or ranch natural 
        resources management plan shall be considered to be in 
        compliance with the requirements of a State program 
        developed under this section--
                  (A) if such plan has been developed under a 
                program subject to a memorandum of agreement 
                between the Chief of the Natural Resources 
                Conservation Service and the Governor, or their 
                respective designees; and
                  (B) if such memorandum of agreement 
                specifies--
                          (i) the scope and content of the 
                        Natural Resources Conservation Service 
                        program (not an individual farm or 
                        ranch plan) in the State or regions of 
                        the State;
                          (ii) the terms of approval, 
                        implementation, and duration of a 
                        voluntary farm or ranch plan for 
                        agricultural producers;
                          (iii) the responsibilities for 
                        assessing implementation of voluntary 
                        whole farm and ranch natural resource 
                        management plans; and
                          (iv) the duration of such memorandum 
                        of agreement.
        At a minimum, such memorandum of agreement shall be 
        reviewed and may be revised every 5 years, as part of 
        the State review of its management program under this 
        section.
    (c) Administrative Provisions.--
          (1) Cooperation requirement.--Any report required by 
        subsection (a) and any management program and report 
        required by subsection (b) shall be developed in 
        cooperation with local, substate regional, and 
        interstate entities which are actively planning for the 
        implementation of nonpoint source pollution controls 
        and have either been certified by the Administrator in 
        accordance with section 208, have worked jointly with 
        the State on water quality management planning under 
        section 205(j), or have been designated by the State 
        legislative body or Governor as water quality 
        management planning agencies or coastal zone management 
        agencies for their geographic areas.
          [(2) Time period for submission of reports and 
        management programs.--Each report and management 
        program shall be submitted to the Administrator during 
        the 18-month period beginning on the date of the 
        enactment of this section.]
          (2) Time period for submission of management 
        programs.--Each management program shall be submitted 
        to the Administrator within 30 months of the issuance 
        by the Administrator of the final guidance under 
        subsection (o) and every 5 years thereafter. Each 
        program submission after the initial submission 
        following the date of the enactment of the Clean Water 
        Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration of 
        reasonable further progress toward the goal of 
        attaining water quality standards within 15 years of 
        approval of the State program, including documentation 
        of the degree to which the State has achieved the 
        interim goals and milestones contained in the previous 
        program submission. Such demonstration shall take into 
        account the adequacy of Federal funding under this 
        section.
    (d) Approval or Disapproval of Reports and Management 
Programs.--
          (1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later 
        than 180 days after the date of submission to the 
        Administrator of any report or revised report or 
        management program under this section (other than 
        subsections (h), (i), and (k)), the Administrator shall 
        either approve or disapprove such report or management 
        program, as the case may be. The Administrator may 
        approve a portion of a management program under this 
        subsection. If the Administrator does not disapprove a 
        report, management program, or portion of a management 
        program in such 180-day period, such report, management 
        program, or portion shall be deemed approved for 
        purposes of this section.
          (2) Procedure for disapproval.--If, after notice and 
        opportunity for public comment and consultation with 
        appropriate Federal and State agencies and other 
        interested persons, the Administrator determines that--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) adequate authority does not exist, or 
                adequate resources are not available, to 
                implement such program or portion; except that 
                such program or portion shall not be 
                disapproved solely because the program or 
                portion does not include enforceable policies 
                or mechanisms;
                  (C) the schedule for implementing such 
                program or portion is not sufficiently 
                expeditious; or
                  (D) the practices and measures proposed in 
                such program or portion [are not adequate to 
                reduce the level of pollution in navigable 
                waters in the State resulting from nonpoint 
                sources and to improve the quality of navigable 
                waters in the State] will not result in 
                reasonable further progress toward the 
                attainment of applicable water quality 
                standards under section 303 as expeditiously as 
                possible but not later than 15 years after 
                approval of the State program;
        the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt 
        of the proposed program notify the State of any 
        revisions or modifications necessary to obtain 
        approval. The State shall thereupon have an additional 
        [3 months] 6 months to submit its revised management 
        program and the Administrator shall approve or 
        disapprove such revised program or portion thereof 
        within three months of receipt.
          (3) Failure of state to submit report.--If a Governor 
        of a State does not submit [the report] a report or 
        revised report required by subsection (a) within the 
        period specified by subsection (c)(2), the 
        Administrator shall, within [30 months] 18 months after 
        the date [of the enactment of this section] on which 
        such report is required to be submitted under 
        subsection (a), prepare a report for such State which 
        makes the identifications required by paragraphs (1)(A) 
        and (1)(B) of subsection (a). Upon completion of the 
        requirement of the preceding sentence and after notice 
        and opportunity for comment, the Administrator shall 
        report to Congress on his actions pursuant to this 
        section.
          (4) Failure of state to submit program.--
                  (A) Program management by the 
                administrator.--If a State fails to submit a 
                management program or revised management 
                program under subsection (b) or the 
                Administrator disapproves such management 
                program, the Administrator shall prepare and 
                implement a management program for controlling 
                pollution added from nonpoint sources to the 
                navigable waters within the State and improving 
                the quality of such waters in accordance with 
                subsection (b).
                  (B) Notice and hearing.--If the Administrator 
                intends to disapprove a program submitted by a 
                State, the Administrator shall first notify the 
                Governor of the State in writing of the 
                modifications necessary to meet the 
                requirements of this section. The Administrator 
                shall provide adequate public notice and an 
                opportunity for a public hearing for all 
                interested parties.
                  (C) State revision of its program.--If, after 
                taking into account the level of funding 
                actually provided as compared with the level 
                authorized under subsection (j), the 
                Administrator determines that a State has 
                failed to demonstrate reasonable further 
                progress toward the attainment of water quality 
                standards as required, the State shall revise 
                its program within 12 months of that 
                determination in a manner sufficient to achieve 
                attainment of applicable water quality 
                standards by the deadline established by this 
                Act. If a State fails to make such a program 
                revision or the Administrator disapproves such 
                a revision, the Administrator shall prepare and 
                implement a nonpoint source management program 
                for the State.
          * * * * * * *
    (f) Technical Assistance for State.--Upon request of a 
State, the Administrator may provide technical assistance to 
such State in developing and implementing a management program 
approved under subsection (b) for those portions of the 
navigable waters requested by such State.
          * * * * * * *
    (h) Grant Program.--
          (1) [Grants for implementation of management 
        programs.--] Grants for preparation and implementation 
        of reports and management programs.--Upon application 
        of a State [for which a report submitted under 
        subsection (a) and a management program submitted under 
        subsection (b) is approved under this section], [the 
        Administrator shall make grants] the Administrator may 
        make grants under this subsection, subject to such 
        terms and conditions as the Administrator considers 
        appropriate, [under this subsection to such State] to 
        such State for the purpose of assisting the State in 
        [implementing such management program] preparing a 
        report under subsection (a) and in preparing and 
        implementing a management program under subsection (b). 
        Grants for implementation of such management program 
        may be made only after such report and management 
        program are approved under this section. Funds reserved 
        pursuant to section 205(j)(5) of this Act may be used 
        to develop and implement such management program. The 
        Administrator is authorized to provide funds to a State 
        if necessary to implement an approved portion of a 
        State program or, with the approval of the Governor of 
        the State, to implement a component of a federally 
        established program. The Administrator may continue to 
        make grants to any State with an program approved on 
        the day before the date of the enactment of the Clean 
        Water Amendments of 1995 until the Administrator 
        withdraws the approval of such program or the State 
        fails to submit a revision of such program in 
        accordance with subsection (c)(2).
          * * * * * * *
          (3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
        each [management program implemented] report prepared 
        and management program prepared and implemented with 
        Federal assistance under this subsection in any fiscal 
        year shall not exceed [60] 75 percent of the cost 
        incurred by the State in [implementing such management 
        program] preparing such report and preparing and 
        implementing such management program and shall be made 
        on condition that the non-Federal share of program 
        implementation is provided from non-Federal sources.
          (4) Limitation on grant amounts.--The Administrator 
        shall establish, after consulting with the States, 
        maximum and minimum grants for any fiscal year to 
        promote equity between States and effective nonpoint 
        source management. Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of this subsection, not more than 15 percent of the 
        amount appropriated to carry out this subsection may be 
        used to make grants to any one State, including any 
        grants to any local public agency or organization with 
        authority to control pollution from nonpoint sources in 
        any area of such State. The minimum percentage of funds 
        allocated to each State shall be 0.5 percent of the 
        amount appropriated.
          [(5) Priority for effective mechanisms.--For each 
        fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1987, the 
        Administrator may give priority in making grants under 
        this subsection, and shall give consideration in 
        determining the Federal share of any such grant, to 
        States which have implemented or are proposing to 
        implement management programs which will--
                  [(A) control particularly difficult or 
                serious nonpoint source pollution problems, 
                including, but not limited to, problems 
                resulting from mining activities;
                  [(B) implement innovative methods or 
                practices for controlling nonpoint sources of 
                pollution, including regulatory programs where 
                the Administrator deems appropriate;
                  [(C) control interstate nonpoint source 
                pollution problems; or
                  [(D) carry out ground water quality 
                protection activities which the Administrator 
                determines are part of a comprehensive nonpoint 
                source pollution control program, including 
                research, planning, ground water assessments, 
                demonstration programs, enforcement, technical 
                assistance, education, and training to protect 
                ground water quality from nonpoint sources of 
                pollution.]
          (5) Allocation of grant funds.--Grants under this 
        section shall be allocated to States with approved 
        programs in a fair and equitable manner and be based 
        upon rules and regulations promulgated by the 
        Administrator which shall take into account the extent 
        and nature of the nonpoint sources of pollution in each 
        State and other relevant factors.
          * * * * * * *
          [(7) Limitation on use of funds.--States may use 
        funds from grants made pursuant to this section for 
        financial assistance to persons only to the extent that 
        such assistance is related to the costs of 
        demonstration projects.
          [(8) Satisfactory progress.--No grant may be made 
        under this subsection in any fiscal year to a State 
        which in the preceding fiscal year received a grant 
        under this subsection unless the Administrator 
        determines that such State made satisfactory progress 
        in such preceding fiscal year in meeting the schedule 
        specified by such State under subsection (b)(2).]
          (7) Use of funds.--A State may use grants made 
        available to the State pursuant to this section for 
        activities relating to nonpoint source water pollution 
        control, including--
                  (A) providing financial assistance with 
                respect to those activities whose principal 
                purpose is protecting and improving water 
                quality;
                  (B) assistance related to the cost of 
                preparing or implementing the State management 
                program;
                  (C) providing incentive grants to individuals 
                to implement a site-specific water quality plan 
                in amounts not to exceed 75 percent of the cost 
                of the project from all Federal sources;
                  (D) land acquisition or conservation 
                easements consistent with a site-specific water 
                quality plan; and
                  (E) restoring and maintaining the chemical, 
                physical, and biological integrity of urban and 
                rural waters and watersheds (including 
                restoration and maintenance of water quality, a 
                balanced indigenous population of shellfish, 
                fish, and wildlife, aquatic and riparian 
                vegetation, and recreational activities in and 
                on the water) and protecting designated uses, 
                including fishing, swimming, and drinking water 
                supply.
          (8) Compliance with state management program.--In any 
        fiscal year for which the Administrator determines that 
        a State has not made satisfactory progress in the 
        preceding fiscal year in meeting the schedule specified 
        for such State under subsection (b)(2)(C), the 
        Administrator is authorized to withhold grants pursuant 
        to this section in whole or in part to the State after 
        adequate written notice is provided to the Governor of 
        the State.
          * * * * * * *
          (13) Allotment study.--
                  (A) Study.--The Administrator, in 
                consultation with the States, shall conduct a 
                study of whether the allocation of funds under 
                paragraph (5) appropriately reflects the needs 
                and costs of nonpoint source control measures 
                for different nonpoint source categories and 
                subcategories and of options for better 
                reflecting such needs and costs in the 
                allotment of funds.
                  (B) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the 
                date of the enactment of the Clean Water 
                Amendments of 1995, the Administrator shall 
                transmit to Congress a report on the results of 
                the study conducted under this subsection, 
                together with recommendations.
      (i) Grants for Protecting Groundwater Quality.--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (3) Federal share; maximum amount.--The Federal share 
        of the cost of assisting a State in carrying out 
        groundwater protection activities in any fiscal year 
        under this subsection shall be 50 percent of the costs 
        incurred by the State in carrying out such activities, 
        except that the maximum amount of Federal assistance 
        which any State may receive under this subsection in 
        any fiscal year shall not exceed [$150,000] $500,000.
          * * * * * * *
    (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out subsections (h) and (i) not to 
exceed $70,000,000 for fiscal year 1988, $100,000,000 per 
fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1989 and 1990, [and] 
$130,000,000 for fiscal year 1991, such sums as may be 
necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995, $100,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1996, $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, 
$200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $250,000,000 for fiscal year 
1999, and $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; except that for 
each of such fiscal years not to exceed [$7,500,000] 
$25,000,000 may be made available to carry out subsection (i). 
Sums appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain 
available until expended.
    (k) Consistency of Other Programs and Projects With 
Management Programs.--The Administrator shall transmit to the 
Office of Management and Budget and the appropriate Federal 
departments and agencies a list of those assistance programs 
and development projects identified by each State under 
subsection (b)(2)(F) for which individual assistance 
applications and projects will be reviewed pursuant to the 
procedures set forth in Executive Order 12372 as in effect on 
September 17, 1983. Beginning not later than sixty days after 
receiving notification by the Administrator, each Federal 
department and agency shall modify existing regulations to 
[allow States to review] require coordination with States in 
individual development projects and assistance applications 
under the identified Federal assistance programs and shall 
accommodate, according to the requirements and definitions of 
Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17, 1983, the 
concerns of the State regarding the consistency of such 
applications or projects with the State nonpoint source 
pollution management program and the State watershed management 
program. Federal agencies that own or manage land, or issue 
licenses for activities that cause nonpoint source pollution 
from such land, shall coordinate their nonpoint source control 
measures with the State nonpoint source management program and 
the State watershed management program. A Federal agency and 
the Governor of an affected State shall enter into a memorandum 
of understanding to carry out the purposes of this paragraph. 
Such a memorandum of understanding shall not relieve the 
Federal agency of the agency's obligation to comply with its 
own mandates.
          * * * * * * *
    (m) Reports of Administrator.--
          (1) [Annual] Biennial reports.--Not later than 
        January 1, [1988, and each January 1] 1995, and 
        biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit 
        to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of 
        the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Environment and Public Works of the Senate, a report 
        for the preceding fiscal year on the activities and 
        programs implemented under this section and the 
        progress made in reducing pollution in the navigable 
        waters resulting from nonpoint sources and improving 
        the quality of such waters.
          (2) [Final report.--Not later than January 1, 1990, 
        the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a final 
        report on the activities carried out under this 
        section. Such report,] Contents.--Each report submitted 
        under paragraph (1), at a minimum, shall--
                  (A) describe the management programs being 
                implemented by the States by types and amount 
                of affected navigable waters, categories and 
                subcategories of nonpoint sources, and types of 
                [best management practices] measures being 
                implemented;
                  (B) describe the experiences of the States in 
                adhering to schedule and implementing [best 
                management practices] the measures provided by 
                States under subsection (b);
          * * * * * * *
    (n) Set Aside for Administrative Personnel.--Not [less] 
more than 5 percent of the funds appropriated pursuant to 
subsection (j) for any fiscal year shall be available to the 
Administrator to maintain personnel levels at the Environmental 
Protection Agency at levels which are adequate to carry out 
this section in such year.
  (o) Guidance on Model Management Practices and Measures.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall publish 
        guidance to identify model management practices and 
        measures which may be undertaken, at the discretion of 
        the State or appropriate entity, under a management 
        program established pursuant to this section.
          (2) Consultation; public notice and comment.--The 
        Administrator shall develop the model management 
        practices and measures under paragraph (1) in 
        consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration, other appropriate Federal and State 
        departments and agencies, and academic institutions, 
        private industry experts, and other individual experts 
        in water conservation and planning, and after providing 
        notice and opportunity for public comment.
          (3) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish 
        proposed guidance under this subsection not later than 
        6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
        subsection and shall publish final guidance under this 
        subsection not later than 18 months after such date of 
        enactment. The Administrator shall periodically review 
        and revise the final guidance at least once every 3 
        years after its publication.
          (4) Model management practices and measures 
        defined.--For the purposes of this subsection, the term 
        ``model management practices and measures'' means 
        economically achievable measures for the control of the 
        addition of pollutants from nonpoint sources of 
        pollution which reflect the greatest degree of 
        pollutant reduction achievable through the application 
        of the best available nonpoint pollution control 
        practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, 
        operating methods, or other alternatives. The 
        Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, and 
        sizes within any category of nonpoint sources.
  (p) Inadequate Funding.--For each fiscal year beginning after 
the date of the enactment of this subsection for which the 
total of amounts appropriated to carry out this section are 
less than the total of amounts authorized to be appropriated 
pursuant to subsection (j), the deadline for compliance with 
any requirement of this section, including any deadline 
relating to assessment reports or State program implementation 
or monitoring efforts, shall be postponed by 1 year, unless the 
Administrator and the State jointly certify that the amounts 
appropriated are sufficient to meet the requirements of this 
section.
  (q) Agricultural Inputs.--For the purposes of this Act, any 
land application of livestock manure shall not be considered a 
point source and shall be subject to enforcement only under 
this section.
  (r) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist States 
in addressing nonpoint sources of pollution where necessary to 
achieve the goals and requirements of this Act. It is 
recognized that State nonpoint source programs need to be built 
upon a foundation that voluntary initiatives represent the 
approach most likely to succeed in achieving the objectives of 
this Act.

SEC. 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

    (a) Management Conference.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Convening of conference.--
                  (A) * * *
                  [(B) Priority consideration.--The 
                Administrator shall give priority consideration 
                under this section to Long Island Sound, New 
                York and Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode 
                Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; 
                Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts (including 
                Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor); Puget Sound, 
                Washington; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New 
                York and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and 
                New Jersey; Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware; 
                Albermarle Sound, North Carolina; Sarasota Bay, 
                Florida; San Francisco Bay, California; Santa 
                Monica Bay, California; Galveston Bay, Texas; 
                Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, 
                Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon, Florida; and 
                Peconic Bay, New York.]
                  (B) Priority consideration.--The 
                Administrator shall give priority consideration 
                under this section to Long Island Sound, New 
                York and Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode 
                Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; 
                Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts (including 
                Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor); Puget Sound, 
                Washington; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New 
                York and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and 
                New Jersey; Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware; 
                Albemarle Sound, North Carolina; Sarasota Bay, 
                Florida; San Francisco Bay, California; Santa 
                Monica Bay, California; Galveston Bay, Texas; 
                Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, 
                Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon, Florida; 
                Charlotte Harbor, Florida; Barnegat Bay, New 
                Jersey; and Peconic Bay, New York.
          * * * * * * *
    (g) Grants.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Purposes.--Grants under this subsection shall be 
        made to pay for assisting research, surveys, studies, 
        and modeling and other technical work necessary for the 
        development and implementation monitoring of a 
        conservation and management plan under this section.
          * * * * * * *
    (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated to the Administrator not to exceed 
$12,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years [1987, 
1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991] 1987 through 1991, such sums as may 
be necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and 
$19,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 
through 2000 for--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 321. STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  (a) State Watershed Management Program.--
          (1) Submission of program to administrator.--A State, 
        at any time, may submit a watershed management program 
        to the Administrator for approval.
          (2) Approval.--If the Administrator does not 
        disapprove a State watershed management program within 
        180 days of its submittal or 240 days of a request for 
        a public hearing pursuant to paragraph (3) with respect 
        to the program, whichever is later, such program shall 
        be deemed approved for the purposes of this section. 
        The Administrator shall approve the program if the 
        program includes, at a minimum, the following elements:
                  (A) The identification of the State agency 
                with primary responsibility for overseeing and 
                approving watershed management plans in 
                general.
                  (B) The description of any responsible 
                entities (including any appropriate State 
                agency or substate agency) to be utilized in 
                implementing the program and a description of 
                their responsibilities.
                  (C) A description of the scope of the 
                program. In establishing the scope of the 
                program, the State may address one or more 
                watersheds, or pollutants, concurrently or 
                sequentially. The scope of the State program 
                may expand over time with respect to the 
                watersheds, pollutants, and factors to be 
                addressed under the program. In developing the 
                State program, the State shall take into 
                account all regional and local government 
                watershed management programs that are 
                consistent with the proposed State program and 
                shall consult with the regional and local 
                governments that developed such programs. The 
                State shall consider recommendations from units 
                of general purpose government, special purpose 
                districts, local water suppliers, and 
                appropriate water management agencies in the 
                development and scope of the program.
                  (D) Provisions for carrying out an analysis, 
                consistent with the established scope of the 
                program, of the problems within each watershed 
                covered under the program.
                  (E) An identification of watershed management 
                units for which management plans will be 
                developed, taking into consideration those 
                waters where water quality is threatened or 
                impaired or otherwise in need of special 
                protection. A watershed management unit 
                identified under the program may include waters 
                and associated land areas in more than 1 State 
                if the Governors of the States affected jointly 
                designate the watershed management unit and may 
                include waters and associated lands managed or 
                owned by the Federal Government.
                  (F) A description of the activities required 
                of responsible entities (as specified under 
                subsection (e)(1)) and a description of the 
                watershed plan approval process of the State.
                  (G) Documentation of the public participation 
                in development of the program and description 
                of the procedures that will be used for public 
                participation in the development and 
                implementation of watershed plans.
                  (H) The identification of goals that will be 
                pursued in each watershed, including attainment 
                of State water quality standards (including 
                site-specific water quality standards) and the 
                goals and objectives of this Act.
                  (I) An exclusion from the program of 
                federally approved activities with respect to 
                linear utility facilities, such as natural gas 
                pipelines if such facilities extend to multiple 
                watersheds and result in temporary or de 
                minimis impacts.
                  (J) A description of the process for 
                consideration of and achieving consistency with 
                the purposes of sections 319 and 322.
          (3) Disapproval process.--If the Administrator 
        intends to disapprove a program of a State submitted 
        under this subsection, the Administrator shall by a 
        written notification advise the State of the intent to 
        disapprove and the reasons for disapproval. If, within 
        30 days of receipt of such notice, a State so requests, 
        the Administrator shall conduct a public hearing in the 
        State on the intent to disapprove and the reasons for 
        such disapproval. A State may resubmit a revised 
        program that addresses the reasons contained in the 
        notification. If a State requests a public hearing, the 
        Administrator shall conduct the hearing in that State 
        and issue a final determination within 240 days of 
        receipt of the State watershed management program 
        submittal.
          (4) Modification of program.--Each State with a 
        watershed management program that has been approved by 
        the Administrator under this section may, at any time, 
        modify the watershed management program. Any such 
        modification shall be submitted to the Administrator 
        and shall remain in effect unless and until the 
        Administrator determines that the modified program no 
        longer meets the requirements of this section. In such 
        event, the provisions of paragraph (3) shall apply.
          (5) Status reports.--Each State with a watershed 
        management program that has been approved by the 
        Administrator pursuant to this subsection shall, not 
        later than 1 year after the date of approval, and 
        annually thereafter, submit to the Administrator an 
        annual watershed program summary status report that 
        includes descriptions of any modifications to the 
        program. The status report shall include a listing of 
        requests made for watershed plan development and a 
        listing of plans prepared and submitted by local or 
        regional entities and the actions taken by the State on 
        such plans including the reasons for those actions. In 
        consultation and coordination with the Administrator, a 
        State may use the report to satisfy, in full or in 
        part, any reporting requirements under sections 106, 
        303(d), 305(b), 314, 319, 320, 322, and 604(b).
  (b) Watershed Area in 2 or More States.--If a watershed 
management unit is designated to include land areas in more 
than 1 State, the Governors of States having jurisdiction over 
any lands within the watershed management unit shall jointly 
determine the responsible entity or entities.
  (c) Eligible Watershed Management and Planning Activities.--
          (1) In general.--In addition to activities eligible 
        to receive assistance under other sections of this Act 
        as of the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
        following watershed management activities conducted by 
        or on behalf of the States pursuant to a watershed 
        management program that is approved by the 
        Administrator under this section shall be considered to 
        be eligible to receive assistance under sections 106, 
        205(j), 319(h), 320, and 604(b):
                  (A) Characterizing the waters and land uses.
                  (B) Identifying and evaluating problems 
                within the watershed.
                  (C) Selecting short-term and long-term goals 
                for watershed management.
                  (D) Developing and implementing water quality 
                standards, including site-specific water 
                quality standards.
                  (E) Developing and implementing measures and 
                practices to meet identified goals.
                  (F) Identifying and coordinating projects and 
                activities necessary to restore or maintain 
                water quality or other related environmental 
                objectives within the watershed.
                  (G) Identifying the appropriate institutional 
                arrangements to carry out a watershed 
                management plan that has been approved or 
                adopted by the State under this section.
                  (H) Updating the plan.
                  (I) Conducting training and public 
                participation activities.
                  (J) Research to study benefits of existing 
                watershed program plans and particular aspects 
                of the plans.
                  (K) Implementing any other activity 
                considered appropriate by the Administrator or 
                the Governor of a State with an approved 
                program.
          (2) Factors to be considered.--In selecting watershed 
        management activities to receive assistance pursuant to 
        paragraph (1), the following factors shall be 
        considered:
                  (A) Whether or not the applicant has 
                demonstrated success in addressing water 
                quality problems with broadbased regional 
                support, including public and private sources.
                  (B) Whether the activity will promote 
                watershed problem prioritization.
                  (C) Whether or not the applicant can 
                demonstrate an ability to use Federal resources 
                to leverage non-Federal public and private 
                monetary and in-kind support from voluntary 
                contributions, including matching and cost 
                sharing incentives.
                  (D) Whether or not the applicant proposes to 
                use existing public and private programs to 
                facilitate water quality improvement with the 
                assistance to be provided pursuant to paragraph 
                (1).
                  (E) Whether or not such assistance will be 
                used to promote voluntary activities, including 
                private wetlands restoration, mitigation 
                banking, and pollution prevention to achieve 
                water quality standards.
                  (F) Whether or not such assistance will be 
                used to market mechanisms to enhance existing 
                programs.
  (d) Public Participation.--Each State shall establish 
procedures to encourage the public to participate in its 
program and in developing and implementing comprehensive 
watershed management plans under this section. A State 
watershed management program shall include a process for public 
involvement in watershed management, to the maximum extent 
practicable, including the formation and participation of 
public advisory groups during State watershed program 
development. States must provide adequate public notice and an 
opportunity to comment on the State watershed program prior to 
submittal of the program to the Administrator for approval.
  (e) Approved or State-Adopted Plans.--
          (1) Requirements.--A State with a watershed 
        management program that has been approved by the 
        Administrator under this section may approve or adopt a 
        watershed management plan if the plan satisfies the 
        following conditions:
                  (A) If the watershed includes waters that are 
                not meeting water quality standards at the time 
                of submission, the plan--
                          (i) identifies the objectives of the 
                        plan, including, at a minimum, State 
                        water quality standards (including 
                        site-specific water quality standards) 
                        and goals and objectives under this 
                        Act;
                          (ii) identifies pollutants, sources, 
                        activities, and any other factors 
                        causing the impairment of the waters;
                          (iii) identifies cost effective 
                        actions that are necessary to achieve 
                        the objectives of the plan, including 
                        reduction of pollutants to achieve any 
                        allocated load reductions consistent 
                        with the requirements of section 
                        303(d), and the priority for 
                        implementing the actions;
                          (iv) contains an implementation 
                        schedule with milestones and the 
                        identification of persons responsible 
                        for implementing the actions;
                          (v) demonstrates that water quality 
                        standards and other goals and 
                        objectives of this Act will be attained 
                        as expeditiously as practicable but not 
                        later than any applicable deadline 
                        under this Act;
                          (vi) contains documentation of the 
                        public participation in the development 
                        of the plan and a description of the 
                        public participation process that will 
                        be used during the plan implementation;
                          (vii) specifies a process to monitor 
                        and evaluate progress toward meeting of 
                        the goals of the plan; and
                          (viii) specifies a process to revise 
                        the plan as necessary.
                  (B) For waters in the watershed attaining 
                water quality standards at the time of 
                submission (including threatened waters), the 
                plan identifies the projects and activities 
                necessary to maintain water quality standards 
                and attain or maintain other goals after the 
                date of approval or adoption of the plan.
          (2) Terms of approved or adopted plan.--Each plan 
        that is approved or adopted by a State under this 
        subsection shall be effective for a period of not more 
        than 10 years and include a planning and implementation 
        schedule with milestones within that period. A revised 
        and updated plan may be approved or adopted by the 
        State prior to the expiration of the period specified 
        in the plan pursuant to the same conditions and 
        requirements that apply to an initial plan for a 
        watershed approved under this subsection.
  (f) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this section, the Administrator, after 
consultation with the States and other interested parties, 
shall issue guidance on provisions that States may consider for 
inclusion in watershed management programs and State-approved 
or State-adopted watershed management plans under this section.
  (g) Pollutant Transfer Opportunities.--
          (1) Pollutant transfer pilot projects.--Under an 
        approved watershed management program, any discharger 
        or source may apply to a State for approval to offset 
        the impact of its discharge or release of a pollutant 
        by entering into arrangements, including the payment of 
        funds, for the implementation of controls or measures 
        by another discharger or source through a pollution 
        reduction credits trading program established as part 
        of the watershed management plan. The State may approve 
        such a request if appropriate safeguards are included 
        to ensure compliance with technology based controls and 
        to protect the quality of receiving waters.
          (2) Incentive grants.--The Administrator shall 
        allocate sums made available by appropriations to carry 
        out pollution reduction credits trading programs in 
        selected watersheds throughout the country.
          (3) Report.--Not later than 36 months after the date 
        of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
        transmit to Congress a report on the results of the 
        program conducted under this subsection.

SEC. 322. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

  (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist States 
in the development and implementation of stormwater control 
programs in an expeditious and cost effective manner so as to 
enable the goals and requirements of this Act to be met in each 
State no later than 15 years after the date of approval of the 
stormwater management program of the State. It is recognized 
that State stormwater management programs need to be built on a 
foundation that voluntary pollution prevention initiatives 
represent an approach most likely to succeed in achieving the 
objectives of this Act.
  (b) State Assessment Reports.--
          (1) Contents.--After notice and opportunity for 
        public comment, the Governor of each State, consistent 
        with or as part of the assessment required by section 
        319, shall prepare and submit to the Administrator for 
        approval, a report which--
                  (A) identifies those navigable waters within 
                the State which, without additional action to 
                control pollution from stormwater discharges, 
                cannot reasonably be expected to attain or 
                maintain applicable water quality standards or 
                the goals and requirements of this Act;
                  (B) identifies those categories and 
                subcategories of stormwater discharges that add 
                significant pollution to each portion of the 
                navigable waters identified under subparagraph 
                (A) in amounts which contribute to such portion 
                not meeting such water quality standards or 
                such goals and requirements;
                  (C) describes the process, including 
                intergovernmental coordination and public 
                participation, for identifying measures to 
                control pollution from each category and 
                subcategory of stormwater discharges identified 
                in subparagraph (B) and to reduce, to the 
                maximum extent practicable, the level of 
                pollution resulting from such discharges; and
                  (D) identifies and describes State, local, 
                and as may be appropriate, industrial programs 
                for controlling pollution added from stormwater 
                discharges to, and improving the quality of, 
                each such portion of the navigable waters.
          (2) Information used in preparation.--In developing, 
        reviewing, and revising the report required by this 
        subsection, the State--
                  (A) may rely upon information developed 
                pursuant to sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 
                305(b), 314, 319, 320, and 321 and subsection 
                (h) of this section, information developed from 
                the group stormwater permit application process 
                in effect under section 402(p) of this Act on 
                the day before the date of the enactment of 
                this Act, and such other information as the 
                State determines is appropriate; and
                  (B) may utilize appropriate elements of the 
                waste treatment management plans developed 
                pursuant to sections 208(b) and 303, to the 
                extent such elements are consistent with and 
                fulfill the requirements of this section.
          (3) Review and revision.--Not later than 18 months 
        after the date of the enactment of the Clean Water 
        Amendments of 1995, and every 5 years thereafter, the 
        State shall review, revise, and submit to the 
        Administrator the report required by this subsection.
  (c) State Management Programs.--
          (1) In general.--In substantial consultation with 
        local governments and after notice and opportunity for 
        public comment, the Governor of each State for the 
        State or in combination with the Governors of adjacent 
        States shall prepare and submit to the Administrator 
        for approval a stormwater management program based on 
        available information which the State proposes to 
        implement in the first 5 fiscal years beginning after 
        the date of submission of such management program for 
        controlling pollution added from stormwater discharges 
        to the navigable waters within the boundaries of the 
        State and improving the quality of such waters.
          (2) Specific contents.--Each management program 
        proposed for implementation under this subsection shall 
        include the following:
                  (A) Identification of model management 
                practices and measures.--Identification of the 
                model management practices and measures which 
                will be undertaken to reduce pollutant loadings 
                resulting from each category or subcategory of 
                stormwater discharges designated under 
                subsection (b)(1)(B), taking into account the 
                impact of the practice and measure on ground 
                water quality.
                  (B) Identification of programs and 
                resources.--Identification of programs and 
                resources necessary (including, as appropriate, 
                nonregulatory programs or regulatory programs, 
                enforceable policies and mechanisms, technical 
                assistance, financial assistance, education, 
                training, technology transfer, and 
                demonstration projects) to manage categories or 
                subcategories of stormwater discharges to the 
                degree necessary to provide for reasonable 
                further progress toward the goal of attainment 
                of water quality standards which contain the 
                stormwater criteria established under 
                subsection (i) for designated uses of receiving 
                waters identified under subsection (b)(1)(A) 
                taking into consideration specific watershed 
                conditions, by not later than the last day of 
                the 15-year period beginning on the date of 
                approval of the State program.
                  (C) Program for industrial, commercial, oil, 
                gas, and mining discharges.--A program for 
                categories or subcategories of industrial, 
                commercial, oil, gas, and mining stormwater 
                discharges identified under subsection 
                (b)(1)(B) for the implementation of management 
                practices, measures, and programs identified 
                under subparagraphs (A) and (B). The program 
                shall include each of the following:
                          (i) Voluntary activities.--Voluntary 
                        stormwater pollution prevention 
                        activities for categories and 
                        subcategories of such stormwater 
                        discharges that are not contaminated by 
                        contact with material handling 
                        equipment or activities, heavy 
                        industrial machinery, raw materials, 
                        intermediate products, finished 
                        products, byproducts, or waste products 
                        at the site of the industrial, 
                        commercial, oil, gas, or mining 
                        activity. Such discharges may have 
                        incidental contact with buildings or 
                        motor vehicles.
                          (ii) Enforceable plans.--Enforceable 
                        stormwater pollution prevention plans 
                        meeting the requirements of subsection 
                        (d) for those categories and 
                        subcategories of such stormwater 
                        discharges that are not described in 
                        clause (i).
                          (iii) General permits.--General 
                        permits for categories and 
                        subcategories of such stormwater 
                        discharges if the State finds, based on 
                        available information and after 
                        providing notice and an opportunity for 
                        comment, that reasonable further 
                        progress toward achieving water quality 
                        standards in receiving waters 
                        identified by the State by the date 
                        referred to in subparagraph (B) cannot 
                        be made despite implementation of 
                        voluntary activities under clause (i) 
                        or prevention plans under clause (ii) 
                        due to the presence of a pollutant or 
                        pollutants identified by the State. A 
                        facility in a category or subcategory 
                        identified by the State shall not be 
                        subject to a general permit under this 
                        clause if the facility demonstrates 
                        that stormwater discharges from the 
                        facility are not contributing to a 
                        violation of a water quality standard 
                        established for designated uses of the 
                        receiving waters and are not 
                        significantly contributing the 
                        pollutant or pollutants identified by 
                        the State with respect to the receiving 
                        waters under this clause.
                          (iv) Site-specific permits.--Site-
                        specific permits for categories or 
                        subcategories of such stormwater 
                        discharges or individual facilities in 
                        such categories or subcategories if the 
                        State finds, based on available 
                        information and after providing notice 
                        and an opportunity for comment, that 
                        reasonable further progress toward 
                        achieving water quality standards in 
                        receiving waters identified by the 
                        State by the date referred to in 
                        subparagraph (B) cannot be made despite 
                        implementation of voluntary activities 
                        under clause (i) or prevention plans 
                        under clause (ii) and general permits 
                        under clause (iii) due to the presence 
                        of a pollutant or pollutants identified 
                        by the State. A facility in a category 
                        or subcategory identified by the State 
                        shall not be subject to a site-specific 
                        permit under this clause if the 
                        facility demonstrates that stormwater 
                        discharges from the facility are not 
                        contributing to a violation of a water 
                        quality standard established for 
                        designated uses of the receiving waters 
                        and are not significantly contributing 
                        the pollutant or pollutants identified 
                        by the State with respect to the 
                        receiving waters under this clause.
                          (v) Exemption of small businesses.--
                        An exemption for small businesses 
                        identified under subsection (b)(1)(B) 
                        from clause (iii), relating to general 
                        permits, and clause (iv), relating to 
                        site-specific permits, unless the State 
                        finds that, without the imposition of 
                        such permits, such discharges will have 
                        a significant adverse effect on water 
                        quality.
                  (D) Program for municipal discharges.--A 
                program for municipal stormwater discharges 
                identified under subsection (b)(1)(B) to reduce 
                pollutant loadings from categories and 
                subcategories of municipal stormwater 
                discharges.
                  (E) Program for construction activities.--A 
                program for categories and subcategories of 
                stormwater discharges from construction 
                activities identified under subsection 
                (b)(1)(B) for implementation of management 
                practices, measures, and programs identified 
                under subparagraphs (A) and (B). In developing 
                the program, the State shall consider current 
                State and local requirements, focus on 
                pollution prevention through the use of model 
                management practices and measures, and take 
                into account the land area disturbed by the 
                construction activities. The State may require 
                effluent limits or other numerical standards to 
                control pollutants in stormwater discharges 
                from construction activities only if the State 
                finds, after providing notice and an 
                opportunity for comment, that such standards 
                are necessary to achieve water quality 
                standards by the date referred to in 
                subparagraph (B).
                  (F) Bad actor provisions.--Provisions for 
                taking any actions deemed necessary by the 
                State to meet the goals and requirements of 
                this section with respect to dischargers which 
                the State identifies, after notice and 
                opportunity for hearing--
                          (i) as having a history of stormwater 
                        noncompliance under this Act, State 
                        law, or the regulations issued 
                        thereunder or the terms and conditions 
                        of permits, orders, or administrative 
                        actions issued pursuant thereto; or
                          (ii) as posing an imminent threat to 
                        human health and the environment.
                  (G) Schedule.--A schedule containing interim 
                goals and milestones for making reasonable 
                progress toward the attainment of standards as 
                set forth in subparagraph (B) established for 
                the designated uses of receiving waters, taking 
                into account specific watershed conditions, 
                which may be demonstrated by one or any 
                combination of improvements in water quality 
                (including biological indicators), documented 
                implementation of voluntary stormwater 
                discharge control measures, or adoption of 
                enforceable stormwater discharge control 
                measures.
                  (H) Certification of adequate authority.--
                          (i) In general.--A certification by 
                        the Attorney General of the State or 
                        States (or the chief attorney of any 
                        State water pollution control agency 
                        that has authority under State law to 
                        make such certification) that the laws 
                        of the State or States, as the case may 
                        be, provide adequate authority to 
                        implement such management program or, 
                        if there is not such adequate 
                        authority, a list of such additional 
                        authorities as will be necessary to 
                        implement such management program.
                          (ii) Commitment.--A schedule for 
                        seeking, and a commitment by the State 
                        or States to seek, such additional 
                        authorities as expeditiously as 
                        practicable.
                  (I) Identification of federal financial 
                assistance programs.--An identification of 
                Federal financial assistance programs and 
                Federal development projects for which the 
                State will review individual assistance 
                applications or development projects for their 
                effect on water quality pursuant to the 
                procedures set forth in Executive Order 12372 
                as in effect on September 17, 1983, to 
                determine whether such assistance applications 
                or development projects would be consistent 
                with the program prepared under this 
                subsection; for the purposes of this 
                subparagraph, identification shall not be 
                limited to the assistance programs or 
                development projects subject to Executive Order 
                12372 but may include any programs listed in 
                the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
                Assistance which may have an effect on the 
                purposes and objectives of the State's 
                stormwater management program.
                  (J) Monitoring.--A description of the 
                monitoring of navigable waters or other 
                assessment which will be carried out under the 
                program for the purposes of monitoring and 
                assessing the effectiveness of the program, 
                including the attainment of interim goals and 
                milestones.
                  (K) Identification of certain inconsistent 
                federal activities.--An identification of 
                activities on Federal lands in the State that 
                are inconsistent with the State management 
                program.
                  (L) Identification of goals and milestones.--
                An identification of goals and milestones for 
                progress in attaining water quality standards, 
                including a projected date for attaining such 
                standards as expeditiously as practicable but 
                not later than 15 years after the date of 
                approval of the State program for each of the 
                waters listed pursuant to subsection (b).
          (3) Utilization of local and private experts.--In 
        developing and implementing a management program under 
        this subsection, a State shall, to the maximum extent 
        practicable, involve local public and private agencies 
        and organizations which have expertise in stormwater 
        management.
          (4) Development on watershed basis.--A State shall, 
        to the maximum extent practicable, develop and 
        implement a stormwater management program under this 
        subsection on a watershed-by-watershed basis within 
        such State.
          (5) Regulations defining small businesses.--The 
        Administrator shall propose, not later than 6 months 
        after the date of the enactment of this section, and 
        issue, not later than 1 year after the date of such 
        enactment, regulations to define small businesses for 
        purposes of this section.
  (d) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans.--
          (1) Implementation deadline.--Each stormwater 
        pollution prevention plan required under subsection 
        (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall be implemented not later than 180 
        days after the date of its development and shall be 
        annually updated.
          (2) Plan contents.--Each stormwater pollution 
        prevention plan required under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) 
        shall include the following components:
                  (A) Establishment and appointment of a 
                stormwater pollution prevention team.
                  (B) Description of potential pollutant 
                sources.
                  (C) An annual site inspection evaluation.
                  (D) An annual visual stormwater discharge 
                inspection.
                  (E) Measures and controls for reducing 
                stormwater pollution, including, at a minimum, 
                model management practices and measures that 
                are flexible, technologically feasible, and 
                economically practicable. For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term ``model management 
                practices and measures'' means preventive 
                maintenance, good housekeeping, spill 
                prevention and response, employee training, and 
                sediment and erosion control.
                  (F) Prevention of illegal discharges of 
                nonstormwater through stormwater outfalls.
          (3) Certification.--Each facility subject to 
        subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall certify to the State 
        that it has implemented a stormwater pollution 
        prevention plan or a State or local equivalent and that 
        the plan is intended to reduce possible pollutants in 
        the facility's stormwater discharges. The certification 
        must be signed by a responsible officer of the facility 
        and must be affixed to the plan subject to review by 
        the appropriate State program authority. If a facility 
        makes such a certification, such facility shall not be 
        subject to permit or permit application requirements, 
        mandatory model management practices and measures, 
        analytical monitoring, effluent limitations or other 
        numerical standards or guidelines under subsection 
        (c)(2)(C)(ii).
          (4) Plan adequacy.--The State stormwater management 
        program shall set forth the basis upon which the 
        adequacy of a plan prepared by a facility subject to 
        subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) will be determined. In making 
        such determination, the State shall consider benefits 
        to the environment, physical requirements, 
        technological feasibility and economic costs, human 
        health or safety, and nature of the activity at the 
        facility or site.
  (e) Administrative Provisions.--
          (1) Cooperation requirement.--Any report required by 
        subsection (b) and any management program and report 
        required by subsection (c) shall be developed in 
        cooperation with local, substate, regional, and 
        interstate entities which are responsible for 
        implementing stormwater management programs.
          (2) Time period for submission of management 
        programs.--Each management program shall be submitted 
        to the Administrator within 30 months of the issuance 
        by the Administrator of the final guidance under 
        subsection (l) and every 5 years thereafter. Each 
        program submission after the initial submission 
        following the date of the enactment of the Clean Water 
        Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration of 
        reasonable further progress toward the goal of 
        attaining water quality standards as set forth in 
        subsection (c)(2) established for designated uses of 
        receiving waters taking into account specific watershed 
        conditions by not later than the date referred to in 
        subsection (b)(2)(B), including a documentation of the 
        degree to which the State has achieved the interim 
        goals and milestones contained in the previous program 
        submission. Such demonstration shall take into account 
        the adequacy of Federal funding under this section.
          (3) Transition.--
                  (A) In general.--Permits, including group and 
                general permits, issued pursuant to section 
                402(p), as in effect on the day before the date 
                of the enactment of this section, shall remain 
                in effect until the effective date of a State 
                stormwater management program under this 
                section. Stormwater dischargers shall continue 
                to implement any stormwater management 
                practices and measures required under such 
                permits until such practices and measures are 
                modified pursuant to this subparagraph or 
                pursuant to a State stormwater management 
                program. Prior to the effective date of a State 
                stormwater management program, stormwater 
                dischargers may submit for approval proposed 
                revised stormwater management practices and 
                measures to the State, in the case of a State 
                with an approved program under section 402, or 
                the Administrator. Upon notice of approval by 
                the State or the Administrator, the stormwater 
                discharger shall implement the revised 
                stormwater management practices and measures 
                which, for discharges subject to subsection 
                (c)(2)(C)(i), (c)(2)(D), (c)(2)(E), or 
                (c)(2)(F), may be voluntary pollution 
                prevention activities. A stormwater discharger 
                operating under a permit continued in effect 
                under this subparagraph shall not be subject to 
                citizens suits under section 505.
                  (B) New facilities.--A new nonmunicipal 
                source of stormwater discharge subject to a 
                group or general permit continued in effect 
                under subparagraph (A) shall notify the State 
                or the Administrator, as appropriate, of the 
                source's intent to be covered by and shall 
                continue to comply with such permit. Until the 
                effective date of a State stormwater management 
                program under this section, the State may 
                impose enforceable stormwater management 
                measures and practices on a new nonmunicipal 
                source of stormwater discharge not subject to 
                such a permit if the State finds that the 
                stormwater discharge is likely to pose an 
                imminent threat to human health and the 
                environment or to pose significant impairment 
                of water quality standards.
                  (C) Special rule.--Industrial facilities 
                included in a Part 1 group stormwater permit 
                application approved by the Administrator 
                pursuant to section 122.26(c)(2) of title 40, 
                Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on 
                the date of the enactment of this section, may, 
                in lieu of continued operation under existing 
                permits, certify to the State or the 
                Administrator, as appropriate, that such 
                facilities are implementing a stormwater 
                pollution prevention plan consistent with 
                subsection (d). Upon such certification, the 
                facility will no longer be subject to such 
                permit.
                  (D) Pre-1987 permits.--Notwithstanding the 
                repeal of section 402(p) by the Clean Water 
                Amendments Act of 1995 or any other amendment 
                made to section 402 on or before the date of 
                the enactment of such Act, a discharge with 
                respect to which a permit has been issued under 
                section 402 before February 4, 1987, shall not 
                be subject to the provisions of this section.
                  (E) Antibacksliding.--Section 402(o) shall 
                not apply to any activity carried out in 
                accordance with this paragraph.
  (f) Approval or Disapproval of Reports or Management 
Programs.--
          (1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later 
        than 180 days after the date of submission to the 
        Administrator of any report or revised report or 
        management program under this section, the 
        Administrator shall either approve or disapprove such 
        report or management program, as the case may be. The 
        Administrator may approve a portion of a management 
        program under this subsection. If the Administrator 
        does not disapprove a report, management program, or 
        portion of a management program in such 180-day period, 
        such report, management program, or portion shall be 
        deemed approved for purposes of this section.
          (2) Procedure for disapproval.--If, after notice and 
        opportunity for public comment and consultation with 
        appropriate Federal and State agencies and other 
        interested persons, the Administrator determines that--
                  (A) the proposed management program or any 
                portion thereof does not meet the requirements 
                of subsection (b) of this section or is not 
                likely to satisfy, in whole or in part, the 
                goals and requirements of this Act;
                  (B) adequate authority does not exist, or 
                adequate resources are not available, to 
                implement such program or portion; or
                  (C) the practices and measures proposed in 
                such program or portion will not result in 
                reasonable progress toward the goal of 
                attainment of applicable water quality 
                standards as set forth in subsection (c)(2) 
                established for designated uses of receiving 
                waters taking into consideration specific 
                watershed conditions as expeditiously as 
                possible but not later than 15 years after 
                approval of a State stormwater management 
                program under this section;
        the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt 
        of the proposed program notify the State of any 
        revisions or modifications necessary to obtain 
        approval. The State shall have an additional 6 months 
        to submit its revised management program, and the 
        Administrator shall approve or disapprove such revised 
        program within 3 months of receipt.
          (3) Failure of state to submit report.--If a Governor 
        of a State does not submit a report or revised report 
        required by subsection (b) within the period specified 
        by subsection (e)(2), the Administrator shall, within 
        18 months after the date on which such report is 
        required to be submitted under subsection (b), prepare 
        a report for such State which makes the identifications 
        required by paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) of subsection 
        (b). Upon completion of the requirement of the 
        preceding sentence and after notice and opportunity for 
        a comment, the Administrator shall report to Congress 
        of the actions of the Administrator under this section.
          (4) Failure of state to submit management program.--
                  (A) Program management by administrator.--
                Subject to paragraph (5), if a State fails to 
                submit a management program or revised 
                management program under subsection (c) or the 
                Administrator does not approve such management 
                program, the Administrator shall prepare and 
                implement a management program for controlling 
                pollution added from stormwater discharges to 
                the navigable waters within the State and 
                improving the quality of such waters in 
                accordance with subsection (c).
                  (B) Notice and hearing.--If the Administrator 
                intends to disapprove a program submitted by a 
                State the Administrator shall first notify the 
                Governor of the State, in writing, of the 
                modifications necessary to meet the 
                requirements of this section. The Administrator 
                shall provide adequate public notice and an 
                opportunity for a public hearing for all 
                interested parties.
                  (C) State revision of its program.--If, after 
                taking into account the level of funding 
                actually provided as compared with the level 
                authorized, the Administrator determines that a 
                State has failed to demonstrate reasonable 
                further progress toward the attainment of water 
                quality standards as required, the State shall 
                revise its program within 12 months of that 
                determination in a manner sufficient to achieve 
                attainment of applicable water quality 
                standards by the deadline established by this 
                section. If a State fails to make such a 
                program revision or the Administrator does not 
                approve such a revision, the Administrator 
                shall prepare and implement a stormwater 
                management program for the State.
          (5) Local Management Programs; Technical 
        Assistance.--If a State fails to submit a management 
        program under subsection (c) or the Administrator does 
        not approve such a management program, a local public 
        agency or organization which has expertise in, and 
        authority to, control water pollution resulting from 
        nonpoint sources in any area of such State which the 
        Administrator determines is of sufficient geographic 
        size may, with approval of such State, request the 
        Administrator to provide, and the Administrator shall 
        provide, technical assistance to such agency or 
        organization in developing for such area a management 
        program which is described in subsection (c) and can be 
        approved pursuant to this subsection. After development 
        of such management program, such agency or organization 
        shall submit such management program to the 
        Administrator for approval.
  (g) Interstate Management Conference.--
          (1) Convening of conference; notification; purpose.--
                  (A) Convening of conference.--If any portion 
                of the navigable waters in any State which is 
                implementing a management program approved 
                under this section is not meeting applicable 
                water quality standards or the goals and 
                requirements of this Act as a result, in whole 
                or in part, of pollution from stormwater in 
                another State, such State may petition the 
                Administrator to convene, and the Administrator 
                shall convene, a management conference of all 
                States which contribute significant pollution 
                resulting from stormwater to such portion.
                  (B) Notification.--If, on the basis of 
                information available, the Administrator 
                determines that a State is not meeting 
                applicable water quality standards or the goals 
                and requirements of this Act as a result, in 
                whole or in part, of significant pollution from 
                stormwater in another State, the Administrator 
                shall notify such States.
                  (C) Time limit.--The Administrator may 
                convene a management conference under this 
                paragraph not later than 180 days after giving 
                such notification under subparagraph (B), 
                whether or not the State which is not meeting 
                such standards requests such conference.
                  (D) Purpose.--The purpose of the conference 
                shall be to develop an agreement among the 
                States to reduce the level of pollution 
                resulting from stormwater in the portion of the 
                navigable waters and to improve the water 
                quality of such portion.
                  (E) Protection of water rights.--Nothing in 
                the agreement shall supersede or abrogate 
                rights to quantities of water which have been 
                established by interstate water compacts, 
                Supreme Court decrees, or State water laws.
                  (F) Limitations.--This subsection shall not 
                apply to any pollution which is subject to the 
                Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. The 
                requirement that the Administrator convene a 
                management conference shall not be subject to 
                the provisions of section 505 of this Act.
          (2) State management program requirement.--To the 
        extent that the States reach agreement through such 
        conference, the management programs of the States which 
        are parties to such agreements and which contribute 
        significant pollution to the navigable waters or 
        portions thereof not meeting applicable water quality 
        standards or goals and requirements of this Act will be 
        revised to reflect such agreement. Such management 
        programs shall be consistent with Federal and State 
        law.
  (h) Grants for Stormwater Research.--
          (1) In general.--To determine the most cost-effective 
        and technologically feasible means of improving the 
        quality of the navigable waters and to develop the 
        criteria required pursuant to subsection (i) of this 
        Act, the Administrator shall establish an initiative 
        through which the Administrator shall fund State and 
        local demonstration programs and research to--
                  (A) identify adverse impacts of stormwater 
                discharges on receiving waters;
                  (B) identify the pollutants in stormwater 
                which cause impact; and
                  (C) test innovative approaches to address the 
                impacts of source controls and model management 
                practices and measures for runoff from 
                municipal storm sewers.
        Persons conducting demonstration programs and research 
        funded under this subsection shall also take into 
        account the physical nature of episodic stormwater 
        flows, the varying pollutants in stormwater, the actual 
        risk the flows pose to the designated beneficial uses, 
        and the ability of natural ecosystems to accept 
        temporary stormwater events.
          (2) Award of funds.--The Administrator shall award 
        the demonstration and research program funds taking 
        into account regional and population variations.
          (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
        subsection $20,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years 
        1996 through 2000. Such sums shall remain available 
        until expended.
          (4) Inadequate funding.--For each fiscal year 
        beginning after the date of the enactment of this 
        subsection for which the total amounts appropriated to 
        carry out this subsection are less than the total 
        amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this 
        subsection, any deadlines established under subsection 
        (c)(2)(L) for compliance with water quality standards 
        shall be postponed by 1 year.
  (i) Development of Stormwater Criteria.--
          (1) In general.--To reflect the episodic character of 
        stormwater which results in significant variances in 
        the volume, hydraulics, hydrology, and pollutant load 
        associated with stormwater discharges, the 
        Administrator shall establish, as an element of the 
        water quality standards established for the designated 
        uses of the navigable waters, stormwater criteria which 
        protect the navigable waters from impairment of the 
        designated beneficial uses caused by stormwater 
        discharges. The criteria shall be technologically and 
        financially feasible and may include performance 
        standards, guidelines, guidance, and model management 
        practices and measures and treatment requirements, as 
        appropriate, and as identified in subsection (h)(1).
          (2) Information to be used in development.--The 
        stormwater discharge criteria to be established under 
        this subsection--
                  (A) shall be developed from--
                          (i) the findings and conclusions of 
                        the demonstration programs and research 
                        conducted under subsection (h);
                          (ii) the findings and conclusions of 
                        the research and monitoring activities 
                        of stormwater dischargers performed in 
                        compliance with permit requirements of 
                        this Act; and
                          (iii) other relevant information, 
                        including information submitted to the 
                        Administrator under the industrial 
                        group permit application process in 
                        effect under section 402 of this Act on 
                        the day before the date of the 
                        enactment of this section;
                  (B) shall be developed in consultation with 
                persons with expertise in the management of 
                stormwater (including officials of State and 
                local government, industrial and commercial 
                stormwater dischargers, and public interest 
                groups); and
                  (C) shall be established as an element of the 
                water quality standards that are developed and 
                implemented under this Act by not later than 
                December 31, 2008.
  (j) Collection of Information.--The Administrator shall 
collect and make available, through publications and other 
appropriate means, information pertaining to model management 
practices and measures and implementation methods, including, 
but not limited to--
          (1) information concerning the costs and relative 
        efficiencies of model management practices and measures 
        for reducing pollution from stormwater discharges; and
          (2) available data concerning the relationship 
        between water quality and implementation of various 
        management practices to control pollution from 
        stormwater discharges.
  (k) Reports of Administrator.--
          (1) Biennial reports.--Not later than January 1, 
        1996, and biennially thereafter, the Administrator 
        shall transmit to the Committee on Transportation and 
        Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
        Senate, a report for the preceding fiscal year on the 
        activities and programs implemented under this section 
        and the progress made in reducing pollution in the 
        navigable waters resulting from stormwater discharges 
        and improving the quality of such waters.
          (2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph 
        (1), at a minimum shall--
                  (A) describe the management programs being 
                implemented by the States by types of affected 
                navigable waters, categories and subcategories 
                of stormwater discharges, and types of measures 
                being implemented;
                  (B) describe the experiences of the States in 
                adhering to schedules and implementing the 
                measures under subsection (c);
                  (C) describe the amount and purpose of grants 
                awarded pursuant to subsection (h);
                  (D) identify, to the extent that information 
                is available, the progress made in reducing 
                pollutant loads and improving water quality in 
                the navigable waters;
                  (E) indicate what further actions need to be 
                taken to attain and maintain in those navigable 
                waters (i) applicable water quality standards, 
                and (ii) the goals and requirements of this 
                Act;
                  (F) include recommendations of the 
                Administrator concerning future programs 
                (including enforcement programs) for 
                controlling pollution from stormwater; and
                  (G) identify the activities and programs of 
                departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of 
                the United States that are inconsistent with 
                the stormwater management programs implemented 
                by the States under this section and 
                recommended modifications so that such 
                activities and programs are consistent with and 
                assist the States in implementation of such 
                management programs.
  (l) Guidance on Model Stormwater Management Practices and 
Measures.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation 
        with appropriate Federal, State, and local departments 
        and agencies, and after providing notice and 
        opportunity for public comment, shall publish guidance 
        to identify model management practices and measures 
        which may be undertaken, at the discretion of the State 
        or appropriate entity, under a management program 
        established pursuant to this section. In preparing such 
        guidance, the Administrator shall consider integration 
        of a stormwater management program of a State with, and 
        the relationship of such program to, the nonpoint 
        source management program of the State under section 
        319.
          (2) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish 
        proposed guidance under this subsection not later than 
        6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
        subsection and shall publish final guidance under this 
        subsection not later than 18 months after such date of 
        enactment. The Administrator shall periodically review 
        and revise the final guidance upon adequate notice and 
        opportunity for public comment at least once every 3 
        years after its publication.
          (3) Model management practices and measures 
        defined.--For the purposes of this subsection, the term 
        ``model management practices and measures'' means 
        economically achievable measures for the control of 
        pollutants from stormwater discharges which reflect the 
        most cost-effective degree of pollutant reduction 
        achievable through the application of the best 
        available practices, technologies, processes, siting 
        criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives.
  (m) Enforcement With Respect to Stormwater Dischargers 
Violating State Management Programs.--Stormwater dischargers 
that do not comply with State management program requirements 
under subsection (c) are subject to applicable enforcement 
actions under sections 309 and 505 of this Act.
  (n) Entry and Inspection.--In order to carry out the 
objectives of this section, an authorized representative of a 
State, upon presentation of his or her credentials, shall have 
a right of entry to, upon, or through any property at which a 
stormwater discharge or records required to be maintained under 
the State stormwater management program are located.
  (o) Limitation on Discharges Regulated Under Watershed 
Management Program.--Stormwater discharges regulated under 
section 321 in a manner consistent with this section shall not 
be subject to this section.
  (p) Mineral Exploration and Mining Sites.--
          (1) Exploration sites.--For purposes of subsection 
        (c)(2)(F), stormwater discharges from construction 
        activities shall include stormwater discharges from 
        mineral exploration activities; except that, for 
        exploration at abandoned mined lands, the stormwater 
        program under subsection (c)(2)(F) shall be limited to 
        the control of pollutants added to stormwater by 
        contact with areas disturbed by the exploration 
        activity.
          (2) Mining sites.--Stormwater discharges at ore 
        mining and dressing sites shall be subject to this 
        section. If any such discharge is commingled with mine 
        drainage or process wastewater from mining operations, 
        such discharge shall be treated as a discharge from a 
        point source for purposes of this Act.
          (3) Abandoned mined lands.--Stormwater discharges 
        from abandoned mined lands shall be subject to section 
        319; except that if the State, after notice and an 
        opportunity for comment, finds that regulation of such 
        stormwater discharges under this section is necessary 
        to make reasonable further progress toward achieving 
        water quality standards by the date referred to in 
        subsection (c)(2)(B), such discharges shall be subject 
        to this section.
          (4) Surface mining control and reclamation act 
        sites.--Notwithstanding paragraph (3), stormwater 
        discharges from abandoned mined lands site which are 
        subject to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
        Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201-1328) shall be subject to 
        section 319.
          (5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, 
        the following definitions apply:
                  (A) Abandoned mined lands.--The term 
                ``abandoned mined lands'' means lands which 
                were used for mineral activities and abandoned 
                or left in an inadequate reclamation status and 
                for which there is no continuing reclamation 
                responsibility under State or Federal laws.
                  (B) Process waste water.--The term ``process 
                waste water'' means any water other than 
                stormwater which comes into contact with any 
                raw material, intermediate product, finished 
                product, byproduct, or waste product as part of 
                any mineral beneficiation processes employed at 
                the site.
                  (C) Mine drainage.--The term ``mine 
                drainage'' means any water drained, pumped, or 
                siphoned from underground mine workings or mine 
                pits, but such term shall not include 
                stormwater runoff from tailings dams, dikes, 
                overburden, waste rock piles, haul roads, 
                access roads, and ancillary facility areas.

SEC. 323. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

  (a) General Rule.--The Administrator or the Secretary of the 
Army (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
``Secretary''), as appropriate, shall develop and publish a 
risk assessment before issuing--
          (1) any standard, effluent limitation, water quality 
        criterion, water quality based requirement, or other 
        regulatory requirement under this Act (other than a 
        permit or a purely procedural requirement); or
          (2) any guidance under this Act which, if issued as a 
        regulatory requirement, would result in an annual 
        increase in cost of $25,000,000 or more.
  (b) Contents of Risk Assessments.--A risk assessment 
developed under subsection (a), at a minimum, shall--
          (1) identify and use all relevant and readily 
        obtainable data and information of sufficient quality, 
        including data and information submitted to the Agency 
        in a timely fashion;
          (2) identify and discuss significant assumptions, 
        inferences, or models used in the risk assessment;
          (3) measure the sensitivity of the results to the 
        significant assumptions, inferences, or models that the 
        risk assessment relies upon;
          (4) with respect to significant assumptions, 
        inferences, or models that the results are sensitive 
        to, identify and discuss--
                  (A) credible alternatives and the basis for 
                the rejection of such alternatives;
                  (B) the scientific or policy basis for the 
                selection of such assumptions, inferences, or 
                models; and
                  (C) the extent to which any such assumptions, 
                inferences, or models have been validated or 
                conflict with empirical data;
          (5) to the maximum extent practical, provide a 
        description of the risk, including, at minimum, best 
        estimates or other unbiased representation of the most 
        plausible level of risk and a description of the 
        specific populations or natural resources subject to 
        the assessment;
          (6) to the maximum extent practical, provide a 
        quantitative estimate of the uncertainty inherent in 
        the risk assessment; and
          (7) compare the nature and extent of the risk 
        identified in the risk assessment to other risks to 
        human health and the environment.
  (c) Risk Assessment Guidance.--Not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this section, and after providing 
notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator, 
in consultation with the Secretary, shall issue, and thereafter 
revise, as appropriate, guidance for conducting risk 
assessments under subsection (a).
  (d) Margin of Safety.--When establishing a margin of safety 
for use in developing a regulatory requirement described in 
subsection (a)(1) or guidance described in subsection (a)(2), 
the Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate, shall 
provide, as part of the risk assessment under subsection (a), 
an explicit and, to the extent practical, quantitative 
description of the margin of safety relative to an unbiased 
estimate of the risk being addressed.
  (e) Discretionary Exemptions.--The Administrator or the 
Secretary, as appropriate, may exempt from the requirements of 
this section any risk assessment prepared in support of a 
regulatory requirement described in subsection (a)(1) which is 
likely to result in annual increase in cost of less than 
$25,000,000. Such exemptions may be made for specific risk 
assessments or classes of risk assessments.
  (f) General Rule on Applicability.--The requirements of this 
section shall apply to any regulatory requirement described in 
subsection (a)(1) or guidance described in subsection (a)(2) 
that is issued after the last day of the 1-year period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this section.
  (g) Significant Regulatory Actions and Guidance.--
          (1) Applicability of requirements.--In addition to 
        the regulatory requirements and guidance referred to in 
        subsection (f), the requirements of this section shall 
        apply to--
                  (A) any standard, effluent limitation, water 
                quality criterion, water quality based 
                requirement, or other regulatory requirement 
                issued under this Act during the period 
                described in paragraph (2) which is likely to 
                result in an annual increase in cost of 
                $100,000,000 or more; and
                  (B) any guidance issued under this Act during 
                the period described in paragraph (2) which, if 
                issued as a regulatory requirement, would be 
                likely to result in annual increase in cost of 
                $100,000,000 or more.
          (2) Covered period.--The period described in this 
        paragraph is the period beginning on February 15, 1995, 
        and ending on the last day of the 1-year period 
        beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
          (3) Review.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
        paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph 
        (1)(B) which was issued before the date of the 
        enactment of this section shall be reviewed and, with 
        respect to each such requirement or guidance, the 
        Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate, shall 
        based on such review--
                  (A) certify that the requirement or guidance 
                meets the requirements of this section without 
                revision; or
                  (B) reissue the requirement or guidance, 
                after providing notice and opportunity for 
                public comment, with such revisions as may be 
                necessary for compliance with the requirements 
                of this section.
          (4) Deadline.--Any regulatory requirement described 
        in paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph 
        (1)(B) for which the Administrator or the Secretary, as 
        appropriate, does not issue a certification or 
        revisions under paragraph (3) on or before the last day 
        of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the 
        enactment of this section shall cease to be effective 
        after such last day until the date on which such 
        certification or revisions are issued.

SEC. 324. BENEFIT AND COST CRITERION.

  (a) Decision Criterion.--
          (1) Certification.--The Administrator or the 
        Secretary of the Army (hereinafter in this section 
        referred to as the ``Secretary''), as appropriate, 
        shall not issue--
                  (A) any standard, effluent limitation, or 
                other regulatory requirement under this Act; or
                  (B) any guidance under this Act which, if 
                issued as a regulatory requirement, would 
                result in an annual increase in cost of 
                $25,000,000 or more,
        unless the Administrator or the Secretary certifies 
        that the requirement or guidance maximizes net benefits 
        to society. Such certification shall be based on an 
        analysis meeting the requirements of subsection (b).
          (2) Effect of criterion.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of this Act, the decision criterion of 
        paragraph (1) shall supplement and, to the extent there 
        is a conflict, supersede the decision criteria 
        otherwise applicable under this Act; except that the 
        resulting regulatory requirement or guidance shall be 
        economically achievable.
          (3) Substantial evidence.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of this Act, no regulation or guidance 
        subject to this subsection shall be issued by the 
        Administrator or the Secretary unless the requirement 
        of paragraph (1) is met and the certification is 
        supported by substantial evidence.
  (b) Benefit and Cost Analysis Guidance.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the 
        date of the enactment of this section, and after 
        providing notice and opportunity for public comment, 
        the Administrator, in concurrence with the 
        Administrator of the Office of Information and 
        Regulatory Affairs, shall issue, and thereafter revise, 
        as appropriate, guidance for conducting benefit and 
        cost analyses in support of making certifications 
        required by subsection (a).
          (2) Contents.--Guidance issued under paragraph (1), 
        at a minimum, shall--
                  (A) require the identification of available 
                policy alternatives, including the alternative 
                of not regulating and any alternatives proposed 
                during periods for public comment;
                  (B) provide methods for estimating the 
                incremental benefits and costs associated with 
                plausible alternatives, including the use of 
                quantitative and qualitative measures;
                  (C) require an estimate of the nature and 
                extent of the incremental risk avoided by the 
                standard, effluent limitation, or other 
                regulatory requirement, including a statement 
                that places in context the nature and magnitude 
                of the estimated risk reduction; and
                  (D) require an estimate of the total social, 
                environmental, and economic costs of 
                implementing the standard, effluent limitation, 
                or other regulatory requirement.
  (c) Exemptions.--The following shall not be subject to the 
requirements of this section:
          (1) The issuance of a permit.
          (2) The implementation of any purely procedural 
        requirement.
          (3) Water quality criteria established under section 
        304.
          (4) Water quality based standards established under 
        section 303.
  (d) Discretionary Exemptions.--The Administrator or the 
Secretary, as appropriate, may exempt from this section any 
regulatory requirement that is likely to result in an annual 
increase in costs of less than $25,000,000. Such exemptions may 
be made for specific regulatory requirements or classes of 
regulatory requirements.
  (e) General Rule on Applicability.--The requirements of this 
section shall apply to any regulatory requirement described in 
subsection (a)(1)(A) or guidance described in subsection 
(a)(1)(B) that is issued after the last day of the 1-year 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this section.
  (f) Significant Regulatory Actions and Guidance.--
          (1) Applicability of requirements.--In addition to 
        the regulatory requirements and guidance referred to in 
        subsection (e), this section shall apply to--
                  (A) any standard, effluent limitation, or 
                other regulatory requirement issued under this 
                Act during the period described in paragraph 
                (2) which is likely to result in an annual 
                increase in cost of $100,000,000 or more; and
                  (B) any guidance issued under this Act during 
                the period described in paragraph (2) which, if 
                issued as a regulatory requirement, would be 
                likely to result in annual increase in cost of 
                $100,000,000 or more.
          (2) Covered period.--The period described in this 
        paragraph is the period beginning on February 15, 1995, 
        and ending on the last day of the 1-year period 
        beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
          (3) Review.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
        paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph 
        (1)(B) which was issued before the date of the 
        enactment of this section shall be reviewed and, with 
        respect to each such requirement or guidance, the 
        Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate, shall 
        based on such review--
                  (A) certify that the requirement or guidance 
                meets the requirements of this section without 
                revision; or
                  (B) reissue the requirement or guidance, 
                after providing notice and opportunity for 
                public comment, with such revisions as may be 
                necessary for compliance with the requirements 
                of this section.
          (4) Deadline.--Any regulatory requirement described 
        in paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph 
        (1)(B) for which the Administrator or the Secretary, as 
        appropriate, does not issue a certification or 
        revisions under paragraph (3) on or before the last day 
        of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the 
        enactment of this section shall cease to be effective 
        after such last day until the date on which such 
        certification or revisions are issued.
  (g) Study.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the 
enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation 
with the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, shall publish an analysis regarding the 
precision and accuracy of benefit and cost estimates prepared 
under this section. Such study, at a minimum, shall--
          (1) compare estimates of the benefits and costs 
        prepared under this section to actual costs and 
        benefits achieved after implementation of regulations 
        or other requirements;
          (2) examine and assess alternative analytic methods 
        for conducting benefit and cost analysis, including 
        health-health analysis; and
          (3) make recommendations for the improvement of 
        benefit and cost analyses conducted under this section.

                     TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES

          * * * * * * *

            national pollutant discharge elimination system

    Sec. 402. (a)(1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (6) Concentrated animal feeding operations.--For 
        purposes of this section, waste treatment systems, 
        including retention ponds or lagoons, used to meet the 
        requirements of this Act for concentrated animal 
        feeding operations, are not waters of the United 
        States. An existing concentrated animal feeding 
        operation that uses a natural topographic impoundment 
        or structure on the effective date of this Act, which 
        is not hydrologically connected to any other waters of 
        the United States, as a waste treatment system or 
        wastewater retention facility may continue to use that 
        natural topographic feature for waste storage 
        regardless of its size, capacity, or previous use.
    (b) At any time after the promulgation of the guidelines 
required by subsection (h)(2) of section 304 of this Act, the 
Governor of each State desiring to administer its own permit 
program for discharges into navigable waters within its 
jurisdiction may submit to the Administrator a full and 
complete discription of the program it proposes to establish 
and administer under State law or under an interstate compact. 
In addition, such State shall submit a statement from the 
attorney general (or the attorney for those State water 
pollution control agencies which have independent legal 
counsel), or from the chief legal officer in the case of an 
interstate agency, that the laws of such State, or the 
interstate compact, as the case may be, provide adequate 
authority to carry out the described program. The Administrator 
shall approve each such submitted program unless he determines 
that adequate authority does not exist:
    (1) To issue permits which--
          (A) apply, and insure compliance with, any applicable 
        requirements of sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403; 
        except that in no event shall a discharge limit in a 
        permit under this section be set at a level below the 
        lowest level that the pollutant can be reliably 
        quantified on an interlaboratory basis for a particular 
        test method, as determined by the Administrator using 
        approved analytical methods under section 304(h);
          (B) are for fixed terms not exceeding [five] 10 
        years; [and]
          * * * * * * *
          (D) control the disposal of pollutants into wells; 
        and
          (E) can be modified as necessary to address a 
        significant threat to human health and the environment;
          * * * * * * *
    (c)(1) Upon approval of a State program under this section, 
the Administrator shall review administration of the program by 
the State once every 3 years. Not later than ninety days after 
the date on which a State has submitted a program (or revision 
thereof) pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the 
Administrator shall suspend the issuance of permits under 
subsection (a) of this section as to those discharges subject 
to such program unless he determines that the State permit 
program does not meet the requirements of subsection (b) of 
this section or does not conform to the guidelines issued under 
section 304(i)(2) of this Act. If the Administrator so 
determines, he shall notify the State or any revisons or 
modifications necessary to conform to such requirements or 
guidelines.
          * * * * * * *
    (d)(1) * * *
    (2) No permit shall issue (A) if the Administrator within 
ninety days of the date of his notification under subsection 
(b)(5) of this section objects in writing to the issuance of 
such permit, or (B) if the Administrator within ninety days of 
the date of transmittal of the proposed permit by the State 
objects in writing to the issuance of such permit [as being 
outside the guidelines and requirements of this Act] as 
presenting a substantial risk to human health and the 
environment. Whenever the Administrator objects to the issuance 
of a permit under this paragraph such written objection shall 
contain a statement of the reasons for such objection [and the 
effluent limitations and conditions which such permit would 
include if it were issued by the Administrator].
          * * * * * * *
    (h) In the event any condition of a permit for discharges 
from a treatment works (as defined in section 212 of this Act) 
which is publicly owned is violated, a State with a program 
approved under subsection (b) of this section or the 
Administrator, where no State program is approved or where the 
discharge involves a significant source of pollutants to the 
waters of the United States and the Administrator determines 
pursuant to section 309(a) of this Act that a State with an 
approved program has not commenced appropriate enforcement 
action with respect to such permit, may proceed in a court of 
competent jurisdiction to restrict or prohibit the introduction 
of any pollutant into such treatment works by a source not 
utilizing such treatment works prior to the finding that such 
condition was violated.
          * * * * * * *
    (k) Compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this 
section shall be deemed compliance, for purposes of sections 
309 and 505, with sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403, except 
any standard imposed under section 307 for a toxic pollutant 
injurious to human health. In any enforcement action or citizen 
suit under section 309 or 505 of this Act or applicable State 
law alleging noncompliance with a technology-based effluent 
limitation established pursuant to section 301, a permittee 
shall be deemed in compliance with the technology-based 
effluent limitation if the permittee demonstrates through 
reference to information contained in the applicable rulemaking 
record that the number of excursions from the technology-based 
effluent limitation are no greater, on an annual basis, than 
the number of excursions expected from the technology on which 
the limit is based and that the discharges do not violate an 
applicable water-quality based limitation or standard. Until 
December 31, 1974, in any case where a permit for discharge has 
been applied for pursuant to this section, but final 
administrative disposition of such application has not been 
made, such discharge shall not be a violation of (1) section 
301, 306, or 402 of this Act, or (2) section 13 of the Act of 
March 3, 1899, unless the Administrator or other plaintiff 
proves that final administrative disposition of such 
application has not been made because of the failure of the 
applicant to furnish information reasonably required or 
requested in order to process the application. For the 180-day 
period beginning on the date of enactment of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, in the case of any 
point source discharging any pollutant or combination of 
pollutants immediately prior to such date of enactment which 
source is not subject to section 13 of the Act of March 3, 
1899, the discharge by such source shall not be a violation of 
this Act if such a source applies for a permit for discharge 
pursuant to this section within such 180-day period.
    [(l) Limitation on Permit Requirement.--
          [(1) Agricultural return flows.--The Administrator 
        shall not require a permit under this section for 
        discharges composed entirely of return flows from 
        irrigated agriculture, nor shall the Administrator 
        directly or indirectly, require any State to require 
        such a permit.
          [(2) Stormwater runoff from oil, gas, and mining 
        operations.--The Administrator shall not require a 
        permit under this section, nor shall the Administrator 
        directly or indirectly require any State to require a 
        permit, for discharges of stormwater runoff from mining 
        operations or oil and gas exploration, production, 
        processing, or treatment operations or transmission 
        facilities, composed entirely of flows which are from 
        conveyances or systems of conveyances (including but 
        not limited to pipes, conduits, ditches, and channels) 
        used for collecting and conveying precipitation runoff 
        and which are not contaminated by contact with, or do 
        not come into contact with, any overburden, raw 
        material, intermediate products, finished product, 
        byproduct, or waste products located on the site of 
        such operations.]
  (l) Intake Credits.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of 
        this Act, in any effluent limitation or other 
        limitation imposed under the permit program established 
        by the Administrator under this section, any State 
        permit program approved under this section (including 
        any program for implementation under section 
        118(c)(2)), any standards established under section 
        307(a), or any program for industrial users established 
        under section 307(b), the Administrator, as applicable, 
        shall or the State, as applicable, may provide credits 
        for pollutants present in or caused by intake water 
        such that an owner or operator of a point source is not 
        required to remove, reduce, or treat the amount of any 
        pollutant in an effluent below the amount of such 
        pollutant that is present in or caused by the intake 
        water for such facility--
                  (A)(i) if the source of the intake water and 
                the receiving waters into which the effluent is 
                ultimately discharged are the same;
                  (ii) if the source of the intake water meets 
                the maximum contaminant levels or treatment 
                techniques for drinking water contaminants 
                established pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water 
                Act for the pollutant of concern; or
                  (iii) if, at the time the limitation or 
                standard is established, the level of the 
                pollutant in the intake water is the same as or 
                lower than the amount of the pollutant in the 
                receiving waters, taking into account 
                analytical variability; and
                  (B) if, for conventional pollutants, the 
                constituents of the conventional pollutants in 
                the intake water are the same as the 
                constituents of the conventional pollutants in 
                the effluent.
          (2) Allowance for incidental amounts.--In determining 
        whether the condition set forth in paragraph (1)(A)(i) 
        is being met, the Administrator shall or the State may, 
        as appropriate, make allowance for incidental amounts 
        of intake water from sources other than the receiving 
        waters.
          (3) Credit for nonqualifying pollutants.--The 
        Administrator shall or a State may provide point 
        sources an appropriate credit for pollutants found in 
        intake water that does not meet the requirement of 
        paragraph (1).
          (4) Monitoring.--Nothing in this section precludes 
        the Administrator or a State from requiring monitoring 
        of intake water, effluent, or receiving waters to 
        assist in the implementation of this section.
          * * * * * * *
    (o) Anti-Backsliding.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Exceptions.--A permit with respect to which 
        paragraph (1) applies may be renewed, reissued, or 
        modified to contain a less stringent effluent 
        limitation applicable to a pollutant if--
                  (A) * * *
          * * * * * * *
                  (D) the permittee has received a permit 
                modification under section 301(c), 301(g), 
                301(h), 301(i), 301(k), 301(n), 301(q), 301(r), 
                or 316(a); [or]
                  (E) the permittee has installed the treatment 
                facilities required to meet the effluent 
                limitations in the previous permit and has 
                properly operated and maintained the facilities 
                but has nevertheless been unable to achieve the 
                previous effluent limitations, in which case 
                the limitations in the reviewed, reissued, or 
                modified permit may reflect the level of 
                pollutant control actually achieved (but shall 
                not be less stringent than required by effluent 
                guidelines in effect at the time of permit 
                renewal, reissuance, or modification)[.]; or
                  (F) the permittee is taking pollution 
                prevention or water conservation measures that 
                produce a net environmental benefit, including, 
                but not limited to, measures that result in the 
                substitution of one pollutant for another 
                pollutant; increase the concentration of a 
                pollutant while decreasing the discharge flow; 
                or increase the discharge of a pollutant or 
                pollutants from one or more outfalls at a 
                permittee's facility, when accompanied by 
                offsetting decreases in the discharge of a 
                pollutant or pollutants from other outfalls at 
                the permittee's facility.
        Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any revised waste 
        load allocations or any alternative grounds for 
        translating water quality standards into effluent 
        limitations, except where the cumulative effect of such 
        revised allocations results in a decrease in the amount 
        of pollutants discharged into the concerned waters, and 
        such revised allocations are not the result of a 
        discharger eliminating or substantially reducing its 
        discharge of pollutants due to complying with the 
        requirements of this Act or for reasons otherwise 
        unrelated to water quality.
          (4) Nonapplicability to publicly owned treatment 
        works.--The requirements of this subsection shall not 
        apply to permitted discharges from a publicly owned 
        treatment works if the treatment works demonstrates to 
        the satisfaction of the Administrator that--
                  (A) the increase in pollutants is a result of 
                conditions beyond the control of the treatment 
                works (such as fluctuations in normal source 
                water availabilities due to sustained drought 
                conditions); and
                  (B) effluent quality does not result in 
                impairment of water quality standards 
                established for the receiving waters.
    [(p) Municipal and Industrial Stormwater Discharges.--
          [(1) General rule.--Prior to October 1, 1994, the 
        Administrator or the State (in the case of a permit 
        program approved under section 402 of this Act) shall 
        not require a permit under this section for discharges 
        composed entirely of stormwater.
          [(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with 
        respect to the following stormwater discharges:
                  [(A) A discharge with respect to which a 
                permit has been issued under this section 
                before the date of the enactment of this 
                subsection.
                  [(B) A discharge associated with industrial 
                activity.
                  [(C) A discharge from a municipal separate 
                storm sewer system serving a population of 
                250,000 or more.
                  [(D) A discharge from a municipal separate 
                storm sewer system serving a population of 
                100,000 or more but less than 250,000.
                  [(E) A discharge for which the Administrator 
                or the State, as the case may be, determines 
                that the stormwater discharge contributes to a 
                violation of a water quality standard or is a 
                significant contributor of pollutants to waters 
                of the United States.
          [(3) Permit requirements.--
                  [(A) Industrial discharges.--Permits for 
                discharges associated with industrial activity 
                shall meet all applicable provisions of this 
                section and section 301.
                  [(B) Municipal discharge.--Permits for 
                discharges from municipal storm sewers--
                          [(i) may be issued on a system- or 
                        jurisdiction-wide basis;
                          [(ii) shall include a requirement to 
                        effectively prohibit non-stormwater 
                        discharges into the storm sewers; and
                          [(iii) shall require controls to 
                        reduce the discharge of pollutants to 
                        the maximum extent practicable, 
                        including management practices, control 
                        techniques and system, design and 
                        engineering methods, and such other 
                        provisions as the Administrator or the 
                        State determines appropriate for the 
                        control of such pollutants.
          [(4) Permit application requirements.--
                  [(A) Industrial and large municipal 
                discharges.--Not later than 2 years after the 
                date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
                Administrator shall establish regulations 
                setting forth the permit application 
                requirements for stormwater discharges 
                described in paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C). 
                Applications for permits for such discharges 
                shall be filed no later than 3 years after such 
                date of enactment. Not later than 4 years after 
                such date of enactment the Administrator or the 
                State, as the case may be, shall issue or deny 
                each such permit. Any such permit shall provide 
                for compliance as expeditiously as practicable, 
                but in no event later than 3 years after the 
                date of issuance of such permit.
                  [(B) Other municipal discharges.--Not later 
                than 4 years after the date of the enactment of 
                this subsection, the Administrator shall 
                establish regulations setting forth the permit 
                application requirements for stormwater 
                discharges described in paragraph (2)(D). 
                Applications for permits for such discharges 
                shall be filed no later than 5 years after such 
                date of enactment. Not later than 6 years after 
                such date of enactment, the Administrator or 
                the State, as the case may be, shall issue or 
                deny each such permit. Any such permit shall 
                provide for compliance as expeditiously as 
                practicable, but in no event later than 3 years 
                after the date of issuance of such permit.
          [(5) Studies.--The Administrator, in consultation 
        with the States, shall conduct a study for the purposes 
        of--
                  [(A) identifying those stormwater discharges 
                or classes of stormwater discharges for which 
                permits are not required pursuant to paragraphs 
                (1) and (2) of this subsection;
                  [(B) determining, to the maximum extent 
                practicable, the nature and extent of 
                pollutants in such discharges; and
                  [(C) establishing procedures and methods to 
                control stormwater discharges to the extent 
                necessary to mitigate impacts on water quality.
        Not later than October 1, 1988, the Administrator shall 
        submit to Congress a report on the results of the study 
        described in subparagraphs (A) and (B). Not later than 
        October 1, 1989, the Administrator shall submit to 
        Congress a report on the results of the study described 
        in subparagraph (C).
          [(6) Regulations.--Not later than October 1, 1993, 
        the Administrator, in consultation with State and local 
        officials, shall issue regulations (based on the 
        results of the studies conducted under paragraph (5)) 
        which designate stormwater discharges, other than those 
        discharges described in paragraph (2), to be regulated 
        to protect water quality and shall establish a 
        comprehensive program to regulate such designated 
        sources. The program shall, at a minimum, (A) establish 
        priorities, (B) establish requirements for State 
        stormwater management programs, and (C) establish 
        expeditious deadlines. The program may include 
        performance standards, guidelines, guidance, and 
        management practices and treatment requirements, as 
        appropriate.]
  (p) Permits for Remediating Party on Abandoned or Inactive 
Mined Lands.--
          (1) Applicability.--Subject to this subsection, 
        including the requirements of paragraph (3), the 
        Administrator, with the concurrence of the concerned 
        State or Indian tribe, may issue a permit to a 
        remediating party under this section for discharges 
        associated with remediation activity at abandoned or 
        inactive mined lands which modifies any otherwise 
        applicable requirement of sections 301(b), 302, and 
        403, or any subsection of this section (other than this 
        subsection).
          (2) Application for a permit.--A remediating party 
        who desires to conduct remediation activities on 
        abandoned or inactive mined lands from which there is 
        or may be a discharge of pollutants to waters of the 
        United States or from which there could be a 
        significant addition of pollutants from nonpoint 
        sources may submit an application to the Administrator. 
        The application shall consist of a remediation plan and 
        any other information requested by the Administrator to 
        clarify the plan and activities.
          (3) Remediation Plan.--The remediation plan shall 
        include (as appropriate and applicable) the following:
                  (A) Identification of the remediating party, 
                including any persons cooperating with the 
                concerned State or Indian tribe with respect to 
                the plan, and a certification that the 
                applicant is a remediating party under this 
                section.
                  (B) Identification of the abandoned or 
                inactive mined lands addressed by the plan.
                  (C) Identification of the waters of the 
                United States impacted by the abandoned or 
                inactive mined lands.
                  (D) A description of the physical conditions 
                at the abandoned or inactive mined lands that 
                are causing adverse water quality impacts.
                  (E) A description of practices, including 
                system design and construction plans and 
                operation and maintenance plans, proposed to 
                reduce, control, mitigate, or eliminate the 
                adverse water quality impacts and a schedule 
                for implementing such practices and, if it is 
                an existing remediation project, a description 
                of practices proposed to improve the project, 
                if any.
                  (F) An analysis demonstrating that the 
                identified practices are expected to result in 
                a water quality improvement for the identified 
                waters.
                  (G) A description of monitoring or other 
                assessment to be undertaken to evaluate the 
                success of the practices during and after 
                implementation, including an assessment of 
                baseline conditions.
                  (H) A schedule for periodic reporting on 
                progress in implementation of major elements of 
                the plan.
                  (I) A budget and identified funding to 
                support the activities described in the plan.
                  (J) Remediation goals and objectives.
                  (K) Contingency plans.
                  (L) A description of the applicant's legal 
                right to enter and conduct activities.
                  (M) The signature of the applicant.
                  (N) Identification of the pollutant or 
                pollutants to be addressed by the plan.
          (4) Permits.--
                  (A) Contents.--Permits issued by the 
                Administrator pursuant to this subsection 
                shall--
                          (i) provide for compliance with and 
                        implementation of a remediation plan 
                        which, following issuance of the 
                        permit, may be modified by the 
                        applicant after providing notification 
                        to and opportunity for review by the 
                        Administrator;
                          (ii) require that any modification of 
                        the plan be reflected in a modified 
                        permit;
                          (iii) require that if, at any time 
                        after notice to the remediating party 
                        and opportunity for comment by the 
                        remediating party, the Administrator 
                        determines that the remediating party 
                        is not implementing the approved 
                        remediation plan in substantial 
                        compliance with its terms, the 
                        Administrator shall notify the 
                        remediating party of the determination 
                        together with a list specifying the 
                        concerns of the Administrator;
                          (iv) provide that, if the identified 
                        concerns are not resolved or a 
                        compliance plan approved within 180 
                        days of the date of the notification, 
                        the Administrator may take action under 
                        section 309 of this Act;
                          (v) provide that clauses (iii) and 
                        (iv) not apply in the case of any 
                        action under section 309 to address 
                        violations involving gross negligence 
                        (including reckless, willful, or wanton 
                        misconduct) or intentional misconduct 
                        by the remediating party or any other 
                        person;
                          (vi) not require compliance with any 
                        limitation issued under sections 
                        301(b), 302, and 403 or any requirement 
                        established by the Administrator under 
                        any subsection of this section (other 
                        than this subsection); and
                          (vii) provide for termination of 
                        coverage under the permit without the 
                        remediating party being subject to 
                        enforcement under sections 309 and 505 
                        of this Act for any remaining 
                        discharges--
                                  (I) after implementation of 
                                the remediation plan;
                                  (II) if a party obtains a 
                                permit to mine the site; or
                                  (III) upon a demonstration by 
                                the remediating party that the 
                                surface water quality 
                                conditions due to remediation 
                                activities at the site, taken 
                                as a whole, are equal to or 
                                superior to the surface water 
                                qualities that existed prior to 
                                initiation of remediation.
                  (B) Limitations.--The Administrator shall 
                only issue a permit under this section, 
                consistent with the provisions of this 
                subsection, to a remediating party for 
                discharges associated with remediation action 
                at abandoned or inactive mined lands if the 
                remediation plan demonstrates with reasonable 
                certainty that the actions will result in an 
                improvement in water quality.
                  (C) Public participation.--The Administrator 
                may only issue a permit or modify a permit 
                under this section after complying with 
                subsection (b)(3).
                  (D) Effect of failure to comply with 
                permit.--Failure to comply with terms of a 
                permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall 
                not be deemed to be a violation of an effluent 
                standard or limitation issued under this Act.
                  (E) Limitations on statutory construction.--
                This subsection shall not be construed--
                          (i) to limit or otherwise affect the 
                        Administrator's powers under section 
                        504; or
                          (ii) to preclude actions pursuant to 
                        section 309 or 505 for any violations 
                        of sections 301(a), 302, 402, and 403 
                        that may have existed for the abandoned 
                        or inactive mined land prior to 
                        initiation of remediation covered by a 
                        permit issued under this subsection, 
                        unless such permit covers remediation 
                        activities implemented by the permit 
                        holder prior to issuance of the permit.
          (5) Definitions.--In this subsection the following 
        definitions apply:
                  (A) Remediating party.--The term 
                ``remediating party'' means--
                          (i) the United States (on non-Federal 
                        lands), a State or its political 
                        subdivisions, or an Indian tribe or 
                        officers, employees, or contractors 
                        thereof; and
                          (ii) any person acting in cooperation 
                        with a person described in clause (i), 
                        including a government agency that owns 
                        abandoned or inactive mined lands for 
                        the purpose of conducting remediation 
                        of the mined lands or that is engaging 
                        in remediation activities incidental to 
                        the ownership of the lands.
                Such term does not include any person who, 
                before or following issuance of a permit under 
                this section, directly benefited from or 
                participated in any mining operation (including 
                exploration) associated with the abandoned or 
                inactive mined lands.
                  (B) Abandoned or inactive mined lands.--The 
                term ``abandoned or inactive mined lands'' 
                means lands that were formerly mined and are 
                not actively mined or in temporary shutdown at 
                the time of submission of the remediation plan 
                and issuance of a permit under this section.
                  (C) Mined lands.--The term ``mined lands'' 
                means the surface or subsurface of an area 
                where mining operations, including exploration, 
                extraction, processing, and beneficiation, have 
                been conducted. Such term includes private ways 
                and roads appurtenant to such area, land 
                excavations, underground mine portals, adits, 
                and surface expressions associated with 
                underground workings, such as glory holes and 
                subsidence features, mining waste, smelting 
                sites associated with other mined lands, and 
                areas where structures, facilities, equipment, 
                machines, tools, or other material or property 
                which result from or have been used in the 
                mining operation are located.
          (6) Regulations.--The Administrator may issue 
        regulations establishing more specific requirements 
        that the Administrator determines would facilitate 
        implementation of this subsection. Before issuance of 
        such regulations, the Administrator may establish, on a 
        case-by-case basis after notice and opportunity for 
        public comment as provided by subsection (b)(3), more 
        specific requirements that the Administrator determines 
        would facilitate implementation of this subsection in 
        an individual permit issued to the remediating party.
  (q) Biological Monitoring Procedures.--
          (1) Responding to exceedances.--If a permit issued 
        under this section contains terms, conditions, or 
        limitations requiring biological monitoring or whole 
        effluent toxicity testing designed to meet criteria for 
        whole effluent toxicity based on laboratory biological 
        monitoring or assessment methods described in section 
        303(c)(2)(B), the permit shall establish procedures for 
        responding to an exceedance of such criteria that 
        includes analysis, identification, reduction, or, where 
        feasible, elimination of any effluent toxicity. The 
        failure of a biological monitoring test or whole 
        effluent toxicity test shall not result in a finding of 
        a violation under this Act, unless it is demonstrated 
        that the permittee has failed to comply with such 
        procedures.
          (2) Discontinuance of use.--The permit shall allow 
        the permittee to discontinue such procedures--
                  (A) if the permittee is an entity, other than 
                a publicly owned treatment works, if the 
                permittee demonstrates through a field bio-
                assessment study that a balanced and healthy 
                population of aquatic species indigenous, or 
                representative of indigenous, and relevant to 
                the type of waters exists in the waters that 
                are affected by the discharge, and if the 
                applicable water quality standards are met for 
                such waters; or
                  (B) if the permittee is a publicly owned 
                treatment works, the source or cause of such 
                toxicity cannot, after thorough investigation, 
                be identified.
  (r) Watershed Management.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of this Act, a permit may be issued under this section 
        with a limitation that does not meet applicable water 
        quality standards if--
                  (A) the receiving water is in a watershed 
                with a watershed management plan that has been 
                approved pursuant to section 321;
                  (B) the plan includes assurances that water 
                quality standards will be met within the 
                watershed by a specified date; and
                  (C) the point source does not have a history 
                of significant noncompliance with its effluent 
                limitations under a permit issued under this 
                section, as determined by the Administrator or 
                a State with authority to issue permits under 
                this section.
          (2) Synchronized permit terms.--Notwithstanding 
        subsection (b)(1)(B), the term of a permit issued under 
        this section may be extended for an additional period 
        if the discharge is located in a watershed management 
        unit for which a watershed management plan will be 
        developed pursuant to section 321. Permits extended 
        under this paragraph shall be synchronized with the 
        approval of the watershed management plan of a State 
        adopted pursuant to section 321.
  (s) Combined Sewer Overflows.--
          (1) Requirement for permits.--Each permit issued 
        pursuant to this section for a discharge from a 
        combined storm and sanitary sewer shall conform with 
        the combined sewer overflow control policy signed by 
        the Administrator on April 11, 1994.
          (2) Term of permit.--
                  (A) Compliance deadline.--Notwithstanding any 
                compliance schedule under section 301(b), or 
                any permit limitation under section 
                402(b)(1)(B), the Administrator (or a State 
                with a program approved under subsection (b)) 
                may issue a permit pursuant to this section for 
                a discharge from a combined storm and sanitary 
                sewer, that includes a schedule for compliance 
                with a long-term control plan under the control 
                policy referred to in paragraph (1), for a term 
                not to exceed 15 years.
                  (B) Extension.--Notwithstanding the 
                compliance deadline specified in subparagraph 
                (A), the Administrator or a State with a 
                program approved under subsection (b) shall 
                extend, on request of an owner or operator of a 
                combined storm and sanitary sewer and subject 
                to subparagraph (C), the period of compliance 
                beyond the last day of the 15-year period--
                          (i) if the Administrator or the State 
                        determines that compliance by such last 
                        day is not within the economic 
                        capability of the owner or operator; 
                        and
                          (ii) if the owner or operator 
                        demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
                        Administrator or the State reasonable 
                        further progress towards compliance 
                        with a long-term control plan under the 
                        control policy referred to in paragraph 
                        (1).
                  (C) Limitations on extensions.--
                          (i) Extension not appropriate.--
                        Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the 
                        Administrator or the State need not 
                        grant an extension of the compliance 
                        deadline specified in subparagraph (A) 
                        if the Administrator or the State 
                        determines that such an extension is 
                        not appropriate.
                          (ii) New York-New Jersey.--Prior to 
                        granting an extension under 
                        subparagraph (B) with respect to a 
                        combined sewer overflow discharge 
                        originating in the State of New York or 
                        New Jersey and affecting the other of 
                        such States, the Administrator or the 
                        State from which the discharge 
                        originates, as the case may be, shall 
                        provide written notice of the proposed 
                        extension to the other State and shall 
                        not grant the extension unless the 
                        other State approves the extension or 
                        does not disapprove the extension 
                        within 90 days of receiving such 
                        written notice.
          (3) Savings clause.--Any consent decree or court 
        order entered by a United States district court, or 
        administrative order issued by the Administrator, 
        before the date of the enactment of this subsection 
        establishing any deadlines, schedules, or timetables, 
        including any interim deadlines, schedules, or 
        timetables, for the evaluation, design, or construction 
        of treatment works for control or elimination of any 
        discharge from a municipal combined storm and sanitary 
        sewer system shall be modified upon motion or request 
        by any party to such consent decree or court order, to 
        extend to December 31, 2009, at a minimum, any such 
        deadlines, schedules, or timetables, including any 
        interim deadlines, schedules, or timetables as is 
        necessary to conform to the policy referred to in 
        paragraph (1) or otherwise achieve the objectives of 
        this subsection. Notwithstanding the preceding 
        sentence, the period of compliance with respect to a 
        discharge referred to in paragraph (2)(C)(ii) may only 
        be extended in accordance with paragraph (2)(C)(ii).
  (t) Sanitary Sewer Overflows.--
          (1) Development of policy.--Not later than 2 years 
        after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
        Administrator, in consultation with State and local 
        governments and water authorities, shall develop and 
        publish a national control policy for municipal 
        separate sanitary sewer overflows. The national policy 
        shall recognize and address regional and economic 
        factors.
          (2) Issuance of permits.--Each permit issued pursuant 
        to this section for a discharge from a municipal 
        separate sanitary sewer shall conform with the policy 
        developed under paragraph (1).
          (3) Compliance deadline.--Notwithstanding any 
        compliance schedule under section 301(b), or any permit 
        limitation under subsection (b)(1)(B), the 
        Administrator or a State with a program approved under 
        subsection (b) may issue a permit pursuant to this 
        section for a discharge from a municipal separate 
        sanitary sewer due to stormwater inflows or 
        infiltration. The permit shall include at a minimum a 
        schedule for compliance with a long-term control plan 
        under the policy developed under paragraph (1), for a 
        term not to exceed 15 years.
          (4) Extension.--Notwithstanding the compliance 
        deadline specified in paragraph (3), the Administrator 
        or a State with a program approved under subsection (b) 
        shall extend, on request of an owner or operator of a 
        municipal separate sanitary sewer, the period of 
        compliance beyond the last day of such 15-year period 
        if the Administrator or the State determines that 
        compliance by such last day is not within the economic 
        capability of the owner or operator, unless the 
        Administrator or the State determines that the 
        extension is not appropriate.
          (5) Effect on other actions.--Before the date of 
        publication of the policy under paragraph (1), the 
        Administrator or Attorney General shall not initiate 
        any administrative or judicial civil penalty action in 
        response to a municipal separate sanitary sewer 
        overflow due to stormwater inflows or infiltration.
          (6) Savings clause.--Any consent decree or court 
        order entered by a United States district court, or 
        administrative order issued by the Administrator, 
        before the date of the enactment of this subsection 
        establishing any deadlines, schedules, or timetables, 
        including any interim deadlines, schedules, or 
        timetables, for the evaluation, design, or construction 
        of treatment works for control or elimination of any 
        discharge from a municipal separate sanitary sewer 
        shall be modified upon motion or request by any party 
        to such consent decree or court order, to extend to 
        December 31, 2009, at a minimum, any such deadlines, 
        schedules, or timetables, including any interim 
        deadlines, schedules, or timetables as is necessary to 
        conform to the policy developed under paragraph (1) or 
        otherwise achieve the objectives of this subsection.

                 [Permits for dredged or fill material

    [Sec. 404. (a) The Secretary may issue permits, after 
notice and opportunity for public hearings for the discharge of 
dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified 
disposal sites. Not later than the fifteenth day after the date 
an applicant submits all the information required to complete 
an application for a permit under this subsection, the 
Secretary shall publish the notice required by this subsection.
    [(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, each such 
disposal site shall be specified for each such permit by the 
Secretary (1) through the application of guidelines developed 
by the Administrator, in conjunction with the Secretary which 
guidelines shall be based upon criteria comparable to the 
criteria applicable to the territorial seas, the contiguous 
zone, and the ocean under section 403(c), and (2) in any case 
where such guidelines under clause (1) alone would prohibit the 
specification of a site, through the application additionally 
of the economic impact of the site on navigation and anchorage.
    [(c) The Administrator is authorized to prohibit the 
specification (including the withdrawal of specification) of 
any defined area as a disposal site, and he is authorized to 
deny or restrict the use of any defined area for specification 
(including the withdrawal of specification) as a disposal site, 
whenever he determines, after notice and opportunity for public 
hearings, that the discharge of such materials into such area 
will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water 
supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning 
and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas. Before 
making such determination, the Administrator shall consult with 
the Secretary. The Administrator shall set forth in writing and 
make public his findings and his reasons for making any 
determination under this subsection.
    [(d) The term ``Secretary'' as used in this section means 
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
Engineers.
    [(e)(1) In carrying out his functions relating to the 
discharge of dredged or fill material under this section, the 
Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, 
issue general permits on a State, regional, or nationwide basis 
for any category of activities involving discharges of dredged 
or fill material if the Secretary determines that the 
activities in such category are similar in nature, will cause 
only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed 
separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse 
effect on the environment. Any general permit issued under this 
subsection shall (A) be based on the guidelines described in 
subsection (b)(1) of this section, and (B) set forth the 
requirements and standards which shall apply to any activity 
authorized by such general permit.
    [(2) No general permit issued under this subsection shall 
be for a period of more than five years after the date of its 
issuance and such general permit may be revoked or modified by 
the Secretary if, after opportunity for public hearing, the 
Secretary determines that the activities authorized by such 
general permit have an adverse impact on the environment or 
such activities are more appropriately authorized by individual 
permits.
    [(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this 
subsection, the discharge of dredge or fill material--
          [(A) from normal farming, silviculture, and ranching 
        activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor 
        drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber, 
        and forest products, or upland soil and water 
        conservation practices;
          [(B) for the purpose of maintenance, including 
        emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of 
        currently serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, 
        levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, and 
        bridge abutments or approaches, and transportation 
        structures;
          [(C) for the purpose of construction or maintenance 
        of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, or the 
        maintenance of drainage ditches;
          [(D) for the purpose of construction of temporary 
        sedimentation basins on a construction site which does 
        not include placement of fill material into the 
        navigable waters;
          [(E) for the purpose of construction or maintenance 
        of farm roads or forest roads, or temporary roads for 
        moving mining equipment, where such roads are 
        constructed and maintained, in accordance with best 
        management practices, to assure that flow and 
        circulation patterns and chemical and biological 
        characteristics of the navigable waters are not 
        impaired, that the reach of the navigable waters is not 
        reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic 
        environment will be otherwise minimized;
          [(F) resulting from any activity with respect to 
        which a State has an approved program under section 
        208(b)(4) which meets the requirements of subparagraphs 
        (B) and (C) of such section,
is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under 
this section or section 301(a) or 402 of this Act (except for 
effluent standards or prohibitions under section 307).
    [(2) Any discharge of dredged or fill material into the 
navigable waters incidental to any activity having as its 
purpose bringing an area of the navigable waters into a use to 
which it was not previously subject, where the flow or 
circulation of navigable waters may be impaired or the reach of 
such waters be reduced, shall be required to have a permit 
under this section.
    [(g)(1) The Governor of any State desiring to administer 
its own individual and general permit program for the discharge 
of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters (other 
than those waters which are presently used, or are susceptible 
to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvement 
as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce 
shoreward to their ordinary high water mark, including all 
waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide 
shoreward to their mean high water mark, or mean higher high 
water mark on the west coast, including wetlands adjacent 
thereto), within its jurisdiction may submit to the 
Administrator a full and complete description of the program it 
proposes to establish and administer under State law or under 
an interstate compact. In addition, such State shall submit a 
statement from the attorney general (or the attorney for those 
State agencies which have independent legal counsel), or from 
the chief legal officer in the case of an interstate agency, 
that the laws of such State, or the interstate compact, as the 
case may be, provide adequate authority to carry out the 
described program.
    [(2) Not later than the tenth day after the date of the 
receipt of the program, and statement submitted by any State 
under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Administrator shall 
provide copies of such program and statement to the Secretary 
and the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director 
of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [(3) Not later than the ninetieth day after the date of the 
receipt by the Administrator of the program and statement 
submitted by any State, under paragraph (1) of this subsection, 
the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
shall submit any comments with respect to such program and 
statement to the Administrator in writing.
    [(h)(1) Not later than the one-hundred-twentieth day after 
the date of the receipt by the Administrator of a program and 
statement submitted by any State under paragraph (1) of this 
subsection, the Administrator shall determine, taking into 
account any comments submitted by the Secretary and the 
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to subsection 
(g) of this section, whether such State has the following 
authority with respect to the issuance of permits pursuant to 
such program:
        [(A) To issue permits which--
                  [(i) apply, and assure compliance with, any 
                applicable requirements of this section, 
                including, but not limited to, the guidelines 
                established under subsection (b)(1) of this 
                section, and sections 307 and 403 of this Act;
                  [(ii) are for fixed terms not exceeding five 
                years; and
                  [(iii) can be terminated or modified for 
                cause including, but not limited to, the 
                following:
                          [(I) violation of any condition of 
                        the permit;
                          [(II) obtaining a permit by 
                        misrepresentation, or failure to 
                        disclose fully all relevant facts;
                          [(III) change in any condition that 
                        requires either a temporary or 
                        permanent reduction or elimination of 
                        the permitted discharge.
          [(B) To issue permits which apply, and assure 
        compliance with, all applicable requirements of section 
        308 of this Act, or to inspect, monitor, enter, and 
        requrie reports to at least the same extent as required 
        in section 308 of this Act.
          [(C) To assure that the public, and any other State 
        the waters of which may be affected, receive notice of 
        each application for a permit and to provide an 
        opportunity for public hearing before a ruling on each 
        such application.
          [(D) To assure that the Administrator receives notice 
        of each application (including a copy thereof) for a 
        permit.
          [(E) To assure that any State (other than the 
        permitting State), whose waters may be affected by the 
        issuance of a permit may submit written recommendation 
        to the permitting State (and the Administrator) with 
        respect to any permit application and, if any part of 
        such written recommendations are not accepted by the 
        permitting State, that the permitting State will notify 
        such affected State (and the Administrator) in writing 
        of its failure to so accept such recommendations 
        together with its reasons for so doing.
          [(F) To assure that no permit will be issued if, in 
        the judgment of the Secretary, after consultation with 
        the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 
        Guard is operating, anchorage and navigation of any of 
        the navigable waters would be substantially impaired 
        thereby.
          [(G) To abate violations of the permit or the permit 
        program, including civil and criminal penalties and 
        other ways and means of enforcement.
          [(H) To assure continued coordination with Federal 
        and Federal-State water-related planning and review 
        processes.
    [(2) If, with respect to a State program submitted under 
subsection (g)(1) of this section, the Administrator determines 
that such State--
          [(A) has the authority set forth in paragraph (1) of 
        this subsection, the Administrator shall approve the 
        program and so notify (i) such State, and (ii) the 
        Secretary, who upon subsequent notification from such 
        State that it is administering such program, shall 
        suspend the issuance of permits under subsection (a) 
        and (e) of this section for activities with respect to 
        which a permit may be issued pursuant to such State 
        program; or
          [(B) does not have the authority set forth in 
        paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Administrator 
        shall so notify such State, which notification shall 
        also describe the revisions or modifications necessary 
        so that such State may resubmit such program for a 
        determination by the Administrator under this 
        subsection.
    [(3) If the Administrator fails to make a determination 
with respect to any program submitted by a State under 
subsection (g)(1) of this section within one-hundred-twenty 
days after the date of the receipt of such program, such 
program shall be deemed approved pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) 
of this subsection and the Administrator shall so notify such 
State and the Secretary who, upon subsequent notification from 
such State that it is administering such program, shall suspend 
the issuance of permits under subsection (a) and (e) of this 
section for activities with respect to which a permit may be 
issued by such State.
    [(4) After the Secretary receives notification from the 
Administrator under paragraph (2) or (3) of this subsection 
that a State permit program has been approved, the Secretary 
shall transfer any applications for permits pending before the 
Secretary for activities with respect to which a permit may be 
issued pursuant to such State program to such State for 
appropriate action.
    [(5) Upon notification from a State with a permit program 
approved under this subsection that such State intends to 
administer and enforce the terms and conditions of a general 
permit issed by the Secretary under subsection (e) of this 
section with respect to activities in such State to which such 
general permit applies, the Secretary shall suspend the 
administration and enforcement of such general permit with 
respect to such activities.
    [(i) Whenever the Administrator determines after public 
hearing that a State is not administering a program approved 
under section (h)(2)(A) of this section, in accordance with 
this section, including, but not limited to, the guidelines 
established under subsection (b)(1) of this section, the 
Administrator shall so notify the State, and, if appropriate 
corrective action is not taken within a reasonable time, not to 
exceed ninety days after the date of the receipt of such 
notification, the Administrator shall (1) withdraw approval of 
such program until the Administrator determines such corrective 
action has been taken, and (2) notify the Secretary that the 
Secretary shall resume the program for the issuance of permits 
under subsections (a) and (e) of this section for activities 
with respect to which the State was issuing permits and that 
such authority of the Secretary shall continue in effect until 
such time as the Administrator makes the determination 
described in clause (1) of this subsection and such State again 
has an approved program.
    [(j) Each State which is administering a permit program 
pursuant to this section shall transmit to the Administrator 
(1) a copy of each permit application received by such State 
and provide notice to the Administrator of every action related 
to the consideration of such permit application, including each 
permit proposed to be issued by such State, and (2) a copy of 
each proposed general permit which such State intends to issue. 
Not later than the tenth day after the date of the receipt of 
such permit application or such proposed general permit, the 
Administrator shall provide copies of such permit application 
or such proposed general permit to the Secretary and the 
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. If the Administrator 
intends to provide written comments to such State with respect 
to such permit application or such proposed general permit, he 
shall so notify such State not later than the thirtieth day 
after the date of the receipt of such application or such 
proposed general permit and provide such written comments to 
such State, after consideration of any comments made in writing 
with respect to such application or such proposed general 
permit by the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior, 
acting through the Director of the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, not later than the ninetieth day after the 
date of such receipt. If such State is so notified by the 
Administrator, it shall not issue the proposed permit until 
after the receipt of such comments from the Administrator, or 
after such ninetieth day, whichever first occurs. Such State 
shall not issue such proposed permit after such ninetieth day 
if it has received such written comments in which the 
Administrator objects (A) to the issuance of such proposed 
permit and such proposed permit is one that has been submitted 
to the Administrator pursuant to subsection (h)(1)(E), or (B) 
to the issuance of such proposed permit as being outside the 
requirements of this section, including, but not limited to, 
the guidelines developed under subsection (b)(1) of this 
section unless it modifies such proposed permit in accordance 
with such comments. Whenever the Administrator objects to the 
issuance of a permit under the preceding sentence such written 
objection shall contain a statement of the reasons for such 
objection and the conditions which such permit would include if 
it were issued by the Administrator. In any case where the 
Administrator objects to the issuance of a permit, on request 
of the State, a public hearing shall be held by the 
Administrator on such objection. If the State does not resubmit 
such permit revised to meet such objection within 30 days after 
completion of the hearing or, if no hearing is requested within 
90 days after the date of such objection, the Secretary may 
issue the permit pursuant to subsection (a) or (e) of this 
section, as the case may be, for such source in accordance with 
the guidelines and requirements of this Act.
    [(k) In accordance with guidelines promulgated pursuant to 
subsection (i)(2) of section 304 of this Act, the Administrator 
is authorized to waive the requirements of subsection (j) of 
this section at the time of the approval of a program pursuant 
to subsection (h)(2)(A) of this section for any category 
(including any class, type, or size within such category) of 
discharge within the State submitting such program.
    [(l) The Administrator shall promulgate regulations 
establishing categories of discharges which he determines shall 
not be subject to the requirements of subsection (j) of this 
section in any State with a program approved pursuant to 
subsection (h)(2)(A) of this section. The Administrator may 
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within any category 
of discharges.
    [(m) Not later than the ninetieth day after the date on 
which the Secretary notifies the Secretary of the Interior, 
acting through the Director of the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service that (1) an application for a permit under 
subsection (a) of this section has been received by the 
Secretary, or (2) the Secretary proposes to issue a general 
permit under subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of 
the Interior, acting through the Director of the United States 
Fish and Wildlife Service, shall submit any comments with 
respect to such application or such proposed general permit in 
writing to the Secretary.
    [(n) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit 
the authority of the Administrator to take action pursuant to 
section 309 of this Act.
    [(o) A copy of each permit application and each permit 
issued under this section shall be available to the public. 
Such permit application or portion thereof, shall further be 
available on request for the purpose of reproduction.
    [(p) Compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this 
section, including any activity carried out pursuant to a 
general permit issued under this section, shall be deemed 
compliance, for purposes of sections 309 and 505, with sections 
301, 307, and 403.
    [(q) Not later than the one-hundred-eightieth day after the 
date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall enter 
into agreements with the Administrator, the Secretaries of the 
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and 
Transportation, and the heads of other appropriate Federal 
agencies to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, 
duplication, needless paperwork, and delays in the issuance of 
permits under this section. Such agreements shall be developed 
to assure that, to the maximum extent practicable, a decision 
with respect to an application for a permit under subsection 
(a) of this section will be made not later than the ninetieth 
day after the date the notice of such application is published 
under subsection (a) of this section.
    [(r) The discharge of dredged or fill material as part of 
the construction of a Federal project specifically authorized 
by Congress, whether prior to or on or after the date of 
enactment of this subsection, is not prohibited by or otherwise 
subject to regulation under this section, or a State program 
approved under this section, or section 301(a) or 402 of the 
Act (except for effluent standards or prohibitions under 
section 307), if information on the effects of such discharge, 
including consideration of the guidelines developed under 
subsection (b)(1) of this section, is included in an 
environmental impact statement for such project pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and such 
environmental impact statement has been submitted to Congress 
before the actual discharge of dredged or fill material in 
connection with the construction of such project and prior to 
either authorization of such project or an appropriation of 
funds for each construction.
    [(s)(1) Whenever on the basis of any information available 
to him the Secretary finds that any person is in violation of 
any condition or limitation set forth in a permit issued by the 
Secretary under this section, the Secretary shall issue an 
order requiring such persons to comply with such condition or 
limitation, or the Secretary shall bring a civil action in 
accordance with paragraph (3) of this subsection.
    [(2) A copy of any order issued under this subsection shall 
be sent immediately by the Secretary to the State in which the 
violation occurs and other affected States. Any order issued 
under this subsection shall be by personal service and shall 
state with reasonable specificity the nature of the violation, 
specify a time for compliance, not to exceed thirty days, which 
the Secretary determines is reasonable, taking into account the 
seriousness of the violation and any good faith efforts to 
comply with applicable requirements. In any case in which an 
order under this subsection is issued to a corporation, a copy 
of such order shall be served on any appropriate corporate 
officers.
    [(3) The Secretary is authorized to commence a civil action 
for appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary 
injunction for any violation for which he is authorized to 
issue a compliance order under paragraph (1) of this 
subsection. Any action under this paragraph may be brought in 
the district court of the United States for the district in 
which the defendant is located or resides or is doing business, 
and such court shall have jurisdiction to restrain such 
violation and to require compliance. Notice of the commencement 
of such action shall be given immediately to the appropriate 
State.
    [(4) Any person who violates any condition or limitation in 
a permit issued by the Secretary under this section, and any 
person who violates any order issued by the Secretary under 
paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall be subject to a civil 
penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation. In 
determining the amount of a civil penalty the court shall 
consider the seriousness of the violation or violations, the 
economic benefit (if any) resulting from the violation, any 
history of such violations, any good-faith efforts to comply 
with the applicable requirements, the economic impact of the 
penalty on the violator, and such other matters as justice may 
require.
    [(t) Nothing in the section shall preclude or deny the 
right of any State or interstate agency to control the 
discharge of dredged or fill material in any portion of the 
navigable waters within the jurisdiction of such State, 
including any activity of any Federal agency, and each such 
agency shall comply with such State or interstate requirements 
both substantive and procedural to control the discharge of 
dredged or fill material to the same extent that any person is 
subject to such requirements. This section shall not be 
construed as affecting or impairing the authority of the 
Secretary to maintain navigation.]

SEC. 404. PERMITS FOR ACTIVITIES IN WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE UNITED 
                    STATES.

  (a) Prohibited Activities.--No person shall undertake an 
activity in wetlands or waters of the United States unless such 
activity is undertaken pursuant to a permit issued by the 
Secretary or is otherwise authorized under this section.
  (b) Authorized Activities.--
          (1) Permits.--The Secretary is authorized to issue 
        permits authorizing an activity in wetlands or waters 
        of the United States in accordance with the 
        requirements of this section.
          (2) Nonpermit activities.--An activity in wetlands or 
        waters of the United States may be undertaken without a 
        permit from the Secretary if that activity is 
        authorized under subsection (e)(6) or (e)(8) or is 
        exempt from the requirements of this section under 
        subsection (f) or other provisions of this section.
  (c) Wetlands Classification.--
          (1) Regulations; applications.--
                  (A) Deadline for issuance of regulations.--
                Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
                enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
                Conservation and Management Act of 1995, the 
                Secretary shall issue regulations to classify 
                wetlands as type A, type B, or type C wetlands 
                depending on the relative ecological 
                significance of the wetlands.
                  (B) Application requirement.--Any person 
                seeking to undertake activities in wetlands or 
                waters of the United States for which a permit 
                is required under this section shall make 
                application to the Secretary identifying the 
                site of such activity and requesting that the 
                Secretary determine, in accordance with 
                paragraph (3) of this subsection, the 
                classification of the wetlands in which such 
                activity is proposed to occur. The applicant 
                may also provide such additional information 
                regarding such proposed activity as may be 
                necessary or appropriate for purposes of 
                determining the classification of such wetlands 
                or whether and under what conditions the 
                proposed activity may be permitted to occur.
          (2) Deadlines for classifications.--
                  (A) General rule.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, within 90 
                days following the receipt of an application 
                under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
                provide notice to the applicant of the 
                classification of the wetlands that are the 
                subject of such application and shall state in 
                writing the basis for such classification. The 
                classification of the wetlands that are the 
                subject of the application shall be determined 
                by the Secretary in accordance with the 
                requirements for classification of wetlands 
                under paragraph (3) and subsection (i).
                  (B) Rule for advance classifications.--In the 
                case of an application proposing activities 
                located in wetlands that are the subject of an 
                advance classification under subsection (h), 
                the Secretary shall provide notice to the 
                applicant of such classification within thirty 
                days following the receipt of such application, 
                and shall provide an opportunity for review of 
                such classification under paragraph (5) and 
                subsection (i).
          (3) Classification system.--Upon application under 
        this subsection, the Secretary shall--
                  (A) classify as type A wetlands those 
                wetlands that are of critical significance to 
                the long-term conservation of the aquatic 
                environment of which such wetlands are a part 
                and which meet the following requirements:
                          (i) such wetlands serve critical 
                        wetlands functions, including the 
                        provision of critical habitat for a 
                        concentration of avian, aquatic, or 
                        wetland dependent wildlife;
                          (ii) such wetlands consist of or may 
                        be a portion of ten or more contiguous 
                        acres and have an inlet or outlet for 
                        relief of water flow; except that this 
                        requirement shall not operate to 
                        preclude the classification as type A 
                        wetlands lands containing prairie 
                        pothole features, playa lakes, or 
                        vernal pools if such lands otherwise 
                        meet the requirements for type A 
                        classification under this paragraph;
                          (iii) there exists a scarcity within 
                        the watershed or aquatic environment of 
                        identified functions served by such 
                        wetlands such that the use of such 
                        wetlands for an activity in wetlands or 
                        waters of the United States would 
                        seriously jeopardize the availability 
                        of these identified wetlands functions; 
                        and
                          (iv) there is unlikely to be an 
                        overriding public interest in the use 
                        of such wetlands for purposes other 
                        than conservation;
                  (B) classify as type B wetlands those 
                wetlands that provide habitat for a significant 
                population of wetland dependent wildlife or 
                provide other significant wetlands functions, 
                including significant enhancement or protection 
                of water quality or significant natural flood 
                control; and
                  (C) classify as type C wetlands all wetlands 
                that--
                          (i) serve limited wetlands functions;
                          (ii) serve marginal wetlands 
                        functions but which exist in such 
                        abundance that regulation of activities 
                        in such wetlands is not necessary for 
                        conserving important wetlands 
                        functions;
                          (iii) are prior converted cropland;
                          (iv) are fastlands; or
                          (v) are wetlands within industrial, 
                        commercial, or residential complexes or 
                        other intensely developed areas that do 
                        not serve significant wetlands 
                        functions as a result of such location.
          (4) Request for determination of jurisdiction.--
                  (A) In general.--A person who holds an 
                ownership interest in property, or who has 
                written authorization from such a person, may 
                submit a request to the Secretary identifying 
                the property and requesting the Secretary to 
                make one or more of the following 
                determinations with respect to the property:
                          (i) Whether the property contains 
                        waters of the United States.
                          (ii) If the determination under 
                        clause (i) is made, whether any portion 
                        of the waters meets the requirements 
                        for delineation as wetland under 
                        subsection (g).
                          (iii) If the determination under 
                        clause (ii) is made, the classification 
                        of each wetland on the property under 
                        this subsection.
                  (B) Provision of information.--The person 
                shall provide such additional information as 
                may be necessary to make each determination 
                requested under subparagraph (A).
                  (C) Determination and notification by the 
                secretary.--Not later than 90 days after 
                receipt of a request under subparagraph (A), 
                the Secretary shall--
                          (i) notify the person submitting the 
                        request of each determination made by 
                        the Secretary pursuant to the request; 
                        and
                          (ii) provide written documentation of 
                        each determination and the basis for 
                        each determination.
                  (D) Authority to seek immediate review.--Any 
                person authorized under this paragraph to 
                request a jurisdictional determination may seek 
                immediate judicial review of any such 
                jurisdictional determination or may proceed 
                under subsection (i).
          (5) De novo determination after advance 
        classification.--Within 30 days of receipt of notice of 
        an advance classification by the Secretary under 
        paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection, an applicant may 
        request the Secretary to make a de novo determination 
        of the classification of wetlands that are the subject 
        of such notice.
  (d) Right to Compensation.--
          (1) In general.--The Federal Government shall 
        compensate an owner of property whose use of any 
        portion of that property has been limited by an agency 
        action under this section that diminishes the fair 
        market value of that portion by 20 percent or more. The 
        amount of the compensation shall equal the diminution 
        in value that resulted from the agency action. If the 
        diminution in value of a portion of that property is 
        greater than 50 percent, at the option of the owner, 
        the Federal Government shall buy that portion of the 
        property for its fair market value.
          (2) Duration of limitation on use.--Property with 
        respect to which compensation has been paid under this 
        section shall not thereafter be used contrary to the 
        limitation imposed by the agency action, even if that 
        action is later rescinded or otherwise vitiated. 
        However, if that action is later rescinded or otherwise 
        vitiated, and the owner elects to refund the amount of 
        the compensation, adjusted for inflation, to the 
        Treasury of the United States, the property may be so 
        used.
          (3) Effect of state law.--If a use is a nuisance as 
        defined by the law of a State or is already prohibited 
        under a local zoning ordinance, no compensation shall 
        be made under this section with respect to a limitation 
        on that use.
          (4) Exceptions.--
                  (A) Prevention of hazard to health or safety 
                or damage to specific property.--No 
                compensation shall be made under this section 
                with respect to an agency action the primary 
                purpose of which is to prevent an 
                identifiable--
                          (i) hazard to public health or 
                        safety; or
                          (ii) damage to specific property 
                        other than the property whose use is 
                        limited.
                  (B) Navigation servitude.--No compensation 
                shall be made under this section with respect 
                to an agency action pursuant to the Federal 
                navigation servitude, as defined by the courts 
                of the United States, except to the extent such 
                servitude is interpreted to apply to wetlands.
          (5) Procedure.--
                  (A) Request of owner.--An owner seeking 
                compensation under this section shall make a 
                written request for compensation to the agency 
                whose agency action resulted in the limitation. 
                No such request may be made later than 180 days 
                after the owner receives actual notice of that 
                agency action.
                  (B) Negotiations.--The agency may bargain 
                with that owner to establish the amount of the 
                compensation. If the agency and the owner agree 
                to such an amount, the agency shall promptly 
                pay the owner the amount agreed upon.
                  (C) Choice of remedies.--If, not later than 
                180 days after the written request is made, the 
                parties do not come to an agreement as to the 
                right to and amount of compensation, the owner 
                may choose to take the matter to binding 
                arbitration or seek compensation in a civil 
                action.
                  (D) Arbitration.--The procedures that govern 
                the arbitration shall, as nearly as 
                practicable, be those established under title 
                9, United States Code, for arbitration 
                proceedings to which that title applies. An 
                award made in such arbitration shall include a 
                reasonable attorney's fee and other arbitration 
                costs (including appraisal fees). The agency 
                shall promptly pay any award made to the owner.
                  (E) Civil action.--An owner who does not 
                choose arbitration, or who does not receive 
                prompt payment when required by this section, 
                may obtain appropriate relief in a civil action 
                against the agency. An owner who prevails in a 
                civil action under this section shall be 
                entitled to, and the agency shall be liable 
                for, a reasonable attorney's fee and other 
                litigation costs (including appraisal fees). 
                The court shall award interest on the amount of 
                any compensation from the time of the 
                limitation.
                  (F) Source of payments.--Any payment made 
                under this section to an owner and any judgment 
                obtained by an owner in a civil action under 
                this section shall, notwithstanding any other 
                provision of law, be made from the annual 
                appropriation of the agency whose action 
                occasioned the payment or judgment. If the 
                agency action resulted from a requirement 
                imposed by another agency, then the agency 
                making the payment or satisfying the judgment 
                may seek partial or complete reimbursement from 
                the appropriated funds of the other agency. For 
                this purpose the head of the agency concerned 
                may transfer or reprogram any appropriated 
                funds available to the agency. If insufficient 
                funds exist for the payment or to satisfy the 
                judgment, it shall be the duty of the head of 
                the agency to seek the appropriation of such 
                funds for the next fiscal year.
          (6) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of law, any obligation of the United States to make any 
        payment under this section shall be subject to the 
        availability of appropriations.
          (7) Duty of notice to owners.--Whenever an agency 
        takes an agency action limiting the use of private 
        property, the agency shall give appropriate notice to 
        the owners of that property directly affected 
        explaining their rights under this section and the 
        procedures for obtaining any compensation that may be 
        due to them under this section.
          (8) Rules of construction.--
                  (A) Effect on constitutional right to 
                compensation.--Nothing in this section shall be 
                construed to limit any right to compensation 
                that exists under the Constitution, laws of the 
                United States, or laws of any State.
                  (B) Effect of payment.--Payment of 
                compensation under this section (other than 
                when the property is bought by the Federal 
                Government at the option of the owner) shall 
                not confer any rights on the Federal Government 
                other than the limitation on use resulting from 
                the agency action.
          (9) Treatment of certain actions.--A diminution in 
        value under this subsection shall apply to surface 
        interests in lands only or water rights allocated under 
        State law; except that--
                  (A) if the Secretary determines that the 
                exploration for or development of oil and gas 
                or mineral interests is not compatible with 
                limitations on use related to the surface 
                interests in lands that have been classified as 
                type A or type B wetlands located above such 
                oil and gas or mineral interests (or located 
                adjacent to such oil and gas or mineral 
                interests where such adjacent lands are 
                necessary to provide reasonable access to such 
                interests), the Secretary shall notify the 
                owner of such interests that the owner may 
                elect to receive compensation for such 
                interests under paragraph (1); and
                  (B) the failure to provide reasonable access 
                to oil and gas or mineral interests located 
                beneath or adjacent to surface interests of 
                type A or type B wetlands shall be deemed a 
                diminution in value of such oil and gas or 
                mineral interests.
          (10) Jurisdiction.--The arbitrator or court under 
        paragraph (5)(D) or (5)(E) of this subsection, as the 
        case may be, shall have jurisdiction, in the case of 
        oil and gas or mineral interests, to require the United 
        States to provide reasonable access in, across, or 
        through lands that may be the subject of a diminution 
        in value under this subsection solely for the purpose 
        of undertaking activity necessary to determine the 
        value of the interests diminished and to provide other 
        equitable remedies deemed appropriate.
          (11) Limitations on statutory construction.--No 
        action under this subsection shall be construed--
                  (A) to impose any obligation on any State or 
                political subdivision thereof to compensate any 
                person, even in the event that the Secretary 
                has approved a land management plan under 
                subsection (f)(2) or an individual and general 
                permit program under subsection (l); or
                  (B) to alter or supersede requirements 
                governing use of water applicable under State 
                law.
  (e) Requirements Applicable to Permitted Activity.--
          (1) Issuance or denial of permits.--Following the 
        determination of wetlands classification pursuant to 
        subsection (c) if applicable, and after compliance with 
        the requirements of subsection (d) if applicable, the 
        Secretary may issue or deny permits for authorization 
        to undertake activities in wetlands or waters of the 
        United States in accordance with the requirements of 
        this subsection.
          (2) Type a wetlands.--
                  (A) Sequential analysis.--The Secretary shall 
                determine whether to issue a permit for an 
                activity in waters of the United States 
                classified under subsection (c) as type A 
                wetlands based on a sequential analysis that 
                seeks, to the maximum extent practicable, to--
                          (i) avoid adverse impact on the 
                        wetlands;
                          (ii) minimize such adverse impact on 
                        wetlands functions that cannot be 
                        avoided; and
                          (iii) compensate for any loss of 
                        wetland functions that cannot be 
                        avoided or minimized.
                  (B) Mitigation terms and conditions.--Any 
                permit issued authorizing activities in type A 
                wetlands may contain such terms and conditions 
                concerning mitigation (including those 
                applicable under paragraph (3) for type B 
                wetlands) that the Secretary deems appropriate 
                to prevent the unacceptable loss or degradation 
                of type A wetlands. The Secretary shall deem 
                the mitigation requirement of this section to 
                be met with respect to activities in type A 
                wetlands if such activities (i) are carried out 
                in accordance with a State-approved reclamation 
                plan or permit which requires recontouring and 
                revegetation following mining, and (ii) will 
                result in overall environmental benefits being 
                achieved.
          (3) Type b wetlands.--
                  (A) General rule.--The Secretary may issue a 
                permit authorizing activities in type B 
                wetlands if the Secretary finds that issuance 
                of the permit is in the public interest, 
                balancing the reasonably foreseeable benefits 
                and detriments resulting from the issuance of 
                the permit. The permit shall be subject to such 
                terms and conditions as the Secretary finds are 
                necessary to carry out the purposes of the 
                Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and 
                Management Act of 1995. In determining whether 
                or not to issue the permit and whether or not 
                specific terms and conditions are necessary to 
                avoid a significant loss of wetlands functions, 
                the Secretary shall consider the following 
                factors:
                          (i) The quality and quantity of 
                        significant functions served by the 
                        areas to be affected.
                          (ii) The opportunities to reduce 
                        impacts through cost effective design 
                        to minimize use of wetlands areas.
                          (iii) The costs of mitigation 
                        requirements and the social, 
                        recreational, and economic benefits 
                        associated with the proposed activity, 
                        including local, regional, or national 
                        needs for improved or expanded 
                        infrastructure, minerals, energy, food 
                        production, or recreation.
                          (iv) The ability of the permittee to 
                        mitigate wetlands loss or degradation 
                        as measured by wetlands functions.
                          (v) The environmental benefit, 
                        measured by wetlands functions, that 
                        may occur through mitigation efforts, 
                        including restoring, preserving, 
                        enhancing, or creating wetlands values 
                        and functions.
                          (vi) The marginal impact of the 
                        proposed activity on the watershed of 
                        which such wetlands are a part.
                          (vii) Whether the impact on the 
                        wetlands is temporary or permanent.
                  (B) Determination of project purpose.--In 
                considering an application for activities on 
                type B wetlands, there shall be a rebuttable 
                presumption that the project purpose as defined 
                by the applicant shall be binding upon the 
                Secretary. The definition of project purpose 
                for projects sponsored by public agencies shall 
                be binding upon the Secretary, subject to the 
                authority of the Secretary to impose mitigation 
                requirements to minimize impacts on wetlands 
                values and functions, including cost effective 
                redesign of projects on the proposed project 
                site.
                  (C) Mitigation requirements.--Except as 
                otherwise provided in this section, 
                requirements for mitigation shall be imposed 
                when the Secretary finds that activities 
                undertaken under this section will result in 
                the loss or degradation of type B wetlands 
                functions where such loss or degradation is not 
                a temporary or incidental impact. When 
                determining mitigation requirements in any 
                specific case, the Secretary shall take into 
                consideration the type of wetlands affected, 
                the character of the impact on wetland 
                functions, whether any adverse effects on 
                wetlands are of a permanent or temporary 
                nature, and the cost effectiveness of such 
                mitigation and shall seek to minimize the costs 
                of such mitigation. Such mitigation requirement 
                shall be calculated based upon the specific 
                impact of a particular project. The Secretary 
                shall deem the mitigation requirement of this 
                section to be met with respect to activities in 
                type B wetlands if such activities (i) are 
                carried out in accordance with a State-approved 
                reclamation plan or permit which requires 
                recontouring and revegetation following mining, 
                and (ii) will result in overall environmental 
                benefits being achieved.
                  (D) Rules governing mitigation.--In 
                accordance with subsection (j), the Secretary 
                shall issue rules governing requirements for 
                mitigation for activities occurring in wetlands 
                that allow for--
                          (i) minimization of impacts through 
                        project design in the proposed project 
                        site consistent with the project's 
                        purpose, provisions for compensatory 
                        mitigation, if any, and other terms and 
                        conditions necessary and appropriate in 
                        the public interest;
                          (ii) preservation or donation of type 
                        A wetlands or type B wetlands (where 
                        title has not been acquired by the 
                        United States and no compensation under 
                        subsection (d) for such wetlands has 
                        been provided) as mitigation for 
                        activities that alter or degrade 
                        wetlands;
                          (iii) enhancement or restoration of 
                        degraded wetlands as compensation for 
                        wetlands lost or degraded through 
                        permitted activity;
                          (iv) creation of wetlands as 
                        compensation for wetlands lost or 
                        degraded through permitted activity if 
                        conditions are imposed that have a 
                        reasonable likelihood of being 
                        successful;
                          (v) compensation through contribution 
                        to a mitigation bank program 
                        established pursuant to paragraph (4);
                          (vi) offsite compensatory mitigation 
                        if such mitigation contributes to the 
                        restoration, enhancement or creation of 
                        significant wetlands functions on a 
                        watershed basis and is balanced with 
                        the effects that the proposed activity 
                        will have on the specific site; except 
                        that offsite compensatory mitigation, 
                        if any, shall be required only within 
                        the State within which the proposed 
                        activity is to occur, and shall, to the 
                        extent practicable, be within the 
                        watershed within which the proposed 
                        activity is to occur, unless otherwise 
                        consistent with a State wetlands 
                        management plan;
                          (vii) contribution of in-kind value 
                        acceptable to the Secretary and 
                        otherwise authorized by law;
                          (viii) in areas subject to wetlands 
                        loss, the construction of coastal 
                        protection and enhancement projects;
                          (ix) contribution of resources of 
                        more than one permittee toward a single 
                        mitigation project; and
                          (x) other mitigation measures, 
                        including contributions of other than 
                        in-kind value referred to in clause 
                        (vii), determined by the Secretary to 
                        be appropriate in the public interest 
                        and consistent with the requirements 
                        and purposes of this Act.
                  (E) Limitations on requiring mitigation.--
                Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph 
                (C), the Secretary may determine not to impose 
                requirements for compensatory mitigation if the 
                Secretary finds that--
                          (i) the adverse impacts of a 
                        permitted activity are limited;
                          (ii) the failure to impose 
                        compensatory mitigation requirements is 
                        compatible with maintaining wetlands 
                        functions;
                          (iii) no practicable and reasonable 
                        means of mitigation are available;
                          (iv) there is an abundance of similar 
                        significant wetlands functions and 
                        values in or near the area in which the 
                        proposed activity is to occur that will 
                        continue to serve the functions lost or 
                        degraded as a result of such activity, 
                        taking into account the impacts of such 
                        proposed activity and the cumulative 
                        impacts of similar activity in the 
                        area;
                          (v) the temporary character of the 
                        impacts and the use of minimization 
                        techniques make compensatory mitigation 
                        unnecessary to protect significant 
                        wetlands values; or
                          (vi) a waiver from requirements for 
                        compensatory mitigation is necessary to 
                        prevent special hardship.
          (4) Mitigation banks.--
                  (A) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months 
                after the date of the enactment of this 
                subparagraph, after providing notice and 
                opportunity for public review and comment, the 
                Secretary shall issue regulations for the 
                establishment, use, maintenance, and oversight 
                of mitigation banks. The regulations shall be 
                developed in consultation with the heads of 
                other appropriate Federal agencies.
                  (B) Provisions and requirements.--The 
                regulations issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) 
                shall ensure that each mitigation bank--
                          (i) provides for the chemical, 
                        physical, and biological functions of 
                        wetlands or waters of the United States 
                        which are lost as a result of 
                        authorized adverse impacts to wetlands 
                        or other waters of the United States;
                          (ii) to the extent practicable and 
                        environmentally desirable, provides in-
                        kind replacement of lost wetlands 
                        functions and be located in, or in 
                        proximity to, the same watershed or 
                        designated geographic area as the 
                        affected wetlands or waters of the 
                        United States;
                          (iii) be operated by a public or 
                        private entity which has the financial 
                        capability to meet the requirements of 
                        this paragraph, including the deposit 
                        of a performance bond or other 
                        appropriate demonstration of financial 
                        responsibility to support the long-term 
                        maintenance of the bank, fulfill 
                        responsibilities for long-term 
                        monitoring, maintenance, and 
                        protection, and provide for the long-
                        term security of ownership interests of 
                        wetlands and uplands on which projects 
                        are conducted to protect the wetlands 
                        functions associated with the 
                        mitigation bank;
                          (iv) employ consistent and 
                        scientifically sound methods to 
                        determine debits by evaluating wetlands 
                        functions, project impacts, and 
                        duration of the impact at the sites of 
                        proposed permits for authorized 
                        activities pursuant to this section and 
                        to determine credits based on wetlands 
                        functions at the site of the mitigation 
                        bank;
                          (v) provide for the transfer of 
                        credits for mitigation that has been 
                        performed and for mitigation that shall 
                        be performed within a designated time 
                        in the future, provided that financial 
                        bonds shall be posted in sufficient 
                        amount to ensure that the mitigation 
                        will be performed in the case of 
                        default; and
                          (vi) provide opportunity for public 
                        notice of and comment on proposals for 
                        the mitigation banks; except that any 
                        process utilized by a mitigation bank 
                        to obtain a permit authorizing 
                        operations under this section before 
                        the date of the enactment of the 
                        Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and 
                        Management Act of 1995 satisfies the 
                        requirement for such public notice and 
                        comment.
          (5) Procedures and deadlines for final action.--
                  (A) Opportunity for public comment.--Not 
                later than 15 days after receipt of a complete 
                application for a permit under this section, 
                together with information necessary to consider 
                such application, the Secretary shall publish 
                notice that the application has been received 
                and shall provide opportunity for public 
                comment and, to the extent appropriate, 
                opportunity for a public hearing on the 
                issuance of the permit.
                  (B) General procedures.--In the case of any 
                application for authorization to undertake 
                activities in wetlands or waters of the United 
                States that are not eligible for treatment on 
                an expedited basis pursuant to paragraph (8), 
                final action by the Secretary shall occur 
                within 90 days following the date such 
                application is filed, unless--
                          (i) the Secretary and the applicant 
                        agree that such final action shall 
                        occur within a longer period of time;
                          (ii) the Secretary determines that an 
                        additional, specified period of time is 
                        necessary to permit the Secretary to 
                        comply with other applicable Federal 
                        law; except that if the Secretary is 
                        required under the National 
                        Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
                        U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to prepare an 
                        environmental impact statement, with 
                        respect to the application, the final 
                        action shall occur not later than 45 
                        days following the date such statement 
                        is filed; or
                          (iii) the Secretary, within 15 days 
                        from the date such application is 
                        received, notifies the applicant that 
                        such application does not contain all 
                        information necessary to allow the 
                        Secretary to consider such application 
                        and identifies any necessary additional 
                        information, in which case, the 
                        provisions of subparagraph (C) shall 
                        apply.
                  (C) Special rule when additional information 
                is required.--Upon the receipt of a request for 
                additional information under subparagraph 
                (B)(iii), the applicant shall supply such 
                additional information and shall advise the 
                Secretary that the application contains all 
                requested information and is therefore 
                complete. The Secretary may--
                          (i) within 30 days of the receipt of 
                        notice of the applicant that the 
                        application is complete, determine that 
                        the application does not contain all 
                        requested additional information and, 
                        on that basis, deny the application 
                        without prejudice to resubmission; or
                          (ii) within 90 days from the date 
                        that the applicant provides 
                        notification to the Secretary that the 
                        application is complete, review the 
                        application and take final action.
                  (D) Effect of not meeting deadline.--If the 
                Secretary fails to take final action on an 
                application under this paragraph within 90 days 
                from the date that the applicant provides 
                notification to the Secretary that such 
                application is complete, a permit shall be 
                presumed to be granted authorizing the 
                activities proposed in such application under 
                such terms and conditions as are stated in such 
                completed application.
          (6) Type c wetlands.--Activities in wetlands that 
        have been classified as type C wetlands by the 
        Secretary may be undertaken without authorization 
        required under subsection (a) of this section.
          (7) States with substantial conserved wetlands.--
                  (A) In general.--With respect to type A and 
                type B wetlands in States with substantial 
                conserved wetlands areas, at the option of the 
                permit applicant, the Secretary shall issue 
                permits authorizing activities in such wetlands 
                pursuant to this paragraph. Final action on 
                issuance of such permits shall be in accordance 
                with the procedures and deadlines of paragraph 
                (5). The Secretary may include conditions or 
                requirements for minimization of adverse 
                impacts to wetlands functions when minimization 
                is economically practicable. No permit to which 
                this paragraph applies shall include 
                conditions, requirements, or standards for 
                mitigation to compensate for adverse impacts to 
                wetlands or waters of the United States or 
                conditions, requirements, or standards for 
                avoidance of adverse impacts to wetlands or 
                waters of the United States.
                  (B) Economic base lands.--Upon application by 
                the owner of economic base lands in a State 
                with substantial conserved wetlands areas, the 
                Secretary shall issue individual and general 
                permits to owners of such lands for activities 
                in wetlands or waters of the United States. The 
                Secretary shall reduce the requirements of 
                subparagraph (A)--
                          (i) to allow economic base lands to 
                        be beneficially used to create and 
                        sustain economic activity; and
                          (ii) in the case of lands owned by 
                        Alaska Native entities, to reflect the 
                        social and economic needs of Alaska 
                        Natives to utilize economic base lands.
                The Secretary shall consult with and provide 
                assistance to the Alaska Natives (including 
                Alaska Native Corporations) in promulgation and 
                administration of policies and regulations 
                under this section.
          (8) General permits.--
                  (A) General authority.--The Secretary may 
                issue, by rule in accordance with subsection 
                (j), general permits on a programmatic, State, 
                regional, or nationwide basis for any category 
                of activities involving an activity in wetlands 
                or waters of the United States if the Secretary 
                determines that such activities are similar in 
                nature and that such activities, when performed 
                separately and cumulatively, will not result in 
                the significant loss of ecologically 
                significant wetlands values and functions.
                  (B) Procedures.--Permits issued under this 
                paragraph shall include procedures for 
                expedited review of eligibility for such 
                permits (if such review is required) and may 
                include requirements for reporting and 
                mitigation. To the extent that a proposed 
                activity requires a determination by the 
                Secretary as to the eligibility to qualify for 
                a general permit under this subsection, such 
                determination shall be made within 30 days of 
                the date of submission of the application for 
                such qualification, or the application shall be 
                treated as being approved.
                  (C) Compensatory mitigation.--Requirements 
                for compensatory mitigation for general permits 
                may be imposed where necessary to offset the 
                significant loss or degradation of significant 
                wetlands functions where such loss or 
                degradation is not a temporary or incidental 
                impact. Such compensatory mitigation shall be 
                calculated based upon the specific impact of a 
                particular project.
                  (D) Grandfather of existing general 
                permits.--General permits in effect on day 
                before the date of the enactment of the 
                Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and 
                Management Act of 1995 shall remain in effect 
                until otherwise modified by the Secretary.
                  (E) States with substantial conserved 
                lands.--Upon application by a State or local 
                authority in a State with substantial conserved 
                wetlands areas, the Secretary shall issue a 
                general permit applicable to such authority for 
                activities in wetlands or waters of the United 
                States. No permit issued pursuant to this 
                subparagraph shall include conditions, 
                requirements, or standards for mitigation to 
                compensate for adverse impacts to wetlands or 
                waters of the United States or shall include 
                conditions, requirements, or standards for 
                avoidance of adverse impacts of wetlands or 
                waters of the United States.
          (9) Other waters of the united states.--The Secretary 
        may issue a permit authorizing activities in waters of 
        the United States (other than those classified as type 
        A, B, or C wetlands under this section) if the 
        Secretary finds that issuance of the permit is in the 
        public interest, balancing the reasonably foreseeable 
        benefits and detriments resulting from the issuance of 
        the permit. The permit shall be subject to such terms 
        and conditions as the Secretary finds are necessary to 
        carry out the purposes of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
        Conservation and Management Act of 1995. In determining 
        whether or not to issue the permit and whether or not 
        specific terms and conditions are necessary to carry 
        out such purposes, the Secretary shall consider the 
        factors set forth in paragraph (3)(A) as they apply to 
        nonwetlands areas and such other provisions of 
        paragraph (3) as the Secretary determines are 
        appropriate to apply to nonwetlands areas.
  (f) Activities not Requiring Permit.--
          (1) In general.--Activities undertaken in any 
        wetlands or waters of the United States are exempt from 
        the requirements of this section and are not prohibited 
        by or otherwise subject to regulation under this 
        section or section 301 or 402 of this Act (except 
        effluent standards or prohibitions under section 307 of 
        this Act) if such activities--
                  (A) result from normal farming, silviculture, 
                aquaculture, and ranching activities and 
                practices, including but not limited to 
                plowing, seeding, cultivating, haying, grazing, 
                normal maintenance activities, minor drainage, 
                burning of vegetation in connection with such 
                activities, harvesting for the production of 
                food, fiber, and forest products, or upland 
                soil and water conservation practices;
                  (B) are for the purpose of maintenance, 
                including emergency reconstruction of recently 
                damaged parts, of currently serviceable 
                structures such as dikes, dams, levees, flood 
                control channels or other engineered flood 
                control facilities, water control structures, 
                water supply reservoirs (where such maintenance 
                involves periodic water level drawdowns) which 
                provide water predominantly to public drinking 
                water systems, groins, riprap, breakwaters, 
                utility distribution and transmission lines, 
                causeways, and bridge abutments or approaches, 
                and transportation structures;
                  (C) are for the purpose of construction or 
                maintenance of farm, stock or aquaculture 
                ponds, wastewater retention facilities 
                (including dikes and berms) that are used by 
                concentrated animal feeding operations, or 
                irrigation canals and ditches or the 
                maintenance of drainage ditches;
                  (D) are for the purpose of construction of 
                temporary sedimentation basins on a 
                construction site, or the construction of any 
                upland dredged material disposal area, which 
                does not include placement of fill material 
                into the navigable waters;
                  (E) are for the purpose of construction or 
                maintenance of farm roads or forest roads, 
                railroad lines of up to 10 miles in length, or 
                temporary roads for moving mining equipment, 
                access roads for utility distribution and 
                transmission lines if such roads or railroad 
                lines are constructed and maintained, in 
                accordance with best management practices, to 
                assure that flow and circulation patterns and 
                chemical and biological characteristics of the 
                waters are not impaired, that the reach of the 
                waters is not reduced, and that any adverse 
                effect on the aquatic environment will be 
                otherwise minimized;
                  (F) are undertaken on farmed wetlands, except 
                that any change in use of such land for the 
                purpose of undertaking activities that are not 
                exempt from regulation under this subsection 
                shall be subject to the requirements of this 
                section to the extent that such farmed wetlands 
                are ``wetlands'' under this section;
                  (G) result from any activity with respect to 
                which a State has an approved program under 
                section 208(b)(4) of this Act which meets the 
                requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of 
                such section;
                  (H) are consistent with a State or local land 
                management plan submitted to the Secretary and 
                approved pursuant to paragraph (2);
                  (I) are undertaken in connection with a marsh 
                management and conservation program in a 
                coastal parish in the State of Louisiana where 
                such program has been approved by the Governor 
                of such State or the designee of the Governor;
                  (J) are undertaken on lands or involve 
                activities within a State's coastal zone which 
                are excluded from regulation under a State 
                coastal zone management program approved under 
                the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 
                U.S.C. 1451, et seq.);
                  (K) are undertaken in incidentally created 
                wetlands, unless such incidentally created 
                wetlands have exhibited wetlands functions and 
                values for more than 5 years in which case 
                activities undertaken in such wetlands shall be 
                subject to the requirements of this section;
                  (L) are for the purpose of preserving and 
                enhancing aviation safety or are undertaken in 
                order to prevent an airport hazard;
                  (M) result from aggregate or clay mining 
                activities in wetlands conducted pursuant to a 
                State or Federal permit that requires the 
                reclamation of such affected wetlands if such 
                reclamation will be completed within 5 years of 
                the commencement of activities at the site and, 
                upon completion of such reclamation, the 
                wetlands will support wetlands functions 
                equivalent to the functions supported by the 
                wetlands at the time of commencement of such 
                activities;
                  (N) are for the placement of a structural 
                member for a pile-supported structure, such as 
                a pier or dock, or for a linear project such as 
                a bridge, transmission or distribution line 
                footing, powerline structure, or elevated or 
                other walkway;
                  (O) are for the placement of a piling in 
                waters of the United States in a circumstance 
                that involves--
                          (i) a linear project described in 
                        subparagraph (N); or
                          (ii) a structure such as a pier, 
                        boathouse, wharf, marina, lighthouse, 
                        or individual house built on stilts 
                        solely to reduce the potential of 
                        flooding;
                  (P) are for the clearing (including 
                mechanized clearing) of vegetation within a 
                right-of-way associated with the development 
                and maintenance of a transmission or 
                distribution line or other powerline structure 
                or for the maintenance of water supply 
                reservoirs which provide water predominantly to 
                public drinking water systems;
                  (Q) are undertaken in or affecting 
                waterfilled depressions created in uplands 
                incidental to construction activity, or are 
                undertaken in or affecting pits excavated in 
                uplands for the purpose of obtaining fill, 
                sand, gravel, aggregates, or minerals, unless 
                and until the construction or excavation 
                operation is abandoned; or
                  (R) are undertaken in a State with 
                substantial conserved wetlands areas and--
                          (i) are for purposes of providing 
                        critical infrastructure, including 
                        water and sewer systems, airports, 
                        roads, communication sites, fuel 
                        storage sites, landfills, housing, 
                        hospitals, medical clinics, schools, 
                        and other community infrastructure;
                          (ii) are for construction and 
                        maintenance of log transfer facilities 
                        associated with log transportation 
                        activities;
                          (iii) are for construction of 
                        tailings impoundments utilized for 
                        treatment facilities (as determined by 
                        the development document) for the 
                        mining subcategory for which the 
                        tailings impoundment is constructed; or
                          (iv) are for construction of ice pads 
                        and ice roads and for purposes of snow 
                        storage and removal.
          (2) State or local management plan.--Any State or 
        political subdivision thereof acting pursuant to State 
        authorization may develop a land management plan with 
        respect to lands that include identified wetlands. The 
        State or local government agency may submit any such 
        plan to the Secretary for review and approval. The 
        Secretary shall, within 60 days, notify in writing the 
        designated State or local official of approval or 
        disapproval of any such plan. The Secretary shall 
        approve any plan that is consistent with the purposes 
        of this section. No person shall be entitled to 
        judicial review of the decision of the Secretary to 
        approve or disapprove a land management plan under this 
        paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed 
        to alter, limit, or supersede the authority of a State 
        or political subdivision thereof to establish land 
        management plans for purposes other than the provisions 
        of this subsection.
  (g) Rules for Delineating Wetlands.--
          (1) Standards.--
                  (A) Issuance of rule.--The Secretary is 
                authorized and directed to establish standards, 
                by rule in accordance with subsection (j), that 
                shall govern the delineation of lands as 
                ``wetlands'' for purposes of this section. Such 
                rules shall be established after consultation 
                with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
                agencies and shall be binding on all Federal 
                agencies in connection with the administration 
                or implementation of any provision of this 
                section. The standards for delineation of 
                wetlands and any decision of the Secretary, the 
                Secretary of Agriculture (in the case of 
                agricultural lands and associated 
                nonagricultural lands), or any other Federal 
                officer or agency made in connection with the 
                administration of this section shall comply 
                with the requirements for delineation of 
                wetlands set forth in subparagraphs (B) and 
                (C).
                  (B) Exceptions.--The standards established by 
                rule or applied in any case for purposes of 
                this section shall ensure that lands are 
                delineated as wetlands only if such lands are 
                found to be ``wetlands'' under section 502 of 
                this Act; except that such standards may not--
                          (i) result in the delineation of 
                        lands as wetlands unless clear evidence 
                        of wetlands hydrology, hydrophytic 
                        vegetation, and hydric soil are found 
                        to be present during the period in 
                        which such delineation is made, which 
                        delineation shall be conducted during 
                        the growing season unless otherwise 
                        requested by the applicant;
                          (ii) result in the classification of 
                        vegetation as hydrophytic if such 
                        vegetation is equally adapted to dry or 
                        wet soil conditions or is more 
                        typically adapted to dry soil 
                        conditions than to wet soil conditions;
                          (iii) result in the classification of 
                        lands as wetlands unless some obligate 
                        wetlands vegetation is found to be 
                        present during the period of 
                        delineation; except that if such 
                        vegetation has been removed for the 
                        purpose of evading jurisdiction under 
                        this section, this clause shall not 
                        apply;
                          (iv) result in the conclusion that 
                        wetlands hydrology is present unless 
                        water is found to be present at the 
                        surface of such lands for 21 
                        consecutive days in the growing seasons 
                        in a majority of the years for which 
                        records are available; and
                          (v) result in the classification of 
                        lands as wetlands that are temporarily 
                        or incidentally created as a result of 
                        adjacent development activity.
                  (C) Normal circumstances.--In addition to the 
                requirements of subparagraph (B), any standards 
                established by rule or applied to delineate 
                wetlands for purposes of this section shall 
                provide that ``normal circumstances'' shall be 
                determined on the basis of the factual 
                circumstances in existence at the time a 
                classification is made under subsection (h) or 
                at the time of application under subsection 
                (e), whichever is applicable, if such 
                circumstances have not been altered by an 
                activity prohibited under this section.
          (2) Land area cap for type a wetlands.--No more than 
        20 percent of any county, parish, or borough shall be 
        classified as type A wetlands. Type A wetlands in 
        Federal or State ownership (including type A wetlands 
        in units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the 
        National Park System, and lands held in conservation 
        easements) shall be included in calculating the percent 
        of type A wetlands in a county, parish, or borough.
          (3) Agricultural lands.--
                  (A) Delineation by secretary of 
                agriculture.--For purposes of this section, 
                wetlands located on agricultural lands and 
                associated nonagricultural lands shall be 
                delineated solely by the Secretary of 
                Agriculture in accordance with section 1222(j) 
                of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
                3822(j)).
                  (B) Exemption of lands exempted under food 
                security act.--Any area of agricultural land or 
                any activities related to the land determined 
                to be exempt from the requirements of subtitle 
                C of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 
                (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) shall also be exempt 
                from the requirements of this section for such 
                period of time as those lands are used as 
                agricultural lands.
                  (C) Effect of appeal determination pursuant 
                to food security act.--Any area of agricultural 
                land or any activities related to the land 
                determined to be exempt pursuant to an appeal 
                taken pursuant to subtitle C of title XII of 
                the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 
                et seq.) shall be exempt under this section for 
                such period of time as those lands are used as 
                agricultural lands.
  (h) Mapping and Public Notice Requirements.--
          (1) Provision of public notice.--Not later than 90 
        days after the date of the enactment of the 
        Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act 
        of 1995, the Secretary shall provide the court of each 
        county, parish, or borough in which the wetland subject 
        to classification under subsection (c) is located, a 
        notice for posting near the property records of the 
        county, parish, or borough. The notice shall--
                  (A) state that wetlands regulated under this 
                section may be located in the county, parish, 
                or borough;
                  (B) provide an explanation understandable to 
                the general public of how wetlands are 
                delineated and classified;
                  (C) describe the requirements and 
                restrictions of the regulatory program under 
                this section; and
                  (D) provide instructions on how to obtain a 
                delineation and classification of wetlands 
                under this section.
          (2) Provision of delineation determinations.--On 
        completion under this section of a delineation and 
        classification of property that contains wetlands or a 
        delineation of property that contains waters of the 
        United States that are not wetlands, the Secretary of 
        Agriculture, in the case of wetlands located on 
        agricultural lands and associated nonagricultural 
        lands, and the Secretary, in the case of other lands, 
        shall--
                  (A) file a copy of the delineation, including 
                the classification of any wetland located on 
                the property, with the records of the property 
                in the local courthouse; and
                  (B) serve a copy of the delineation 
                determination on every owner of the property on 
                record and any person with a recorded mortgage 
                or lien on the property.
          (3) Notice of enforcement actions.--The Secretary 
        shall file notice of each enforcement action under this 
        section taken with respect to private property with the 
        records of the property in the local courthouse.
          (4) Wetlands identification and classification 
        project.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary and the 
                Secretary of Agriculture shall undertake a 
                project to identify and classify wetlands in 
                the United States that are regulated under this 
                section. The Secretaries shall complete such 
                project not later than 10 years after the date 
                of the enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands 
                Conservation and Management Act of 1995.
                  (B) Applicability of delineation standards.--
                In conducting the project under this section, 
                the Secretaries shall identify and classify 
                wetlands in accordance with standards for 
                delineation of wetlands established by the 
                Secretaries under subsection (g).
                  (C) Public hearings.--In conducting the 
                project under this section, the Secretaries 
                shall provide notice and an opportunity for a 
                public hearing in each county, parish or 
                borough of a State before completion of 
                identification and classification of wetlands 
                in such county, parish, or borough.
                  (D) Publication.--Promptly after completion 
                of identification and classification of 
                wetlands in a county, parish, or borough under 
                this section, the Secretaries shall have 
                published information on such identification 
                and classification in the Federal Register and 
                in publications of wide circulation and take 
                other steps reasonably necessary to ensure that 
                such information is available to the public.
                  (E) Reports.--The Secretaries shall report to 
                Congress on implementation of the project to be 
                conducted under this section not later than 2 
                years after the date of the enactment of the 
                Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and 
                Management Act of 1995 and annually thereafter.
                  (F) Recordation.--Any classification of lands 
                as wetlands under this section shall, to the 
                maximum extent practicable, be recorded on the 
                property records in the county, parish, or 
                borough in which such wetlands are located.
  (i) Administrative Appeals.--
          (1) Regulations establishing procedures.--Not later 
        than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the 
        Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act 
        of 1995, the Secretary shall, after providing notice 
        and opportunity for public comment, issue regulations 
        establishing procedures pursuant to which--
                  (A) a landowner may appeal a determination of 
                regulatory jurisdiction under this section with 
                respect to a parcel of the landowner's 
                property;
                  (B) a landowner may appeal a wetlands 
                classification under this section with respect 
                to a parcel of the landowner's property;
                  (C) any person may appeal a determination 
                that the proposed activity on the landowner's 
                property is not exempt under subsection (f);
                  (D) a landowner may appeal a determination 
                that an activity on the landowner's property 
                does not qualify under a general permit issued 
                under this section;
                  (E) an applicant for a permit under this 
                section may appeal a determination made 
                pursuant to this section to deny issuance of 
                the permit or to impose a requirement under the 
                permit; and
                  (F) a landowner or any other person required 
                to restore or otherwise alter a parcel of 
                property pursuant to an order issued under this 
                section may appeal such order.
          (2) Deadline for filing appeal.--An appeal brought 
        pursuant to this subsection shall be filed not later 
        than 30 days after the date on which the decision or 
        action on which the appeal is based occurs.
          (3) Deadline for decision.--An appeal brought 
        pursuant to this subsection shall be decided not later 
        than 90 days after the date on which the appeal is 
        filed.
          (4) Participation in appeals process.--Any person who 
        participated in the public comment process concerning a 
        decision or action that is the subject of an appeal 
        brought pursuant to this subsection may participate in 
        such appeal with respect to those issues raised in the 
        person's written public comments.
          (5) Decisionmaker.--An appeal brought pursuant to 
        this subsection shall be heard and decided by an 
        appropriate and impartial official of the Federal 
        Government, other than the official who made the 
        determination or carried out the action that is the 
        subject of the appeal.
          (6) Stay of penalties and mitigation.--A landowner or 
        any other person who has filed an appeal under this 
        subsection shall not be required to pay a penalty or 
        perform mitigation or restoration assessed under this 
        section or section 309 until after the appeal has been 
        decided.
  (j) Administrative Provisions.--
          (1) Final regulations for issuance of permits.--Not 
        later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
        the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management 
        Act of 1995, the Secretary shall, after notice and 
        opportunity for comment, issue (in accordance with 
        section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code and 
        this section) final regulations for implementation of 
        this section. Such regulations shall, in accordance 
        with this section, provide--
                  (A) standards and procedures for the 
                classification and delineation of wetlands and 
                procedures for administrative review of any 
                such classification or delineation;
                  (B) standards and procedures for the review 
                of State or local land management plans and 
                State programs for the regulation of wetlands;
                  (C) for the issuance of general permits, 
                including programmatic, State, regional, and 
                nationwide permits;
                  (D) standards and procedures for the 
                individual permit applications under this 
                section;
                  (E) for enforcement of this section;
                  (F) guidelines for the specification of sites 
                for the disposal of dredged or fill material 
                for navigational dredging; and
                  (G) any other rules and regulations that the 
                Secretary deems necessary or appropriate to 
                implement the requirements of this section.
          (2) Navigational dredging guidelines.--Guidelines 
        developed under paragraph (1)(F) shall--
                  (A) be based upon criteria comparable to the 
                criteria applicable to the territorial seas, 
                the contiguous zone, and the oceans under 
                section 403(c); and
                  (B) ensure that with respect to the issuance 
                of permits under this section--
                          (i) the least costly, environmentally 
                        acceptable disposal alternative will be 
                        selected, taking into consideration 
                        cost, existing technology, short term 
                        and long term dredging requirements, 
                        and logistics;
                          (ii) a disposal site will be 
                        specified after comparing reasonably 
                        available upland, confined aquatic, 
                        beneficial use, and open water disposal 
                        alternatives on the basis of relative 
                        risk, environmental acceptability, 
                        economics, practicability, and current 
                        technological feasibility;
                          (iii) a disposal site will be 
                        specified after comparing the 
                        reasonably anticipated environmental 
                        and economic benefits of undertaking 
                        the underlying project to the status 
                        quo; and
                          (iv) in comparing alternatives and 
                        selection of a disposal site, 
                        management measures may be considered 
                        and utilized to limit, to the extent 
                        practicable, adverse environmental 
                        effects by employing suitable chemical, 
                        biological, or physical techniques to 
                        prevent unacceptable adverse impacts on 
                        the environment.
          (3) Judicial review of final regulations.--Any 
        judicial review of final regulations issued pursuant to 
        this section and the Secretary's denial of any petition 
        for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of any 
        regulation under this section shall be in accordance 
        with sections 701 through 706 of title 5 of the United 
        States Code; except that a petition for review of 
        action of the Secretary in issuing any regulation or 
        requirement under this section or denying any petition 
        for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of any 
        regulation under this section may be filed only in the 
        United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
        Columbia, and such petition shall be filed within 90 
        days from the date of such issuance or denial or after 
        such date if such petition for review is based solely 
        on grounds arising after such ninetieth day. Action of 
        the Secretary with respect to which review could have 
        been obtained under this subsection shall not be 
        subject to judicial review in civil or criminal 
        proceedings for enforcement.
          (4) Interim regulations.--The Secretary shall, within 
        90 days after the date of the enactment of the 
        Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act 
        of 1995, issue interim regulations consistent with this 
        section to take effect immediately. Notice of the 
        interim regulations shall be published in the Federal 
        Register, and such regulations shall be binding until 
        the issuance of final regulations pursuant to paragraph 
        (1); except that the Secretary shall provide adequate 
        procedures for waiver of any provisions of such interim 
        regulations to avoid special hardship, inequity, or 
        unfair distribution of burdens or to advance the 
        purposes of this section.
          (5) Administration by secretary.--Except where 
        otherwise expressly provided in this section, the 
        Secretary shall administer this section. The Secretary 
        or any other Federal officer or agency in which any 
        function under this section is vested or delegated is 
        authorized to perform any and all acts (including 
        appropriate enforcement activity), and to prescribe, 
        issue, amend, or rescind such rules or orders as such 
        officer or agency may find necessary or appropriate 
        with this subsection, subject to the requirements of 
        this subsection.
  (k) Enforcement.--
          (1) Compliance order.--Whenever, on the basis of 
        reliable and substantial information and after 
        reasonable inquiry, the Secretary finds that any person 
        is or may be in violation of this section or of any 
        condition or limitation set forth in a permit issued by 
        the Secretary under this section, the Secretary shall 
        issue an order requiring such persons to comply with 
        this section or with such condition or limitation.
          (2) Notice and other procedural requirements relating 
        to orders.--A copy of any order issued under this 
        subsection shall be sent immediately by the Secretary 
        to the Governor of the State in which the violation 
        occurs and the Governors of other affected States. The 
        person committing the asserted violation that results 
        in issuance of the order shall be notified of the 
        issuance of the order by personal service made to the 
        appropriate person or corporate officer. The notice 
        shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of 
        the asserted violation and specify a time for 
        compliance, not to exceed 30 days, which the Secretary 
        determines is reasonable taking into account the 
        seriousness of the asserted violation and any good 
        faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements. 
        If the person receiving the notice disputes the 
        Secretary's determination, the person may file an 
        appeal as provided in subsection (i). Within 60 days of 
        a decision which denies an appeal, or within 150 days 
        from the date of notification of violation by the 
        Secretary if no appeal is filed, the Secretary shall 
        prosecute a civil action in accordance with paragraph 
        (3) or rescind such order and be estopped from any 
        further enforcement proceedings for the same asserted 
        violation.
          (3) Civil action enforcement.--The Secretary is 
        authorized to commence a civil action for appropriate 
        relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, 
        for any violation for which the Secretary is authorized 
        to issue a compliance order under paragraph (1). Any 
        action under this paragraph may be brought in the 
        district court of the United States for the district in 
        which the defendant is located or resides or is doing 
        business, and such court shall have jurisdiction to 
        restrain such violation and to require compliance. 
        Notice of the commencement of such action shall be 
        given immediately to the appropriate State.
          (4) Civil penalties.--Any person who violates any 
        condition or limitation in a permit issued by the 
        Secretary under this section and any person who 
        violates any order issued by the Secretary under 
        paragraph (1) shall be subject to a civil penalty not 
        to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation commencing 
        on expiration of the compliance period if no appeal is 
        filed or on the 30th day following the date of the 
        denial of an appeal of such violation. The amount of 
        the penalty imposed per day shall be in proportion to 
        the scale or scope of the project. In determining the 
        amount of a civil penalty, the court shall consider the 
        seriousness of the violation or violations, the 
        economic benefit (if any) resulting from the violation, 
        any history of such violations, any good-faith efforts 
        to comply with the applicable requirements, the 
        economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and 
        such other matters as justice may require.
          (5) Criminal penalties.--If any person knowingly and 
        willfully violates any condition or limitation in a 
        permit issued by the Secretary under this section or 
        knowingly and willfully violates an order issued by the 
        Secretary under paragraph (1) and has been notified of 
        the issuance of such order under paragraph (2) and if 
        such violation has resulted in actual degradation of 
        the environment, such person shall be punished by a 
        fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per 
        day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 
        3 years, or by both. If a conviction of a person is for 
        a violation committed after a first conviction of such 
        person under this paragraph, punishment shall be by a 
        fine of not more than $100,000 per day of violation, or 
        imprisonment of not more than 6 years, or by both. An 
        action for imposition of a criminal penalty under this 
        paragraph may only be brought by the Attorney General.
  (l) State Regulation.--
          (1) Submission of proposed state program.--The 
        Governor of any State desiring to administer its own 
        individual or general permit program for some or all of 
        the activities covered by this section within any 
        geographical region within its jurisdiction may submit 
        to the Secretary a description of the program it 
        proposes to establish and administer under State law or 
        under an interstate compact. In addition, such State 
        shall submit a statement from the chief legal officer 
        in the case of the State or interstate agency, that the 
        laws of such State, or the interstate compact, as the 
        case may be, provide adequate authority to carry out 
        the described program.
          (2) State authorities required for approval.--Not 
        later than 1 year after the date of the receipt by the 
        Secretary of a program and statement submitted by any 
        State under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
        determine whether such State has the following 
        authority with respect to the issuance of permits 
        pursuant to such program:
                  (A) to issue permits which--
                          (i) apply, and assure compliance 
                        with, any applicable requirements of 
                        this section; and
                          (ii) can be terminated or modified 
                        for cause, including--
                                  (I) violation of any 
                                condition of the permit;
                                  (II) obtaining a permit by 
                                misrepresentation, or failure 
                                to disclose fully all relevant 
                                facts; or
                                  (III) change in any condition 
                                that requires either a 
                                temporary or permanent 
                                reduction or elimination of the 
                                permitted activity;
                  (B) to issue permits which apply, and ensure 
                compliance with, all applicable requirements of 
                section 308 of this Act or to inspect, monitor, 
                enter, and require reports to at least the same 
                extent as required in section 308 of this Act;
                  (C) to ensure that the public, and any other 
                State the waters of which may be affected, 
                receive notice of each application for a permit 
                and to provide an opportunity for public 
                hearing before a ruling on each such 
                application;
                  (D) to ensure that the Secretary receives 
                notice of each application for a permit and 
                that, prior to any action by the State, both 
                the applicant for the permit and the State have 
                received from the Secretary information with 
                respect to any advance classification 
                applicable to wetlands that are the subject of 
                such application;
                  (E) to ensure that any State (other than the 
                permitting State) whose waters may be affected 
                by the issuance of a permit may submit written 
                recommendation to the permitting State with 
                respect to any permit application and, if any 
                part of such written recommendations are not 
                accepted by the permitting State, that the 
                permitting State will notify such affected 
                State (and the Secretary) in writing of its 
                failure to so accept such recommendations 
                together with its reasons for doing so; and
                  (F) to abate violations of the permit or the 
                permit program, including civil and criminal 
                penalties and other ways and means of 
                enforcement.
          (3) Approval; resubmission.--If, with respect to a 
        State program submitted under paragraph (1) of this 
        section, the Secretary determines that the State--
                  (A) has the authority set forth in paragraph 
                (2), the Secretary shall approve the program 
                and so notify such State and suspend the 
                issuance of permits under subsection (b) for 
                activities with respect to which a permit may 
                be issued pursuant to the State program; or
                  (B) does not have the authority set forth in 
                paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Secretary 
                shall so notify such State and provide a 
                description of the revisions or modifications 
                necessary so that the State may resubmit the 
                program for a determination by the Secretary 
                under this subsection.
          (4) Effect of failure of secretary to make timely 
        decision.--If the Secretary fails to make a 
        determination with respect to any program submitted by 
        a State under this subsection within 1 year after the 
        date of receipt of the program, the program shall be 
        treated as being approved pursuant to paragraph (3)(A) 
        and the Secretary shall so notify the State and suspend 
        the issuance of permits under subsection (b) for 
        activities with respect to which a permit may be issued 
        by the State.
          (5) Transfer of pending applications for permits.--If 
        the Secretary approves a State permit program under 
        paragraph (3)(A) or (4), the Secretary shall transfer 
        any applications for permits pending before the 
        Secretary for activities with respect to which a permit 
        may be issued pursuant to the State program to the 
        State for appropriate action.
          (6) General permits.--Upon notification from a State 
        with a permit program approved under this subsection 
        that such State intends to administer and enforce the 
        terms and conditions of a general permit issued by the 
        Secretary under subsection (e) with respect to 
        activities in the State to which such general permit 
        applies, the Secretary shall suspend the administration 
        and enforcement of such general permit with respect to 
        such activities.
          (7) Review by secretary.--Every 5 years after 
        approval of a State administered program under 
        paragraph (3)(A), the Secretary shall review the 
        program to determine whether it is being administered 
        in accordance with this section. If, on the basis of 
        such review, the Secretary finds that a State is not 
        administering its program in accordance with this 
        section or if the Secretary determines based on clear 
        and convincing evidence after a public hearing that a 
        State is not administering its program in accordance 
        with this section and that substantial adverse impacts 
        to wetlands or waters of the United States are 
        imminent, the Secretary shall notify the State and, if 
        appropriate corrective action is not taken within a 
        reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days after the date 
        of the receipt of such notification, the Secretary 
        shall--
                  (A) withdraw approval of the program until 
                the Secretary determines such corrective action 
                has been taken; and
                  (B) resume the program for the issuance of 
                permits under subsections (b) and (e) for all 
                activities with respect to which the State was 
                issuing permits until such time as the 
                Secretary makes the determination described in 
                paragraph (2) and the State again has an 
                approved program.
  (m) Miscellaneous Provisions.--
          (1) State authority to control discharges.--Nothing 
        in this section shall preclude or deny the right of any 
        State or interstate agency to control activities in 
        waters within the jurisdiction of such State, including 
        any activity of any Federal agency, and each such 
        agency shall comply with such State or interstate 
        requirements both substantive and procedural to control 
        such activities to the same extent that any person is 
        subject to such requirements. This section shall not be 
        construed as affecting or impairing the authority of 
        the Secretary to maintain navigation.
          (2) Availability to public.--A copy of each permit 
        application and each permit issued under this section 
        shall be available to the public. Such permit 
        application or portion thereof shall further be 
        available on request for the purpose of reproduction.
          (3) Publication in federal register.--The Secretary 
        shall have published in the Federal Register all 
        memoranda of agreement, regulatory guidance letters, 
        and other guidance documents of general applicability 
        to implementation of this section at the time they are 
        distributed to agency regional or field offices. In 
        addition, the Secretary shall prepare, update on a 
        biennial basis and make available to the public for 
        purchase at cost--
                  (A) an indexed publication containing all 
                Federal regulations, general permits, memoranda 
                of agreement, regulatory guidance letters, and 
                other guidance documents relevant to the 
                permitting of activities pursuant to this 
                section; and
                  (B) information to enable the general public 
                to understand the delineation of wetlands, the 
                permitting requirements referred to in 
                subsection (e), wetlands restoration and 
                enhancement, wetlands functions, available 
                nonregulatory programs to conserve and restore 
                wetlands, and other matters that the Secretary 
                considers relevant.
          (4) Compliance.--
                  (A) Compliance with permit.--Compliance with 
                a permit issued pursuant to this section, 
                including any activity carried out pursuant to 
                a general permit issued under this section, 
                shall be deemed in compliance, for purposes of 
                sections 309 and 505, with sections 301, 307, 
                and 403.
                  (B) Cranberry production.--Activities 
                associated with expansion, improvement, or 
                modification of existing cranberry production 
                operations shall be deemed in compliance, for 
                purposes of sections 309 and 505, with section 
                301, if--
                          (i) the activity does not result in 
                        the modification of more than 10 acres 
                        of wetlands per operator per year and 
                        the modified wetlands (other than where 
                        dikes and other necessary facilities 
                        are placed) remain as wetlands or other 
                        waters of the United States; or
                          (ii) the activity is required by any 
                        State or Federal water quality program.
          (5) Limitation on fees.--Any fee charged in 
        connection with the delineation or classification of 
        wetlands, the submission or processing of an 
        application for a permit authorizing an activity in 
        wetlands or waters of the United States, or any other 
        action taken in compliance with the requirements of 
        this section (other than fines for violations under 
        subsection (k)) shall not exceed the amount in effect 
        for such fee on February 15, 1995.
          (6) Balanced implementation.--
                  (A) In general.--In implementing his or her 
                responsibilities under the regulatory program 
                under this section, the Secretary shall balance 
                the objective of conserving functioning 
                wetlands with the objective of ensuring 
                continued economic growth, providing essential 
                infrastructure, maintaining strong State and 
                local tax bases, and protecting against the 
                diminishment of the use and value of privately 
                owned property.
                  (B) Minimization of adverse effects on 
                private property.--In carrying out this 
                section, the Secretary and the heads of all 
                other Federal agencies shall seek in all 
                actions to minimize the adverse effects of the 
                regulatory program under this section on the 
                use and value of privately owned property.
          (7) Procedures for emergencies.--The Secretary shall 
        develop procedures for facilitating actions under this 
        section that are necessary to respond to emergency 
        conditions (including flood events and other emergency 
        situations) which may involve loss of life and property 
        damage. Such procedures shall address circumstances 
        requiring expedited approvals as well as circumstances 
        requiring no formal approval under this section.
          (8) Use of property.--For purposes of this section, a 
        use of property is limited by an agency action if a 
        particular legal right to use that property no longer 
        exists because of the action.
          (9) Limitation on classification of certain waters.--
        For purposes of this section, no water of the United 
        States or wetland shall be subject to this section 
        based solely on the fact that migratory birds use or 
        could use such water or wetland.
          (10) Transition rules.--
                  (A) Permit required.--After the effective 
                date of this section under section 806 of the 
                Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and 
                Management Act of 1995, no permit for any 
                activity in wetlands or waters of the United 
                States may be issued except in accordance with 
                this section. Any application for a permit for 
                such an activity pending under this section on 
                such effective date shall be deemed to be an 
                application for a permit under this section.
                  (B) Prior permits.--Any permit for an 
                activity in wetlands or waters of the United 
                States issued under this section prior to the 
                effective date referred to in subparagraph (A) 
                shall be deemed to be a permit under this 
                section and shall continue in force and effect 
                for the term of the permit unless revoked, 
                modified, suspended, or canceled in accordance 
                with this section.
                  (C) Reevaluation.--
                          (i) Petition.--Any person holding a 
                        permit for an activity in wetlands or 
                        water of the United States on the 
                        effective date referred to in 
                        subparagraph (A) may petition, after 
                        such effective date, the Secretary for 
                        reevaluation of any decision made 
                        before such effective date concerning 
                        (I) a determination of regulatory 
                        jurisdiction under this section, or 
                        (II) any condition imposed under the 
                        permit. Upon receipt of a petition for 
                        reevaluation, the Secretary shall 
                        conduct the reevaluation in accordance 
                        with the provisions of this section.
                          (ii) Modification of permit.--If the 
                        Secretary finds that the provisions of 
                        this section apply with respect to 
                        activities and lands which are subject 
                        to the permit, the Secretary shall 
                        modify, revoke, suspend, cancel, or 
                        continue the permit as appropriate in 
                        accordance with the provisions of this 
                        section; except that no compensation 
                        shall be awarded under this section to 
                        any person as a result of reevaluation 
                        pursuant to this subparagraph and, if 
                        the permit covers activities in type A 
                        wetlands, the permit shall continue in 
                        effect without modification.
                          (iii) Procedure.--The reevaluation 
                        shall be carried out in accordance with 
                        time limits set forth in subsection 
                        (e)(5) and shall be subject to 
                        administrative appeal under subsection 
                        (i).
                  (D) Previously denied permits.--No permit 
                shall be issued under this section, no 
                exemption shall be available under subsection 
                (f), and no exception shall be available under 
                subsection (g)(1)(B), for any activity for 
                which a permit has previously been denied by 
                the Secretary on more than one occasion unless 
                such activity--
                          (i) has been approved by the affected 
                        State, county, and local government 
                        within the boundaries of which the 
                        activity is proposed;
                          (ii) in the case of unincorporated 
                        land, has been approved by all local 
                        governments within 1 mile of the 
                        proposed activity; and
                          (iii) would result in a net 
                        improvement to water quality at the 
                        site of such activity.
          (11) Definitions.--In this section the following 
        definitions apply:
                  (A) Activity in wetlands or waters of the 
                united states.--The term ``activity in wetlands 
                or waters of the United States'' means--
                          (i) the discharge of dredged or fill 
                        material into waters of the United 
                        States, including wetlands at a 
                        specific disposal site; or
                          (ii) the draining, channelization, or 
                        excavation of wetlands.
                  (B) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the 
                meaning given that term in section 551 of title 
                5, United States Code.
                  (C) Agency action.--The term ``agency 
                action'' has the meaning given that term in 
                section 551 of title 5, United States Code, but 
                also includes the making of a grant to a public 
                authority conditioned upon an action by the 
                recipient that would constitute a limitation if 
                done directly by the agency.
                  (D) Agricultural land.--The term 
                ``agricultural land'' means cropland, 
                pastureland, native pasture, rangeland, an 
                orchard, a vineyard, nonindustrial forest land, 
                an area that supports a water dependent crop 
                (including cranberries, taro, watercress, or 
                rice), and any other land used to produce or 
                support the production of an annual or 
                perennial crop (including forage or hay), 
                aquaculture product, nursery product, or 
                wetland crop or the production of livestock.
                  (E) Conserved wetlands.--The term ``conserved 
                wetlands'' means wetlands that are located in 
                the National Park System, National Wildlife 
                Refuge System, National Wilderness System, the 
                Wild and Scenic River System, and other similar 
                Federal conservation systems, combined with 
                wetlands located in comparable types of 
                conservation systems established under State 
                and local authority within State and local land 
                use systems.
                  (F) Economic base lands.--The term ``economic 
                base lands'' means lands conveyed to, selected 
                by, or owned by Alaska Native entities pursuant 
                to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 
                Public Law 92-203 or the Alaska Native 
                Allotment Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 197), and lands 
                conveyed to, selected by, or owned by the State 
                of Alaska pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act, 
                Public Law 85-508.
                  (G) Fair market value.--The term ``fair 
                market value'' means the most probable price at 
                which property would change hands, in a 
                competitive and open market under all 
                conditions requisite to a fair sale, between a 
                willing buyer and a willing seller, neither 
                being under any compulsion to buy or sell and 
                both having reasonable knowledge of relevant 
                facts, at the time the agency action occurs.
                  (H) Law of a state.--The term ``law of a 
                State'' includes the law of a political 
                subdivision of a State.
                  (I) Mitigation bank.--The term ``mitigation 
                bank'' means a wetlands restoration, creation, 
                enhancement, or preservation project undertaken 
                by one or more parties, including private and 
                public entities, expressly for the purpose of 
                providing mitigation compensation credits to 
                offset adverse impacts to wetlands or other 
                waters of the United States authorized by the 
                terms of permits allowing activities in such 
                wetlands or waters.
                  (J) Navigational dredging.--The term 
                ``navigational dredging'' means the dredging of 
                ports, waterways, and inland harbors, including 
                berthing areas and local access channels 
                appurtenant to a Federal navigation channel.
                  (K) Property.--The term ``property'' means 
                land and includes the right to use or receive 
                water.
                  (L) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means 
                the Secretary of the Army.
                  (M) State with substantial conserved wetlands 
                areas.--The term ``State with substantial 
                conserved wetlands areas'' means any State 
                which--
                          (i) contains at least 10 areas of 
                        wetlands for each acre of wetlands 
                        filled, drained, or otherwise converted 
                        within such State (based upon wetlands 
                        loss statistics reported in the 1990 
                        United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
                        Wetlands Trends report to Congress 
                        entitled ``Wetlands Losses in the 
                        United States 1780's to 1980's''); or
                          (ii) the Secretary of the Army 
                        determines has sufficient conserved 
                        wetlands areas to provided adequate 
                        wetlands conservation in such State, 
                        based on the policies set forth in this 
                        Act.
                  (N) Wetlands.--The term ``wetlands'' means 
                those lands that meet the criteria for 
                delineation of lands as wetlands set forth in 
                subsection (g).

                       disposal of sewage sludge

    Sec. 405. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
Act or of any other law, in the case where the disposal of 
sewage sludge (also referred to as ``biosolids'') resulting 
from the operation of a treatment works as defined in section 
212 of this Act (including the removal of in-place sewage 
sludge from one location and its deposit at another location) 
would result in any pollutant from such sewage sludge entering 
the navigable waters, such disposal is prohibited except in 
accordance with a permit issued by the Administrator under 
section 402 of this Act.
          * * * * * * *
    (f) Implementation of Regulations.--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (3) Approval of state programs.--Notwithstanding any 
        other provision of law, the Administrator shall approve 
        for purposes of this subsection State programs that 
        meet the standards for final use or disposal of sewage 
        sludge established by the Administrator pursuant to 
        subsection (d).
    (g) Studies and Projects.--
          (1) Grant program; information gathering.--The 
        Administrator is authorized to conduct or initiate 
        scientific studies, demonstration projects, and public 
        information and education projects which are designed 
        to promote the safe and beneficial management or use of 
        sewage sludge for such purposes as aiding the 
        restoration of abandoned mine sites, conditioning soil 
        for parks and recreation areas, agricultural and 
        horticultural uses, building materials, and other 
        beneficial purposes. For the purposes of carrying out 
        this subsection, the Administrator may make grants to 
        State water pollution control agencies, other public or 
        nonprofit agencies, institutions, organizations, and 
        individuals. In cooperation with other Federal 
        departments and agencies, other public and private 
        agencies, institutions, and organizations, the 
        Administrator is authorized to collect and disseminate 
        information pertaining to the safe and beneficial use 
        of sewage sludge. Not later than January 1, 1997, and 
        after providing notice and opportunity for public 
        comment, the Administrator shall issue guidance on the 
        beneficial use of sewage sludge.
          (2) Authorization of appropriations.--For the 
        purposes of carrying out the scientific studies, 
        demonstration projects, and public information and 
        education projects authorized in this section, there is 
        authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 
        beginning after [September 30, 1986,] September 30, 
        1995, not to exceed $5,000,000.

SEC. 406. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS DEFINED.

  (a) Issuance of Regulations.--Not later than 1 year of the 
date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator, after 
consultation with State officials, shall issue a regulation 
defining ``waste treatment systems''.
  (b) Inclusion of Areas.--
          (1) Areas which may be included.--In defining the 
        term ``waste treatment systems'' under subsection (a), 
        the Administrator may include areas used for the 
        treatment of wastes if the Administrator determines 
        that such inclusion will not interfere with the goals 
        of this Act.
          (2) Areas which shall be included.--In defining the 
        term ``waste treatment systems'' under subsection (a), 
        the Administrator shall include, at a minimum, areas 
        used for detention, retention, treatment, settling, 
        conveyance, or evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, 
        or cooling water unless--
                  (A) the area was created in or resulted from 
                the impoundment or other modification of 
                navigable waters and construction of the area 
                commenced after the date of the enactment of 
                this section;
                  (B) on or after February 15, 1995, the owner 
                or operator allows the area to be used by 
                interstate or foreign travelers for 
                recreational purposes; or
                  (C) on or after February 15, 1995, the owner 
                or operator allows the taking of fish or 
                shellfish from the area for sale in interstate 
                or foreign commerce.
  (c) Interim Period.--Before the date of issuance of 
regulations under subsection (a), the Administrator or the 
State (in the case of a State with an approved permit program 
under section 402) shall not require a new permit under section 
402 or section 404 for any discharge into any area used for 
detention, retention, treatment, settling, conveyance, or 
evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water unless 
the area is an area described in subsection (b)(2)(A), 
(b)(2)(B), or (b)(2)(C).
  (d) Savings Clause.--Any area which the Administrator or the 
State (in the case of a State with an approved permit program 
under section 402) determined, before February 15, 1995, is a 
water of the United States and for which, pursuant to such 
determination, the Administrator or State issued, before 
February 15, 1995, a permit under section 402 for discharges 
into such area shall remain a water of the United States.
  (e) Regulation of Other Areas.--With respect to areas 
constructed for detention, retention, treatment, settling, 
conveyance, or evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or 
cooling water that are not waste treatment systems as defined 
by the Administrator pursuant to this section and that the 
Administrator determines are navigable waters under this Act, 
the Administrator or the States, in establishing standards 
pursuant to section 303(c) of this Act or implementing other 
requirements of this Act, shall give due consideration to the 
uses for which such areas were designed and constructed, and 
need not establish standards or other requirements that will 
impede such uses.
          * * * * * * *

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                             administration

    Sec. 501. (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (g) Consultation With States.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall consult with 
        and substantially involve State governments and their 
        representative organizations and, to the extent that 
        they participate in the administration of this Act, 
        tribal and local governments, in the Environmental 
        Protection Agency's decisionmaking, priority setting, 
        policy and guidance development, and implementation 
        under this Act.
          (2) Inapplicability of federal advisory committee 
        act.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
        App.) shall not apply to meetings held to carry out 
        paragraph (1)--
                  (A) if such meetings are held exclusively 
                between Federal officials and elected officers 
                of State, local, and tribal governments (or 
                their designated employees with authority to 
                act on their behalf) acting in their official 
                capacities; and
                  (B) if such meetings are solely for the 
                purposes of exchanging views, information, or 
                advice relating to the management or 
                implementation of this Act.
          (3) Implementing guidelines.--No later than 6 months 
        after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the 
        Administrator shall issue guidelines for appropriate 
        implementation of this subsection consistent with 
        applicable laws and regulations.

                          general definitions

    Sec. 502. Except as otherwise specifically provided, when 
used in this Act:
    (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (5) The term ``person'' means an individual, corporation, 
partnership, association, State, municipality, commission, or 
political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body and 
includes any department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
United States.
    (6) The term ``pollutant'' means [dredged spoil,] solid 
waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, 
munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive 
materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, 
cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste 
discharged into water. This term does not mean (A) ``sewage 
from vessels'' within the meaning of section 312 of this Act; 
[or] (B) water, gas, or other material which is injected into a 
well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived 
in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a 
well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for 
disposal purpose is approved by authority of the State in which 
the well is located, and if such State determines that such 
injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of 
ground or surface water resources; and (C) dredged or fill 
material.
    (7) The term ``navigable waters'' means the waters of the 
United States, including the territorial seas. Such term does 
not include ``waste treatment systems'', as defined under 
section 406.
          * * * * * * *
    (14) The term ``point source'' means any discernible, 
confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to 
any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete 
fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding 
operation (other than an intermittent nonproducing livestock 
operation such as a stockyard or a holding and sorting 
facility), or vessel or other floating craft, from which 
pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include 
agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from 
irrigated agriculture. The term does not include a stormwater 
discharge. The term does include an intermittent nonproducing 
livestock operation if the average number of animal units that 
are fed or maintained in any 90-day period exceeds the number 
of animal units determined by the Administrator or the State 
(in the case of a State with an approved permit program under 
section 402) to constitute a concentrated animal feeding 
operation or if the operation is designated by the 
Administrator or State as a significant contributor of 
pollution.
          * * * * * * *
  (21) The term ``effluent-dependent stream'' means a stream or 
a segment thereof--
          (A) with respect to which the flow (based on the 
        annual average expected flow, determined by calculating 
        the average mode over a 10-year period) is primarily 
        attributable to the discharge of treated wastewater;
          (B) that, in the absence of a discharge of treated 
        wastewater and other primary anthropogenic surface or 
        subsurface flows, would be an ephemeral stream; or
          (C) that is an effluent-dependent stream under 
        applicable State water quality standards.
  (22) The term ``ephemeral stream'' means a stream or segments 
thereof that flows periodically in response to precipitation, 
snowmelt, or runoff.
  (23) The term ``constructed water conveyance'' means a 
manmade water transport system constructed for the purpose of 
transporting water in a waterway that is not and never was a 
natural perennial waterway.
  (24) The term ``radioactive materials'' includes source 
materials, special nuclear materials, and byproduct materials 
(as such terms are defined under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954) 
which are used, produced, or managed at facilities not licensed 
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; except that such term 
does not include any material which is discharged from a vessel 
covered by Executive Order 12344 (42 U.S.C. 7158 note; relating 
to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program).
  (25) The term ``stormwater'' means runoff from rain, snow 
melt, or any other precipitation-generated surface runoff.
  (26) The term ``stormwater discharge'' means a discharge from 
any conveyance which is used for the collecting and conveying 
of stormwater to navigable waters and which is associated with 
a municipal storm sewer system or industrial, commercial, oil, 
gas, or mining activities or construction activities.
  (27) The term ``publicly owned treatment works'' means a 
treatment works, as defined in section 212, located at other 
than an industrial facility, which is designed and constructed 
principally, as determined by the Administrator, to treat 
domestic sewage or a mixture of domestic sewage and industrial 
wastes of a liquid nature. In the case of such a facility that 
is privately owned, such term includes only those facilities 
that, with respect to such industrial wastes, are carrying out 
a pretreatment program meeting all the requirements established 
under section 307 and paragraphs (8) and (9) of section 402(b) 
for pretreatment programs (whether or not the treatment works 
would be required to implement a pretreatment program pursuant 
to such sections).
  (28) The term ``wetlands'' means lands which have a 
predominance of hydric soils and which are inundated by surface 
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and 
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, 
and similar areas.
  (29) The term ``creation of wetlands'' means an activity that 
brings a wetland into existence at a site where it did not 
formerly occur for the purpose of compensatory mitigation.
  (30) The term ``enhancement of wetlands'' means any activity 
that increases the value of one or more functions in existing 
wetlands.
  (31) The term ``fastlands'' means lands located behind 
legally constituted man-made structures or natural formations, 
such as levees constructed and maintained to permit the 
utilization of such lands for commercial, industrial, or 
residential purposes consistent with local land use planning 
requirements.
  (32) The term ``wetlands functions'' means the roles wetlands 
serve, including flood water storage, flood water conveyance, 
ground water recharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, water 
quality protection, scenic and aesthetic use, food chain 
support, fisheries, wetlands plant habitat, aquatic habitat, 
and habitat for wetland dependent wildlife.
  (33) The term ``growing season'' means, for each plant 
hardiness zone, the period between the average date of last 
frost in spring and the average date of first frost in autumn.
  (34) The term ``incidentally created wetlands'' means lands 
that exhibit wetlands characteristics sufficient to meet the 
criteria for delineation of wetlands, where one or more of such 
characteristics is the unintended result of human induced 
alterations of hydrology.
  (35) The term ``maintenance'' when used in reference to 
wetlands means activities undertaken to assure continuation of 
a wetland or the accomplishment of project goals after a 
restoration or creation project has been technically completed, 
including water level manipulations and control of nonnative 
plant species.
  (36) The term ``mitigation banking'' means wetlands 
restoration, enhancement, preservation or creation for the 
purpose of providing compensation for wetland degradation or 
loss.
  (37) The term ``normal farming, silviculture, aquaculture and 
ranching activities'' means normal practices identified as such 
by the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the 
Cooperative Extension Service for each State and the land grant 
university system and agricultural colleges of the State, 
taking into account existing practices and such other practices 
as may be identified in consultation with the affected industry 
or community.
  (38) The term ``prior converted cropland'' means any 
agricultural land that was manipulated (by drainage or other 
physical alteration to remove excess water from the land) or 
used for the production of any annual or perennial agricultural 
crop (including forage or hay), aquacultural product, nursery 
product or wetlands crop, or the production of livestock before 
December 23, 1985.
  (39) The term ``restoration'' in reference to wetlands means 
an activity undertaken to return a wetland from a disturbed or 
altered condition with lesser acreage or fewer functions to a 
previous condition with greater wetlands acreage or functions.
  (40) The term ``temporary impact'' means the disturbance or 
alteration of wetlands caused by activities under circumstances 
in which, within 3 years following the commencement of such 
activities, such wetlands--
          (A) are returned to the conditions in existence prior 
        to the commencement of such activity; or
          (B) display conditions sufficient to ensure, that 
        without further human action, such wetlands will return 
        to the conditions in existence prior to the 
        commencement of such activity.
  (41) The term ``airport hazard'' has the meaning such term 
has under section 47102 of title 49, United States Code.
          * * * * * * *

                             citizen suits

    Sec. 505. (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (f) For purposes of this section, the term ``effluent 
standard or limitation under this Act'' means (1) effective 
July 1, 1973, an unlawful act under subsection (a) of section 
301 of this Act; (2) an effluent limitation or other limitation 
under section 301 or 302 of this Act; (3) standard or 
performance under section 306 of this Act; (4) prohibition, 
effluent standard or pretreatment standards under section 307 
of this Act; (5) certification under section 401 of this Act; 
(6) a permit or condition thereof issued under section 402 of 
this Act, which is in effect under this Act (including a 
requirement applicable by reason of section 313 of this Act); 
or (7) a regulation under section 405(d) of this Act[,].
          * * * * * * *

                            [state authority

    [Sec. 510. Except]

SEC. 510. STATE AUTHORITY.

  (a) In General.--Except as expressly provided in this Act, 
nothing in this Act shall (1) preclude or deny the right of any 
State or political subdivision thereof or interstate agency to 
adopt or enforce (A) any standard or limitation respecting 
discharges of pollutants, or (B) any requirement respecting 
control or abatement of pollution; except that if an effluent 
limitation, or other limitation, effluent standard, 
prohibition, pretreatment standard, or standard of performance 
is in effect under this Act, such State or political 
subdivision or interstate agency may not adopt or enforce any 
effluent limitation, or other limitation, effluent standard, 
prohibition, pretreatment standard, or standard of performance 
which is less stringent than the effluent limitation, or other 
limitation, effluent standard prohibition, pretreatment 
standard, or standard of performance under this Act; or (2) be 
construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or 
jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters 
(including boundary waters) of such States.
  (b) Water Rights.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair any right or authority 
of a State to allocate quantities of water (including boundary 
waters). Nothing in this Act shall be implemented, enforced, or 
construed to allow any officer or agency of the United States 
to utilize directly or indirectly the authorities established 
under this Act to impose any requirement not imposed by the 
State which would supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair 
rights to the use of water resources allocated under State law, 
interstate water compact, or Supreme Court decree, or held by 
the United States for use by a State, its political 
subdivisions, or its citizens. No water rights arise in the 
United States or any other person under the provisions of this 
Act. This subsection shall not be construed as limiting any 
State's authority under section 401 of this Act, as excusing 
any person from obtaining a permit under section 402 or 404 of 
this Act, or as excusing any obligation to comply with 
requirements established by a State to implement section 319.
          * * * * * * *

                          reports to congress

    Sec. 516. (a) Within ninety days following the convening of 
each session of Congress, the Administrator shall submit to the 
Congress a report, in addition to any other report required by 
this Act, on measures taken toward implementing the objective 
of this Act, including, but not limited to, (1) the progress 
and problems associated with developing comprehensive plans 
under section 102 of this Act, areawide plans under section 208 
of this Act, basin plans under section 209 of this Act, and 
plans under section 303(e) of this Act; (2) a summary of 
actions taken and results achieved in the field of water 
pollution control research, experiments, studies, and related 
matters by the Administrator and other Federal agencies and by 
other persons and agencies under Federal grants or contracts; 
(3) the progress and problems associated with the development 
of effluent limitations and recommended control techniques; (4) 
the status of State programs, including a detailed summary of 
the progress obtained as compared to that planned under the 
State program plans for development and enforcement of water 
quality requirements; (5) the identification and status of 
enforcement actions pending or completed under such Act during 
the preceding year; (6) the status of State, interstate, and 
local pollution control programs established pursuant to, and 
assisted by, this Act; (7) a summary of the results of the 
survey required to be taken under section 210 of this Act; (8) 
his activities including recommendations under sections 109 
through 111 of this Act; [and (9)] (9) the monitoring conducted 
by States on the water quality of beaches and the issuance of 
health advisories with respect to beaches, and (10) all reports 
and recommendations made by the Water Pollution Control 
Advisory Board.
    (b)(1) The Administrator, in cooperation with the States, 
including water pollution control agencies and other water 
pollution control planning agencies, shall make (A) a detailed 
estimate of the cost of carrying out the provisions of this 
Act; (B) a detailed estimate, [biennially revised] 
quadrennially revised, of the cost of construction of all 
needed publicly owned treatment works in all of the States and 
of the cost of construction of all needed publicly owned 
treatment works in each of the States; (C) a comprehensive 
study of the economic impact on affected units of government of 
the cost of installation of treatment facilities; and (D) a 
comprehensive analysis of the national requirements for and the 
cost of treating municipal, industrial, and other effluent to 
attain the water quality objectives as established by this Act 
or applicable State law. The Administrator shall submit such 
detailed estimate and such comprehensive study of such cost to 
the Congress no later than [February 10 of each odd-numbered 
year] December 31, 1997, and December 31 of every 4th calendar 
year thereafter. Whenever the Administrator, pursuant to this 
subsection, requests and receives an estimate of cost from a 
State, he shall furnish copies of such estimate together with 
such detailed estimate to Congress.
          * * * * * * *
    [(g)] (f) State Revolving Fund Report.--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *

                         GENERAL AUTHORIZATION

    Sec. 517. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 
out this Act, other than sections 104, 105, 106(a), 107, 108, 
112, 113, 114, 115, 206, 207, 208 (f) and (h), 209, 304, 311 
(c), (d), (i), (l), and (k), 314, 315, and 317, $250,000,000 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, $300,000,000 for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, $350,000,000 for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1975, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1977, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1978, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1979, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1980, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1981, $161,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1982, such sums as may be necessary for 
fiscal years 1983 through 1985, [and] $135,000,000 per fiscal 
year for each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990, and such 
sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1991 through 
2000.

SEC. 518. INDIAN TRIBES.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Reservation of Funds.--The Administrator shall reserve 
each fiscal year [beginning after September 30, 1986,] before 
allotments to the States under [section 205(e), one-half of] 
section 604(a), one percent of the sums appropriated under 
[section 207] sections 607 and 608. Sums reserved under this 
subsection shall be available only for grants for the 
develoment of waste treatment management plans and for the 
construction of sewage treatment works to serve Indian tribes, 
as defined in subsection (h) and former Indian reservations in 
Oklahoma (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior) and 
Alaska Native Villages as defined in Public Law 92-203.
    (d) Cooperative Agreements.--In order to ensure the 
consistent implementation of the requirements of this Act, an 
Indian tribe and the State or States in which the lands of such 
tribe are located may enter into a cooperative agreement, 
subject to the review and approval of the Administrator, to 
jointly plan and administer the requirements of this Act. In 
exercising the review and approval provided in this paragraph, 
the Administrator shall respect the terms of any cooperative 
agreement that addresses the authority or responsibility of a 
State or Indian tribe to administer the requirements of this 
Act within the exterior boundaries of a Federal Indian 
reservation, so long as that agreement otherwise provides for 
the adequate administration of this Act.
          * * * * * * *
    (f) Grants for Nonpoint Source Programs.--The Administrator 
shall make grants to an Indian tribe under section 319 of this 
Act as though such tribe was a State. Not more than one-third 
of one percent of the amount appropriated for any fiscal year 
under section 319 may be used to make grants under this 
subsection. In addition to the requirements of section 319, an 
Indian tribe shall be required to meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection [(d)] (e) of this 
section in order to receive such a grant.
          * * * * * * *
  (h) Dispute Resolution.--The Administrator shall promulgate, 
in consultation with States and Indian tribes, regulations 
which provide for the resolution of any unreasonable 
consequences that may arise as a result of differing water 
quality standards that may be set by States and Indian tribes 
located on common bodies of water. Such mechanism shall 
provide, in a manner consistent with the objectives of this 
Act, that persons who are affected by differing tribal or State 
water quality permit requirements have standing to utilize the 
dispute resolution process, and for the explicit consideration 
of relevant factors, including the effects of differing water 
quality permit requirements on upstream and downstream 
dischargers, economic impacts, and present and historical uses 
and quality of the waters subject to such standards.
    (i) District Courts; Petition for Review; Standard of 
Review.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 509, the 
United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over 
actions brought to review any determination of the 
Administrator under section 518. Such an action may be brought 
by a State or a Indian tribe and shall be filed with the court 
within the 90-day period beginning on the date of the 
determination of the Administrator is made. In any such action, 
the district court shall review the Administrator's 
determination de novo.
    [(h)] (j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
term--
                (1) ``Federal Indian reservation'' means all 
                land within the limits of any Indian 
                reservation under the jurisdiction of the 
                United States Government, notwithstanding the 
                issuance of any patent, and including rights-
                of-way running through the reservation, and, in 
                the State of Oklahoma, such term includes lands 
                held in trust by the United States for the 
                benefit of an Indian tribe or an individual 
                member of an Indian tribe, lands which are 
                subject to Federal restrictions against 
                alienation, and lands which are located within 
                a dependent Indian community, as defined in 
                section 1151 of title 18, United States Code; 
                and
        (2) ``Indian tribe'' means any Indian tribe, band, 
        group, or community recognized by the Secretary of the 
        Interior and exercising governmental authority over a 
        Federal Indian reservation.

SEC. 519. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.

    In developing any effluent guideline under section 304(b), 
pretreatment standard under section 307(b), or new source 
performance standard under section 306 that is applicable to 
the food processing industry, the Administrator shall consult 
with and consider the recommendations of the Food and Drug 
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, 
Department of Agriculture, and Department of Commerce. The 
recommendations of such departments and agencies and a 
description of the Administrator's response to those 
recommendations shall be made part of the rulemaking record for 
the development of such guidelines and standards. The 
Administrator's response shall include an explanation with 
respect to food safety, including a discussion of relative 
risks, of any departure from a recommendation by any such 
department or agency.

SEC. 520. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

  (a) Establishment of Board.--The Administrator shall 
establish an independent Board of Audit Appeals (hereinafter in 
this section referred to as the ``Board'') in accordance with 
the requirements of this section.
  (b) Duties.--The Board shall have the authority to review and 
decide contested audit determinations related to grant and 
contract awards under this Act. In carrying out such duties, 
the Board shall consider only those regulations, guidance, 
policies, facts, and circumstances in effect at the time of the 
grant or contract award.
  (c) Prior Eligibility Decisions.--The Board shall not reverse 
project cost eligibility determinations that are supported by 
an decision document of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
including grant or contract approvals, plans and specifications 
approval forms, grant or contract payments, change order 
approval forms, or similar documents approving project cost 
eligibility, except upon a showing that such decision was 
arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of law in effect at the time 
of such decision.
  (d) Membership.--
          (1) Appointment.--The Board shall be composed of 7 
        members to be appointed by the Administrator not later 
        than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
        section.
          (2) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for a term 
        of 3 years.
          (3) Qualifications.--The Administrator shall appoint 
        as members of the Board individuals who are specially 
        qualified to serve on the Board by virtue of their 
        expertise in grant and contracting procedures. The 
        Administrator shall make every effort to ensure that 
        individuals appointed as members of the Board are free 
        from conflicts of interest in carrying out the duties 
        of the Board.
  (e) Basic Pay and Travel Expenses.--
          (1) Rates of pay.--Except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), members shall each be paid at a rate of basic pay, 
        to be determined by the Administrator, for each day 
        (including travel time) during which they are engaged 
        in the actual performance of duties vested in the 
        Board.
          (2) Prohibition of compensation of federal 
        employees.--Members of the Board who are full-time 
        officers or employees of the United States may not 
        receive additional pay, allowances, or benefits by 
        reason of their service on the Board.
          (3) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive 
        travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
        subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 
        of title 5, United States Code.
  (f) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of the 
Board, the Administrator shall provide to the Board the 
administrative support services necessary for the Board to 
carry out its responsibilities under this section.
  (g) Disputes Eligible for Review.--The authority of the Board 
under this section shall extend to any contested audit 
determination that on the date of the enactment of this section 
has yet to be formally concluded and accepted by either the 
grantee or the Administrator.

                              short title

    Sec. [519.] 521. This Act may be cited as the ``Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act'' (commonly referred to as the 
Clean Water Act).

        TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

SEC. 601. GRANTS TO STATES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF REVOLVING FUNDS.

    (a) General Authority.--Subject to the provisions of this 
title, the Administrator shall make capitalization grants to 
each State for the purpose of establishing a water pollution 
control revolving fund for providing assistance [(1) for 
construction of treatment works (as defined in section 212 of 
this Act) which are publicly owned, (2) for implementing a 
management program under section 319, and (3) for developing 
and implementing a conservation and management plan under 
section 320.] to accomplish the purposes of this Act.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 602. CAPITALIZATION GRANT AGREEMENTS.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Specific Requirements.--The Administrator shall enter 
into an agreement under this section with a State only after 
the State has established to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator that--
        (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
        (6) treatment works eligible under section 603(c)(1) of 
        this Act which will be constructed in whole or in part 
        [before fiscal year 1995] with funds directly made 
        available by capitalization grants under this title and 
        section 205(m) of this Act will meet the requirements 
        of, or otherwise be treated (as determined by the 
        Governor of the State) under sections [201(b), 
        201(g)(1), 201(g)(2), 201(g)(3), 201(g)(5), 201(g)(6), 
        201(n)(1), 201(o), 204(a)(1), 204(a)(2), 204(b)(1), 
        204(d)(2), 211, 218] 211, 511(c)(1), and 513 of this 
        Act in the same manner as treatment works constructed 
        with assistance under title II of this Act;
          * * * * * * *
(c) Other Federal Laws.--
          (1) Compliance with other federal laws.--If a State 
        provides assistance from its water pollution control 
        revolving fund established in accordance with this 
        title and in accordance with a statute, rule, executive 
        order, or program of the State which addresses the 
        intent of any requirement or any Federal executive 
        order or law other than this Act, as determined by the 
        State, the State in providing such assistance shall be 
        treated as having met the Federal requirements.
          (2) Limitation on applicability of other federal 
        laws.--If a State does not meet a requirement of a 
        Federal executive order or law other than this Act 
        under paragraph (1), such Federal law shall only apply 
        to Federal funds deposited in the water pollution 
        control revolving fund established by the State in 
        accordance with this title the first time such funds 
        are used to provide assistance from the revolving fund.
  (d) Guidance for Small Systems.--
          (1) Simplified procedures.--Not later than 1 year 
        after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
        Administrator shall assist the States in establishing 
        simplified procedures for small systems to obtain 
        assistance under this title.
          (2) Publication of manual.--Not later than 1 year 
        after the date of the enactment of this subsection, and 
        after providing notice and opportunity for public 
        comment, the Administrator shall publish a manual to 
        assist small systems in obtaining assistance under this 
        title and publish in the Federal Register notice of the 
        availability of the manual.
          (3) Small system defined.--For purposes of this 
        title, the term ``small system'' means a system for 
        which a municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or 
        State agency seeks assistance under this title and 
        which serves a population of 20,000 or less.

SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    [(c) Projects Eligible for Assistance.--The amounts of 
funds available to each State water pollution control revolving 
fund shall be used only for providing financial assistance (1) 
to any municipality, intermunicipal, interstate, or State 
agency for construction of publicly owned treatment works (as 
defined in section 212 of this Act), (2) for the implementation 
of a management program established under section 319 of this 
Act, and (3) for development and implementation of a 
conservation and management plan under section 320 of this Act. 
The fund shall be established, maintained, and credited with 
repayments, and the fund balance shall be available in 
perpetuity for providing such financial assistance.]
  (c) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--
          (1) In general.--The amounts of funds available to 
        each State water pollution control revolving fund shall 
        be used only for providing financial assistance to 
        activities which have as a principal benefit the 
        improvement or protection of water quality to a 
        municipality, intermunicipal agency, interstate agency, 
        State agency, or other person. Such activities may 
        include the following:
                  (A) Construction of a publicly owned 
                treatment works if the recipient of such 
                assistance is a municipality.
                  (B) Implementation of lake protection 
                programs and projects under section 314.
                  (C) Implementation of a management program 
                under section 319.
                  (D) Implementation of a conservation and 
                management plan under section 320.
                  (E) Implementation of a watershed management 
                plan under section 321.
                  (F) Implementation of a stormwater management 
                program under section 322.
                  (G) Acquisition of property rights for the 
                restoration or protection of publicly or 
                privately owned riparian areas.
                  (H) Implementation of measures to improve the 
                efficiency of public water use.
                  (I) Development and implementation of plans 
                by a public recipient to prevent water 
                pollution.
                  (J) Acquisition of lands necessary to meet 
                any mitigation requirements related to 
                construction of a publicly owned treatment 
                works.
          (2) Fund amounts.--The water pollution control 
        revolving fund of a State shall be established, 
        maintained, and credited with repayments, and the fund 
        balance shall be available in perpetuity for providing 
        financial assistance described in paragraph (1). Fees 
        charged by a State to recipients of such assistance may 
        be deposited in the fund for the sole purpose of 
        financing the cost of administration of this title.
    (d) Types of Assistance.--Except as otherwise limited by 
State law, a water pollution control revolving fund of a State 
under this section may be used only--
          (1) to make loans, on the condition that--
                  (A) such loans are made at or below market 
                interest rates, including interest free loans, 
                at terms not to exceed 20 years or, in the case 
                of a disadvantaged community, the lesser of 40 
                years or the expected life of the project to be 
                financed with the proceeds of the loan;
                  (B) annual principal and interest payments 
                will commence not later than 1 year after 
                completion of any project and all loans will be 
                fully amortized [not later than 20 years after 
                project completion] upon the expiration of the 
                term of the loan;
          * * * * * * *
          [(5) to provide loan guarantees for similar revolving 
        funds established by municipalities or intermunicipal 
        agencies;]
          (5) to provide loan guarantees for--
                  (A) similar revolving funds established by 
                municipalities or intermunicipal agencies; and
                  (B) developing and implementing innovative 
                technologies.
          (6) to earn interest on fund accounts; [and]
          (7) for the reasonable costs of administering the 
        fund and conducting activities under this title, except 
        that such amounts shall not exceed 4 percent of all 
        grant awards to such fund under this title[.] or 
        $400,000 per year, whichever is greater, plus the 
        amount of any fees collected by the State for such 
        purpose under subsection (c)(2); and
          (8) to provide to small systems technical and 
        planning assistance and assistance in financial 
        management, user fee analysis, budgeting, capital 
        improvement planning, facility operation and 
        maintenance, repair schedules, and other activities to 
        improve wastewater treatment plant operations; except 
        that such amounts shall not exceed 2 percent of all 
        grant awards to such fund under this title.
          * * * * * * *
    (f) Consistency With Planning Requirements.--A State may 
provide financial assistance from its water pollution control 
revolving fund only with respect to a project which is 
consistent with plans, if any, developed under sections 205(j), 
208, 303(e), 319, [and 320] 320, 321, and 322 of this Act.
    [(g) Priority List Requirement.--The State may provide 
financial assistance from its water pollution control revolving 
fund only with respect to a project for construction of a 
treatment works described in subsection (c)(1) if such project 
is on the State's priority list under section 216 of this Act. 
Such assistance may be provided regardless of the rank of such 
project on such list.]
  (g) Limitations on Construction Assistance.--The State may 
provide financial assistance from its water pollution control 
revolving fund with respect to a project for construction of a 
treatment works only if--
          (1) such project is on the State's priority list 
        under section 216 of this Act; and
          (2) the recipient of such assistance is a 
        municipality in any case in which the treatment works 
        is privately owned.
          * * * * * * *
  (i) Interest Rates.--In any case in which a State makes a 
loan pursuant to subsection (d)(1) to a disadvantaged 
community, the State may charge a negative interest rate of not 
to exceed 2 percent to reduce the unpaid principal of the loan. 
The aggregate amount of all such negative interest rate loans 
the State makes in a fiscal year shall not exceed 20 percent of 
the aggregate amount of all loans made by the State from its 
revolving loan fund in such fiscal year.
  (j) Disadvantaged Community Defined.--As used in this 
section, the term ``disadvantaged community'' means the service 
area of a publicly owned treatment works with respect to which 
the average annual residential sewage treatment charges for a 
user of the treatment works meet affordability criteria 
established by the State in which the treatment works is 
located (after providing for public review and comment) in 
accordance with guidelines to be established by the 
Administrator, in cooperation with the States.
  (k) Sale of Treatment Works.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provisions 
        of this Act, any State, municipality, 
        intermunicipality, or interstate agency may transfer by 
        sale to a qualified private sector entity all or part 
        of a treatment works that is owned by such agency and 
        for which it received Federal financial assistance 
        under this Act if the transfer price will be 
        distributed, as amounts are received, in the following 
        order:
                  (A) First reimbursement of the agency of the 
                unadjusted dollar amount of the costs of 
                construction of the treatment works or part 
                thereof plus any transaction and fix-up costs 
                incurred by the agency with respect to the 
                transfer less the amount of such Federal 
                financial assistance provided with respect to 
                such costs.
                  (B) If proceeds from the transfer remain 
                after such reimbursement, repayment of the 
                Federal Government of the amount of such 
                Federal financial assistance less the 
                applicable share of accumulated depreciation on 
                such treatment works (calculated using Internal 
                Revenue Service accelerated depreciation 
                schedule applicable to treatment works).
                  (C) If any proceeds of such transfer remain 
                after such reimbursement and repayment, 
                retention of the remaining proceeds by such 
                agency.
          (2) Release of condition.--Any requirement imposed by 
        regulation or policy for a showing that the treatment 
        works are no longer needed to serve their original 
        purpose shall not apply.
          (3) Selection of buyer.--A State, municipality, 
        intermunicipality, or interstate agency exercising the 
        authority granted by this subsection shall select a 
        qualified private sector entity on the basis of total 
        net cost and other appropriate criteria and shall 
        utilize such competitive bidding, direct negotiation, 
        or other criteria and procedures as may be required by 
        State law.
  (l) Private Ownership of Treatment Works.--
          (1) Regulatory review.--The Administrator shall 
        review the law and any regulations, policies, and 
        procedures of the Environmental Protection Agency 
        affecting the construction, improvement, replacement, 
        operation, maintenance, and transfer of ownership of 
        current and future treatment works owned by a State, 
        municipality, intermunicipality, or interstate agency. 
        If permitted by law, the Administrator shall modify 
        such regulations, policies, and procedures to eliminate 
        any obstacles to the construction, improvement, 
        replacement, operation, and maintenance of such 
        treatment works by qualified private sector entities.
          (2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
        of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator 
        shall submit to Congress a report identifying any 
        provisions of law that must be changed in order to 
        eliminate any obstacles referred to in paragraph (1).
          (3) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the 
        term ``qualified private sector entity'' means any 
        nongovernmental individual, group, association, 
        business, partnership, organization, or privately or 
        publicly held corporation that--
                  (A) has sufficient experience and expertise 
                to discharge successfully the responsibilities 
                associated with construction, operation, and 
                maintenance of a treatment works and to satisfy 
                any guarantees that are agreed to in connection 
                with a transfer of treatment works under 
                subsection (k);
                  (B) has the ability to assure protection 
                against insolvency and interruption of services 
                through contractual and financial guarantees; 
                and
                  (C) with respect to subsection (k), to the 
                extent consistent with the North American Free 
                Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on 
                Tariffs and Trade--
                          (i) is majority-owned and controlled 
                        by citizens of the United States; and
                          (ii) does not receive subsidies from 
                        a foreign government.

SEC. 604. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

    [(a) Formula.--Sums authorized to be appropriated to carry 
out this section for each of fiscal years 1989 and 1990 shall 
be allotted by the Administrator in accordance with section 
205(c) of this Act.]
  (a) Formula for Fiscal Years 1996-2000.--Sums authorized to 
be appropriated pursuant to section 607 for each of fiscal 
years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall be allotted for 
such year by the Administrator not later than the 10th day 
which begins after the date of the enactment of the Clean Water 
Amendments of 1995. Sums authorized for each such fiscal year 
shall be allotted in accordance with the following table:
                                                      Percentage of sums
States:                                                    authorized:  
    Alabama...................................................   1.0110 
    Alaska....................................................   0.5411 
    Arizona...................................................   0.7464 
    Arkansas..................................................   0.5914 
    California................................................   7.9031 
    Colorado..................................................   0.7232 
    Connecticut...............................................   1.3537 
    Delaware..................................................   0.4438 
    District of Columbia......................................   0.4438 
    Florida...................................................   3.4462 
    Georgia...................................................   1.8683 
    Hawaii....................................................   0.7002 
    Idaho.....................................................   0.4438 
    Illinois..................................................   4.9976 
    Indiana...................................................   2.6631 
    Iowa......................................................   1.2236 
    Kansas....................................................   0.8690 
    Kentucky..................................................   1.3570 
    Louisiana.................................................   1.0060 
    Maine.....................................................   0.6999 
    Maryland..................................................   2.1867 
    Massachusetts.............................................   3.7518 
    Michigan..................................................   3.8875 
    Minnesota.................................................   1.6618 
    Mississippi...............................................   0.8146 
    Missouri..................................................   2.5063 
    Montana...................................................   0.4438 
    Nebraska..................................................   0.4624 
    Nevada....................................................   0.4438 
    New Hampshire.............................................   0.9035 
    New Jersey................................................   4.5156 
    New Mexico................................................   0.4438 
    New York..................................................  12.1969 
    North Carolina............................................   1.9943 
    North Dakota..............................................   0.4438 
    Ohio......................................................   5.0898 
    Oklahoma..................................................   0.7304 
    Oregon....................................................   1.2399 
    Pennsylvania..............................................   4.2145 
    Rhode Island..............................................   0.6071 
    South Carolina............................................   0.9262 
    South Dakota..............................................   0.4438 
    Tennessee.................................................   1.4668 
    Texas.....................................................   4.6458 
    Utah......................................................   0.4764 
    Vermont...................................................   0.4438 
    Virginia..................................................   2.2615 
    Washington................................................   1.9217 
    West Virginia.............................................   1.4249 
    Wisconsin.................................................   2.4442 
    Wyoming...................................................   0.4438 
    Puerto Rico...............................................   1.1792 
    Northern Marianas.........................................   0.0377 
    American Samoa............................................   0.0812 
    Guam......................................................   0.0587 
    Pacific Islands Trust Territory...........................   0.1158 
    Virgin Islands............................................   0.0576.
  
  
  
    (b) Reservation of Funds for Planning.--Each State shall 
reserve each fiscal year 1 percent of the sums allotted to such 
State under this section for such fiscal year, or $100,000, 
whichever amount is greater, to carry out planning under 
sections 205(j) and 303(e) of this Act. In any fiscal year in 
which a State is implementing a State watershed management 
program approved under section 321, the State may reserve up to 
an additional 2 percent of the sums allotted to the State for 
such fiscal year for development of watershed management plans 
under such program or $200,000, whichever is greater, if 50 
percent of the amount reserved under this sentence will be made 
available to local entities.
    (c) Allotment Period.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Reallotment of unobligated funds.--The amount of 
        any allotment not obligated by the State by the last 
        day of the 2-year period of availability established by 
        paragraph (1) shall be immediately reallotted by the 
        Administrator on the basis of the same ratio as is 
        applicable to sums allotted under [title II of this 
        Act] this title for the second fiscal year of such 2-
        year period. None of the funds reallotted by the 
        Administrator shall be reallotted to any State which 
        has not obligated all sums allotted to such State in 
        the first fiscal year of such 2-year period.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 607. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
purposes of this title (other than section 608) the following 
sums:
          (1) $1,200,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal 
        year 1989 and 1990;
          (2) $2,400,000,000 for fiscal year 1991;
          (3) $1,800,000,000 for fiscal year 1992;
          (4) $1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 1993; [and]
          (5) $600,000,000 for fiscal year 1994[.];
          (6) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
        1995;
          (7) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
          (8) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
          (9) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
          (10) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
          (11) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

SEC. 608. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING 
                    FUNDS.

  (a) General Authority.--The Administrator shall make 
capitalization grants to each State for the purpose of 
establishing a nonpoint source water pollution control 
revolving fund for providing assistance--
          (1) to persons for carrying out management practices 
        and measures under the State management program 
        approved under section 319; and
          (2) to agricultural producers for the development and 
        implementation of the water quality components of a 
        whole farm or ranch resource management plan and for 
        implementation of management practices and measures 
        under such a plan.
A State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving fund 
shall be separate from any other State water pollution control 
revolving fund; except that the chief executive officer of the 
State may transfer funds from one fund to the other fund.
  (b) Applicability of Other Requirements of This Title.--
Except to the extent the Administrator, in consultation with 
the chief executive officers of the States, determines that a 
provision of this title is not consistent with a provision of 
this section, the provisions of sections 601 through 606 of 
this title shall apply to grants made under this section in the 
same manner and to the same extent as they apply to grants made 
under section 601 of this title. Paragraph (5) of section 
602(b) shall apply to all funds in a State revolving fund 
established under this section as a result of capitalization 
grants made under this section; except that such funds shall 
first be used to assure reasonable progress toward attainment 
of the goals of section 319, as determined by the Governor of 
the State. Paragraph (7) of section 603(d) shall apply to a 
State revolving fund established under this section, except 
that the 4-percent limitation contained in such section shall 
not apply to such revolving fund.
  (c) Apportionment of Funds.--Funds made available to carry 
out this section for any fiscal year shall be allotted among 
the States by the Administrator in the same manner as funds are 
allotted among the States under section 319 in such fiscal 
year.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 per 
fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.
                              ----------                              


        MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972

          * * * * * * *

                         TITLE I--OCEAN DUMPING

          * * * * * * *

               [environmental protection agency] permits

    Sec. 102. (a) Except in relation to dredged material, as 
provided for in section 103 of this title, and in relation to 
radiological, chemical, and biological warfare agents, high-
level radioactive waste, and medical waste, for which no permit 
may be issued, the [Administrator] Secretary may issue permits, 
after notice and opportunity for public hearings, for the 
transportation from the United States or, in the case of an 
agency or instrumentality of the United States, or in the case 
of a vessel or aircraft registered in the United States or 
flying the United States flag, for the transportation from a 
location outside the United States, of material for the purpose 
of dumping it into ocean waters, or for the dumping of material 
into the waters described in section 101(b), where the 
[Administrator] Secretary determines that such dumping will not 
unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or 
amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or 
economic potentialities. The [Administrator] Secretary shall 
establish and apply criteria for reviewing and evaluating such 
permit applications, and, in establishing or revising such 
criteria, shall consider, but not be limited in his 
consideration to, the following:
          [(A)] (1) The need for the proposed dumping.
          [(B)] (2) The effect of such dumping on human health 
        and welfare, including economic, esthetic, and 
        recreational values.
          [(C)] (3) The effect of such dumping on fisheries 
        resources, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shore 
        lines and beaches.
          [(D)] (4) The effect of such dumping on marine 
        ecosystems, particularly with respect to--
                  [(i)] (A) the transfer, concentration, and 
                dispersion of such material and its byproducts 
                through biological, physical, and chemical 
                processes,
                  [(ii)] (B) potential changes in marine 
                ecosystem diversity, productivity, and 
                stability, and
                  [(iii)] (C) species and community population 
                dynamics.
          [(E)] (5) The persistence and permanence of the 
        effects of the dumping.
          [(F)] (6) The effect of dumping particular volumes 
        and concentrations of such materials.
          [(G) Appropriate locations and methods of disposal or 
        recycling, including land-based alternatives and the 
        probable impact of requiring use of such alternate 
        locations or methods upon considerations affecting the 
        public interest.
          [(H)] (7) The effect on alternate uses of oceans, 
        such as scientific study, fishing, and other living 
        resource exploitation, and nonliving resource 
        exploitation.
          [(I)] (8) In designating recommended sites, the 
        Administrator shall utilize wherever feasible locations 
        beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf.
[In establishing or revising such criteria, the Administrator 
shall consult with Federal, State, and local officials, and 
interested members of the general public, as may appear 
appropriate to the Administrator. With respect to such criteria 
as may affect the civil works program of the Department of the 
Army, the Administrator shall also consult with the Secretary.] 
In reviewing applications for permits, the [Administrator] 
Secretary shall make such provision for consultation with 
interested Federal and State agencies as he deems useful or 
necessary. No permit shall be issued for a dumping of material 
which will violate applicable water quality standards. To the 
extent that he may do so without relaxing the requirements of 
this title, the [Administrator] Secretary, is establishing or 
revising such criteria, shall apply the standards and criteria 
binding upon the United States under the Convention, including 
its Annexes.
  (b) The [Administrator] Secretary may establish and issue 
various categories of permits, including the general permits 
described in section 104(c).
  (c) Designation of Sites.--
          (1) In general.--The [Administrator] Secretary shall, 
        in a manner consistent with the criteria established 
        pursuant to subsection (a), designate sites or time 
        periods for dumping. The [Administrator] Secretary 
        shall designate sites or time periods for dumping that 
        will mitigate adverse impact on the environment to the 
        greatest extent practicable.
          (2) Prohibitions regarding site or time period.--In 
        any case where the [Administrator] Secretary determines 
        that, with respect to certain materials, it is 
        necessary to prohibit dumping at a site or during a 
        time period, the [Administrator] Secretary shall 
        prohibit the dumping of such materials in such site or 
        during such time period. This prohibition shall apply 
        to any dumping at the site or during such time period. 
        This prohibition shall apply to any dumping at the site 
        or during the time period, including any dumping under 
        section 103(e).
          (3) Dredged material disposal sites.--In the case of 
        dredged material disposal sites, the [Administrator] 
        Secretary, in conjunction with the [Secretary] 
        Administrator, shall develop a site management plan for 
        each site designated pursuant to this section. In 
        developing such plans, the [Administrator] Secretary 
        and the [Secretary] Administrator shall provide 
        opportunity for public comment. Such plans shall 
        include, but not be limited to--
                  (A) a baseline assessment of conditions at 
                the site;
                  (B) a program for monitoring the site;
                  (C) special management conditions or 
                practices to be implemented at each site that 
                are necessary for protection of the 
                environment;
                  (D) consideration of the quantity of the 
                material to be disposed of at the site, and the 
                presence, nature, and bioavailability of the 
                contaminants in the material;
                  (E) consideration of the anticipated use of 
                the site over the long term, including the 
                anticipated closure date for the site, if 
                applicable, and any need for management of the 
                site after the closure of the site; and
                  (F) a schedule for review and revision of the 
                plan (which shall not be reviewed and revised 
                less frequently than 10 years after adoption of 
                the plan, and every 10 years thereafter).
          (4) General site management plan requirement; 
        prohibitions.--After January 1, 1995, no site shall 
        receive a final designation unless a management plan 
        has been developed pursuant to this section. Beginning 
        on January 1, 1997, no permit for dumping pursuant to 
        this Act or authorization for dumping under section 
        103(e) of this Act shall be issued for a site unless 
        such site has received a final designation pursuant to 
        this subsection or an alternative site has been 
        selected pursuant to section 103(b).
          (5) Management plans for previously designated 
        sites.--The [Administrator] Secretary shall develop a 
        site management plan for any site designated prior to 
        January 1, 1995, as expeditiously as practicable, but 
        not later than January 1, 1997, giving priority 
        consideration to management plans for designated sites 
        that are considered to have the greatest impact on the 
        environment.
  (d) No permit is required under this title for the 
transportation for dumping or the dumping of fish wastes, 
except when deposited in harbors or other protected or enclosed 
coastal waters, or where the [Administrator] Secretary finds 
that such deposits could endanger health, the environment, or 
ecological systems in a specific location. Where the 
[Administrator] Secretary makes such a finding, such material 
may be deposited only as authorized by a permit issued by the 
[Administrator] Secretary under this section.
  (e) In the case of transportation of material by an agency or 
instrumentality of the United States or by a vessel or aircraft 
registered in the United States or flying the United States 
flag, from a location in a foreign State Party to the 
Convention, a permit issued pursuant to the authority of that 
foreign State Party, in accordance with Convention 
requirements, and which otherwise could have been issued 
pursuant to subsection (a) hereof, shall be accepted, for the 
purposes of this title, as if it were issued by the 
[Administrator] Secretary under the authority of this section: 
Provided, That in the case or an agency or instrumentality of 
the United States, no application shall be made for a permit to 
be issued pursuant to the authority of a foreign State Party to 
the Convention unless the [Administrator] Secretary concurs in 
the filing of such application.

             [corps of engineers] dredged material permits

      Sec. 103. (a)  * * *
  (b) In making the determination required by subsection (a), 
the Secretary shall apply those criteria, established pursuant 
to section 102(a), relating to the effects of the dumping. 
Based upon an evaluation of the potential effect of a permit 
denial on navigation, economic and industrial development, and 
foreign and domestic commerce of the United States, the 
Secretary shall make an independent determination as to the 
need for the dumping. The Secretary shall also make an 
independent determination as to other possible methods of 
disposal and as to appropriate locations for the dumping. In 
considering appropriate locations, he shall, to the maximum 
extent feasible, utilize the recommended sites designated [by 
the Administrator] pursuant to section 102(c). In any case in 
which the use of a designated site is not feasible, the 
Secretary may[, with the concurrence of the Administrator,] 
select an alternative site. The criteria and factors 
established in section 102(a) relating to site selection shall 
be used in selecting the alternative site in a manner 
consistent with the application of such factors and criteria 
pursuant to section 102(c). Disposal at or in the vicinity of 
an alternative site shall be limited to a period of not greater 
than 5 years unless the site is subsequently designated 
pursuant to section 102(c); except that an alternative site may 
continue to be used for an additional period of time that shall 
not exceed 5 years if--
          (1) no feasible disposal site has been designated [by 
        the Administrator];
          (2) the continued use of the alternative site is 
        necessary to maintain navigation and facilitate 
        interstate or international commerce; and
          (3) the [Administrator] Secretary determines that the 
        continued use of the site does not pose an unacceptable 
        risk to human health, aquatic resources, or the 
        environment.
  [(c) Concurrence by the Administrator.--
          [(1) Notification.--Prior to issuing a permit to any 
        person under this section, the Secretary shall first 
        notify the Administrator of the Secretary's intention 
        to do so and provide necessary and appropriate 
        information concerning the permit to the Administrator. 
        Within 30 days of receiving such information, the 
        Administrator shall review the information and request 
        any additional information the Administrator deems 
        necessary to evaluate the proposed permit.
          [(2) Concurrence by administrator.--Within 45 days 
        after receiving from the Secretary all information the 
        Administrator considers to be necessary to evaluate the 
        proposed permit, the Administrator shall, in writing, 
        concur with (either entirely or with conditions) or 
        decline to concur with the determination of the 
        Secretary as to compliance with the criteria, 
        conditions, and restrictions established pursuant to 
        sections 102(a) and 102(c) relating to the 
        environmental impact of the permit. The Administrator 
        may request one 45-day extension in writing and the 
        Secretary shall grant such request on receipt of the 
        request.
          [(3) Effect of concurrence.--In any case where the 
        Administrator makes a determination to concur (with or 
        without conditions) or to decline to concur within the 
        time period specified in paragraph (2) the 
        determination shall prevail. If the Administrator 
        declines to concur in the determination of the 
        Secretary no permit shall be issued. If the 
        Administrator concurs with conditions the permit shall 
        include such conditions. The Administrator shall state 
        in writing the reasons for declining to concur or for 
        the conditions of the concurrence.
          [(4) Failure to act.--If no written documentation is 
        made by the Administrator within the time period 
        provided for in paragraph (2), the Secretary may issue 
        the permit.
          [(5) Compliance with criteria and restrictions.--
        Unless the Administrator grants a waiver pursuant to 
        subsection (d), any permit issued by the Secretary 
        shall require compliance with such criteria and 
        restrictions.]
  (c) Consultation With the Administrator.--Prior to issuing a 
permit to any person under this section, the Secretary shall 
first consult with the Administrator.
  (d) If, in any case, the Secretary finds that, in the 
disposition of dredged material, there is no economically 
feasible method or site available other than a dumping site the 
utilization of which would result in non-compliance with the 
criteria established pursuant to section 102(a) relating to the 
effects of dumping or with the restrictions established 
pursuant to section 102(c) relating to critical areas, he shall 
so certify and [request a waiver from the Administrator of the 
specific requirements involved. Within thirty days of the 
receipt of the waiver request, unless the Administrator finds 
that the dumping of the material will result in an unacceptably 
adverse impact on municipal water supplies, shell-fish beds, 
wildlife, fisheries (including spawning and breeding areas), or 
recreational areas, he shall grant the waiver.] grant a waiver.
          * * * * * * *

                           permit conditions

    Sec. 104. (a) Permits issued under this title shall 
designate and include (1) the type of material authorized to be 
transported for dumping or to be dumped; (2) the amount of 
material authorized to be transported for dumping or to be 
dumped; (3) the location where such transport for dumping will 
be terminated or where such dumping will occur; (4) such 
requirements, limitations, or conditions as are necessary to 
assure consistency with any site management plan approved 
pursuant to section 102(c); (5) any special provisions deemed 
necessary by the [Administrator or the Secretary, as the case 
may be,] Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of 
the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, for the 
monitoring and surveillance of the transportation or dumping; 
and (6) such other matters as the [Administrator or the 
Secretary, as the case may be,] Secretary deems appropriate. 
Permits issued under this title shall be issued for a period of 
not to exceed 7 years.
  (b) The [Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be,] 
Secretary may prescribe such processing fees for permits and 
such reporting requirements for actions taken pursuant to 
permits issued by him under this title as he deems appropriate.
  (c) Consistent with the requirements of sections 102 and 103, 
but in lieu of a requirement for specific permits in such case, 
the [Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be,] 
Secretary may issue general permits for the transportation for 
dumping, or dumping, or both, of specified materials or classes 
of materials for which he may issue permits, which he 
determines will have a minimal adverse environmental impact.
  (d) Any permit issued under this title shall be reviewed 
periodically and, if appropriate, revised. The [Administrator 
or the Secretary, as the case may be,] Secretary may limit or 
deny the issuance of permits, or he may alter or revoke 
partially or entirely the terms of permits issued by him under 
this title, for the transportation for dumping, or for the 
dumping, or both, of specified materials or classes of 
materials, where he finds, based upon monitoring data from the 
dump site and surrounding area, that such materials cannot be 
dumped consistently with the criteria and other factors 
required to be applied in evaluating the permit application. No 
action shall be taken under this subsection unless the affected 
person or permittee shall have been given notice and 
opportunity for a hearing on such action as proposed.
  (e) The [Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be,] 
Secretary shall require an applicant for a permit under this 
title to provide such information as he may consider necessary 
to review and evaluate such application.
  (f) Information received by the [Administrator or the 
Secretary, as the case may be,] Secretary as a part of any 
application or in connection with any permit granted under this 
title shall be available to the public as a matter of public 
record, at every stage of the proceeding. The final 
determination of the [Administrator or the Secretary, as the 
case may be,] Secretary shall be likewise available.
          * * * * * * *
  (h) Notwithstanding any provision of title I of the Marine 
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to the 
contrary, during the two-year period beginning on the date of 
enactment of this subsection, no permit may be issued under 
such title I that authorizes the dumping of any low-level 
radioactive waste unless the [Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency] Secretary determines--
          (1) that the proposed dumping is necessary to conduct 
        research--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
Each permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall be subject 
to such conditions and restrictions as the [Administrator 
determines] Secretary determines to be necessary to minimize 
possible adverse impacts of such dumping.
  (i)(1) Two years after the date of enactment of this 
subsection, the [Administrator] Secretary may not issue a 
permit under this title for the disposal of radioactive waste 
material until the applicant, in addition to complying with all 
other requirements of this title, prepares, with respect to the 
site at which the disposal is proposed, a Radioactive Material 
Disposal Impact Assessment which shall include--
          (A) a listing of all radioactive materials in each 
        container to be disposed, the number of containers to 
        be dumped, the structural diagrams of each container, 
        the number of curies of each material in each 
        container, and the exposure levels in rems at the 
        inside and outside of each container;
          (B) an analysis of the environmental impact of the 
        proposed action, at the site at which the applicant 
        desires to dispose of the material, upon human health 
        and welfare and marine life;
          (C) any adverse environmental effects at the site 
        which cannot be avoided should the proposal be 
        implemented;
          (D) an analysis of the resulting environmental and 
        economic conditions if the containers fail to contain 
        the radioactive waste material when initially deposited 
        at the specific site;
          (E) a plan for the removal or containment of the 
        disposed nuclear material if the container leaks or 
        decomposes;
          (F) a determination by each affected State whether 
        the proposed action is consistent with its approved 
        Coastal Zone Management Program;
          (G) an analysis of the economic impact upon other 
        users of marine resources;
          (H) alternatives to the proposed action;
          (I) comments and results of consultation with State 
        officials and public hearings held in the coastal 
        States that are nearest to the affected areas;
          (J) a comprehensive monitoring plan to be carried out 
        by the applicant to determine the full effect of the 
        disposal on the marine environment, living resources, 
        or human health, which plan shall include, but not be 
        limited to, the monitoring of exterior container 
        radiation samples, the taking of water and sediment 
        samples, and fish and benthic animal samples, adjacent 
        to the containers, and the acquisition of such other 
        information as the [Administrator] Secretary may 
        require; and
          (K) such other information which the [Administrator] 
        Secretary may require in order to determine the full 
        effects of such disposal.
  (2) The [Administrator] Secretary, shall include, in any 
permit to which paragraph (1) applies, such terms and 
conditions as may be necessary to ensure that the monitoring 
plan required under paragraph (1)(J) is fully implemented, 
including the analysis by the [Administrator] Secretary of the 
samples required to be taken under the plan.
  (3) The [Administrator] Secretary shall submit a copy of the 
assessment prepared under paragraph (1) with respect to any 
permit to the Committee on [Merchant Marine and Fisheries] 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate.
  (4)(A) Upon a determination by the [Administrator] Secretary 
that a permit to which the subsection applies should be issued, 
the [Administrator] Secretary shall transmit such a 
recommendation to the House of Representatives and the Senate.
  (B) No permit may be issued by the [Administrator] Secretary 
under this Act for the disposal of radioactive materials in the 
ocean unless the Congress, by approval of a resolution 
described in paragraph (D) within 90 days of continuous session 
of the Congress beginning on the date after the date of receipt 
by the Senate and the House of Representatives of such 
recommendation, authorizes the [Administrator] Secretary to 
grant a permit to dispose of radioactive material under this 
Act.
  (C) For purposes of this subsection--
          (1) continuity of session of the Congress is broken 
        only by an adjournment since die;
          (2) the days on which either House is not in session 
        because of an adjournment of more than three days to a 
        day certain are excluded in the computation of the 90 
        day calendar period.
  (D) For the purposes of this subsection, the term 
``resolution'' means a joint resolution, the resolving clause 
of which is as follows: That the House of Representatives and 
the Senate approve and authorize the [Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency] Secretary to grant a permit to 
________________ under the marine Protection, Research, and 
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to dispose of radioactive materials in 
the ocean as recommended by the [Administrator] Secretary to 
the Congress on ________________, 19______; the first blank 
space therein to be filled with the appropriate applicant to 
dispose of nuclear material and the second blank therein to be 
filled with the date on which the [Administrator] Secretary 
submits the recommendation to the House of Representatives and 
the Senate.

           special provisions regarding certain dumping sites

  Sec. 104A. (a) New York Bight Apex.--(1) For purposes of this 
subsection:
          (A) The term ``Apex'' means the New York Bight Apex 
        consisting of the ocean waters of the Atlantic Ocean 
        westward of 73 degrees 30 minutes west longitude and 
        northward of 40 degrees 10 minutes north latitude.
          (B) The term ``Apex site'' means that site within the 
        Apex at which the dumping of municipal sludge occurred 
        before October 1, 1983.
          (C) The term ``eligible authority'' means any 
        sewerage authority or other unit of State or local 
        government that on November 2, 1983, was authorized 
        under court order to dump municipal sludge at the Apex 
        site.
  (2) No person may apply for a permit under this title in 
relation to the dumping of, or the transportation for purposes 
of dumping, municipal sludge within the Apex unless that person 
is an eligible authority.
  (3) The [Administrator] Secretary may not issue, or renew, 
any permit under this title that authorizes the dumping of, or 
the transportation for purposes of dumping, municipal sludge 
within the Apex after the earlier of--
          (A) December 15, 1987; or
          (B) the day determined by the [Administrator] 
        Secretary to be the first day on which municipal sludge 
        generated by eligible authorities can reasonably be 
        dumped at a site designated under section 102 other 
        than a site within the Apex.
  (b) Restriction on Use of the 106-Mile Site.--The 
[Administrator] Secretary may not issue or renew any permit 
under this title which authorizes any person, other than a 
person that is an eligible authority within the meaning of 
subsection (a)(1)(C), to dump, or to transport for the purposes 
of dumping, municipal sludge within the site designated under 
section 102(c) by the [Administrator] Secretary and known as 
the ``106-Mile Ocean Waste Dump Site'' (as described in 49 F.R. 
19005).
          * * * * * * *

              TITLE IV--REGIONAL MARINE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

          * * * * * * *

                    regional marine research boards

  Sec. 403. (a) Establishment.--A Regional Marine Research 
board shall be established for each of the following regions:
          (1) the Gulf of Maine region, comprised of the marine 
        and coastal waters off the State of Maine, New 
        Hampshire, and Massachusetts (north of Cape Cod);
          * * * * * * *
The [Great Lakes Research Office authorized under] Great Lakes 
Research Council established by section 118(d) of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(d)) shall be 
responsible for research in the Great Lakes region and shall be 
considered the Great Lakes counterpart to the research program 
established pursuant to this title.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


     SECTION 6217 OF THE OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1990

[SEC. 6217. PROTECTING COASTAL WATERS.

    [(a) In General.--
          [(1) Program development.--Not later than 30 months 
        after the date of the publication of final guidance 
        under subsection (g), each State for which a management 
        program has been approved pursuant to section 306 of 
        the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 shall prepare 
        and submit to the Secretary and the Administrator a 
        Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program for approval 
        pursuant to this section. The purpose of the program 
        shall be to develop and implement management measures 
        for nonpoint source pollution to restore and protect 
        coastal waters, working in close conjunction with other 
        State and local authorities.
          [(2) Program coordination.--A State program under 
        this section shall be coordinated closely with State 
        and local water quality plans and programs developed 
        pursuant to sections 208, 303, 319, and 320 of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1288, 
        1313, 1329, and 1330) and with State plans developed 
        pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as 
        amended by this Act. The program shall serve as an 
        update and expansion of the State nonpoint source 
        management program developed under section 319 of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as the program 
        under that section relates to land and water uses 
        affecting coastal waters.
    [(b) Program Contents.--Each State program under this 
section shall provide for the implementation, at a minimum, of 
management measures in conformity with the guidance published 
under subsection (g), to protect coastal waters generally, and 
shall also contain the following:
          [(1) Identifying land uses.--The identification of, 
        and a continuing process for identifying, land uses 
        which, individually or cumulatively, may cause or 
        contribute significantly to a degradation of--
                  [(A) those coastal waters where there is a 
                failure to attain or maintain applicable water 
                quality standards or protect designated uses, 
                as determined by the State pursuant to its 
                water quality planning processes; or
                  [(B) those coastal waters that are threatened 
                by reasonably foreseeable increases in 
                pollution loadings from new or expanding 
                sources.
          [(2) Identifying critical coastal areas.--The 
        identification of, and a continuing process for 
        identifying, critical coastal areas adjacent to coastal 
        waters referred to in paragraph (1)(A) and (B), within 
        which any new land uses or substantial expansion of 
        existing land uses shall be subject to management 
        measures in addition to those provided for in 
        subsection (g).
          [(3) Management measures.--The implementation and 
        continuing revision from time to time of additional 
        management measures applicable to the land uses and 
        areas identified pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) 
        that are necessary to achieve and maintain applicable 
        water quality standards under section 303 of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313) 
        and protect designated uses.
          [(4) Technical assistance.--The provision of 
        technical and other assistance to local governments and 
        the public for implementing the measures referred to in 
        paragraph (3), which may include assistance in 
        developing ordinances and regulations, technical 
        guidance, and modeling to predict and assess the 
        effectiveness of such measures, training, financial 
        incentives, demonstration projects, and other 
        innovations to protect coastal water quality and 
        designated uses.
          [(5) Public participation.--Opportunities for public 
        participation in all aspects of the program, including 
        the use of public notices and opportunities for 
        comment, nomination procedures, public hearings, 
        technical and financial assistance, public education, 
        and other means.
          [(6) Administrative coordination.--The establishment 
        of mechanisms to improve coordination among State 
        agencies and between State and local officials 
        responsible for land use programs and permitting, water 
        quality permitting and enforcement, habitat protection, 
        and public health and safety, through the use of joint 
        project review, memoranda of agreement, or other 
        mechanisms.
          [(7) State coastal zone boundary modification.--A 
        proposal to modify the boundaries of the State coastal 
        zone as the coastal management agency of the State 
        determines is necessary to implement the 
        recommendations made pursuant to subsection (e). If the 
        coastal management agency does not have the authority 
        to modify such boundaries, the program shall include 
        recommendations for such modifications to the 
        appropriate State authority.
    [(c) Program Submission, Approval, and Implemetation.--
          [(1) Review and approval.--Within 6 months after the 
        date of submission by a State of a program pursuant to 
        this section, the Secretary and the Administrator shall 
        jointly review the program. The program shall be 
        approved if--
                  [(A) the Secretary determines that the 
                portions of the program under the authority of 
                the Secretary meet the requirements of this 
                section and the Administrator concurs with that 
                determination; and
                  [(B) the Administrator determines that the 
                portions of the program under the authority of 
                the Administrator meet the requirements of this 
                section and the Secretary concurs with that 
                determination.
          [(2) Implementation of approved program.--If the 
        program of a State is approved in accordance with 
        paragraph (1), the State shall implement the program, 
        including the management measures included in the 
        program pursuant to subsection (b), through--
                  [(A) changes to the State plan for control of 
                nonpoint source pollution approved under 
                section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution 
                Control Act; and
                  [(B) changes to the State coastal zone 
                management program developed under section 306 
                of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as 
                amended by this Act.
          [(3) Withholding coastal management assistance.--If 
        the Secretary finds that a coastal State has failed to 
        submit an approvable program as required by this 
        section, the Secretary shall withhold for each fiscal 
        year until such a program is submitted a portion of 
        grants otherwise available to the State for the fiscal 
        year under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management 
        Act of 1972, as follows:
                  [(A) 10 percent for fiscal year 1996.
                  [(B) 15 percent for fiscal year 1997.
                  [(C) 20 percent for fiscal year 1998.
                  [(D) 30 percent for fiscal year 1999 and each 
                fiscal year thereafter.
        [The Secretary shall make amounts withheld under this 
        paragraph available to coastal States having programs 
        approved under this section.
          [(4) Withholding water pollution control 
        assistance.--If the Administrator finds that a coastal 
        State has failed to submit an approvable program as 
        required by this section, the Administrator shall 
        withhold from grants available to the State under 
        section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
        for each fiscal year until such a program is submitted, 
        an amount equal to a percentage of the grants awarded 
        to the State for the preceding fiscal year under that 
        section, as follows:
                  [(A) For fiscal year 1996, 10 percent of the 
                amount awarded for fiscal year 1995.
                  [(B) For fiscal year 1997, 15 percent of the 
                amount awarded for fiscal year 1996.
                  [(C) For fiscal year 1998, 20 percent of the 
                amount awarded for fiscal year 1997.
                  [(D) For fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal 
                year thereafter, 30 percent of the amount 
                awarded for fiscal year 1998 or other preceding 
                fiscal year.
        [The Administrator shall make amounts withheld under 
        this paragraph available to States having programs 
        approved pursuant to this subsection.
    [(d) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary and the 
Administrator shall provide technical assistance to coastal 
States and local governments in developing and implementing 
programs under this section. Such assistance shall include--
          [(1) methods for assessing water quality impacts 
        associated with coastal land uses;
          [(2) methods for assessing the cumulative water 
        quality effects of coastal development;
          [(3) maintaining and from time to time revising an 
        inventory of model ordinances, and providing other 
        assistance to coastal States and local governments in 
        identifying, developing, and implementing pollution 
        control measures; and
          [(4) methods to predict and assess the effects of 
        coastal land use management measures on coastal water 
        quality and designated uses.
    [(e) Inland Coastal Zone Boundaries.--
          [(1) Review.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
        shall, within 18 months after the effective date of 
        this title, review the inland coastal zone boundary of 
        each coastal State program which has been approved or 
        is proposed for approval under section 306 of the 
        Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and evaluate 
        whether the State's coastal zone boundary extends 
        inland to the extent necessary to control the land and 
        water uses that have a significant impact on coastal 
        waters of the State.
          [(2) Recommendation.--If the Secretary, in 
        consultation with the Administrator, finds that 
        modifications to the inland boundaries of a State's 
        coastal zone are necessary for that State to more 
        effectively manage land and water uses to protect 
        coastal waters, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
        Administrator, shall recommend appropriate 
        modifications in writing to the affected State.
    [(f) Financial Assistance.--
          [(1) In general.--Upon request of a State having a 
        program approved under section 306 of the Coastal Zone 
        Management Act of 1972, the Secretary, in consultation 
        with the Administrator, may provide grants to the State 
        for use for developing a State program under this 
        section.
          [(2) Amount.--The total amount of grants to a State 
        under this subsection shall not exceed 50 percent of 
        the total cost to the State of developing a program 
        under this section.
          [(3) State share.--The State share of the cost of an 
        activity carried out with a grant under this subsection 
        shall be paid from amounts from non-Federal sources.
          [(4) Allocation.--Amounts available for grants under 
        this subsection shall be allocated among States in 
        accordance with regulations issued pursuant to section 
        306(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 
        except that the Secretary may use not more than 25 
        percent of amounts available for such grants to assist 
        States which the Secretary, in consultation with the 
        Administrator, determines are making exemplary progress 
        in preparing a State program under this section or have 
        extreme needs with respect to coastal water quality.
    [(g) Guidance for Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution 
Control.--
          [(1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation 
        with the Secretary and the Director of the United 
        States Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal 
        agencies, shall publish (and periodically revise 
        thereafter) guidance for specifying management measures 
        for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters.
          [(2) Content.--Guidance under this subsection shall 
        include, at a minimum--
                  [(A) a description of a range of methods, 
                measures, or practices, including structural 
                and nonstructural controls and operation and 
                maintenance procedures, that constitute each 
                measure;
                  [(B) a description of the categories and 
                subcategories of activities and locations for 
                which each measure may be suitable;
                  [(C) an identification of the individual 
                pollutants or categories or classes of 
                pollutants that may be controlled by the 
                measures and the water quality effects of the 
                measures;
                  [(D) quantitative estimates of the pollution 
                reduction effects and costs of the measures;
                  [(E) a description of the factors which 
                should be taken into account in adapting the 
                measures to specific sites or locations; and
                  [(F) any necessary monitoring techniques to 
                accompany the measures to assess over time the 
                success of the measures in reducing pollution 
                loads and improving water quality.
          [(3) Publication.--The Administrator, in consultation 
        with the Secretary, shall publish--
                  [(A) proposed guidance pursuant to this 
                subsection not later than 6 months after the 
                date of the enactment of this Act; and
                  [(B) final guidance pursuant to this 
                subsection not later than 18 months after such 
                effective date.
          [(4) Notice and comment.--The Administrator shall 
        provide to coastal States and other interested persons 
        an opportunity to provide written comments on proposed 
        guidance under this subsection.
          [(5) Management measures.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term ``management measures'' means 
        economically achievable measures for the control of the 
        addition of pollutants from existing and new categories 
        and classes of nonpoint sources of pollution, which 
        reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction 
        achievable through the application of the best 
        available nonpoint pollution control practices, 
        technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating 
        methods, or other alternatives.
    [(h) Authorizations of Appropriations.--
          [(1) Administrator.--There is authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Administrator for use for carrying 
        out this section not more than $1,000,000 for each of 
        fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994.
          [(2) Secretary.--(A) Of amounts appropriated to the 
        Secretary for a fiscal year under section 318(a)(4) of 
        the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended by 
        this Act, not more than $1,000,000 shall be available 
        for use by the Secretary for carrying out this section 
        for that fiscal year, other than for providing in the 
        form of grants under subsection (f).
          [(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Secretary for use for providing in the form of grants 
        under subsection (f) not more than--
                  [(i) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1992;
                  [(ii) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1993;
                  [(iii) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1994; and
                  [(iv) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.
    [(i) Definitions.--In this section--
          [(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
          [(2) the term ``coastal State'' has the meaning given 
        the term ``coastal state'' under section 304 of the 
        Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453);
          [(3) each of the terms ``coastal waters'' and 
        ``coastal zone'' has the meaning that term has in the 
        Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972;
          [(4) the term ``coastal management agency'' means a 
        State agency designated pursuant to section 306(d)(6) 
        of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972;
          [(5) the term ``land use'' includes a use of waters 
        adjacent to coastal waters; and
          [(6) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        Commerce.]
                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    We believe it is crucial for the Great Lakes region to have 
water quality standards that are specific to the regions needs. 
Since the Great Lakes contain 95% of the nation's fresh water 
and 20% of the world's fresh water, it is important to protect 
this resource.
    The Great Lakes initiative is a six year long cooperative 
effort to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem, based on the 
newest and best scientific information available. Under the 
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act, a bi-partisan effort signed 
by President Bush in 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
states and tribes, were to develop a standard for water quality 
that is specific to the needs of the region. Critics of this 
program claimed that the EPA was too strict in it's 
interpretation of the GLI and as a result, the GLI was 
rewritten to provide more flexibility for compliance. The end 
result, we believe, is a workable, uniform water quality 
standard for the Great Lakes region.
    The GLI establishes minimum water quality standards, 
antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for the 
Great Lakes and the surrounding states: Michigan, Illinois, 
Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The 
purpose of this rule is to provide consistency within the 
region to improve the water quality of the lakes and prevent 
further pollution. This means all states must cooperate on the 
GLI, and no state or its businesses will receive an unfair 
competitive advantage because they have lesser water quality 
standards. The EPA rewrote their original rule because of 
concern about the potential impact on competitiveness of the 
region and to provide needed flexibility for efficient 
implementation.
    A remaining controversy which came up during the committee 
process is the supposed ambiguity of the EPA's final guidance 
on a state's requirement to adopt controls which are ``as 
protective so the corresponding provision in the Great Lakes 
guidance''. We believe that Mr. Petri's amendment on the Great 
Lakes Initiative helps to define this level of protection. This 
language cites ``scientifically defensible,'' providing an 
``overall level of protection comparable to,'' the Guidance, 
``taking into account the specific circumstances of the State's 
waters.'' We believe that this means that the States must and 
will provide a level of protection essentially equivalent to 
that provided by the Guidance.
    It is important that the law be defined in this way or we 
open the door to much litigation. Certainly, more litigation 
was not the intent of our colleagues when crafting this bill.

                                   Vernon J. Ehlers.
                                   Steve C. LaTourette.
  SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS BY CONGRESSMAN SHERWOOD BOEHLERT AND CONGRESSMAN 
                            WAYNE GILCHREST

    The Clean Water Act is widely acknowledged as one of our 
nation's most effective environmental statutes. In testimony 
before the House Water Resources and Environmental Subcommittee 
over the last three years, representatives of industry, states 
and the environmental community have repeatedly highlighted the 
enormous successes that have been achieved through the Clean 
Water Act.
    Unfortunately, H.R. 961 fails to build on many of the 
successes of the Clean Water Act. In fact, H.R. 961 repeals or 
undermines many of the provisions which serve as the foundation 
for the success of Clean Water Act. H.R. 961 would remove over 
60 percent of our nation's remaining wetlands from any level of 
protection, completely repeal the stormwater provisions in the 
Clean Water Act, undermine efforts to control nonpoint source 
pollution, weaken standards governing industrial pollution 
discharges, and repeal the entire Coastal Zone nonpoint source 
pollution program.
    In protecting our nation's most valuable natural resource, 
clean water, we can either move forward, retain the status quo, 
or retreat from the improvements that have been made. H.R. 961 
is a retreat from existing law and we are committed to moving 
forward with efforts to improve the quality of America's lakes, 
rivers, and coastal waters.

                          wetlands protection

    Section 404 of the Clean Water Act has been the source of 
much public confusion and frustration, and we share the 
committee's stated commitment to clarifying and improving 
federal wetlands policy. We also believe that greater statutory 
definition is necessary for a sound wetlands program. 
Unfortunately, Title VIII of H.R. 961 represents a significant 
reduction in wetlands protection. The bill as reported seeks to 
implement an unworkable wetlands definition, an unscientific 
classification system, and an enormously expensive compensation 
program.
    Wetlands serve many valuable purposes. They provide 
critical habitat for many species of fish and wildfowl; they 
provide a natural filtration system which absorbs nitrates, 
toxics and other harmful substances before they reach water 
bodies; they provide a natural source of flood control, and 
they recharge aquifers. Wetlands loss is inevitably accompanied 
by diminishing wildlife populations, deteriorating water 
quality, and increased flooding in the case of riverine 
wetlands.
    Unfortunately, H.R. 961 would remove from federal 
protection over half of the wetlands in the United States, 
while reducing the level of protection for the remainder. We 
believe the resulting wetlands loss would be significant.
    The most objectionable provision of Title VIII is the new 
definition of what constitutes a wetland. The requirements set 
forth in the proposed Section 404(g) Subparagraph B(iv) would 
declassify wetlands which do not display surface water for at 
least 21 days during the growing season. Under this definition, 
a parcel of land could be a swamp for all of the non-growing 
season, the first 20 days of the growing season, and the last 
20 days of the growing season and still not be afforded any 
protection. Additionally, bogs and other areas which are 
continually saturated just below the surface would not be 
considered wetlands under H.R. 961. We believe there are a 
great many parcels of land that do not display surface water 
for 21 days in the growing season, yet serve wetland functions.
    The wetlands definition in H.R. 961 essentially mirrors the 
proposed 1991 revisions to the Manual for Identifying and 
Delineating Wetlands. The 1991 revisions were abandoned as 
unworkable as it was found that roughly half of all protected 
wetlands would have been de-classified. The inter-agency field 
testing report on the 1991 proposal concluded:

          We believe the proposed manual is not technically 
        sound. We believe it will take considerable time to 
        revise it to an acceptable method. Due to the 
        considerable amount of resources that would be required 
        to resolve the issues, we recommend that strong 
        consideration be given to abandoning this effort * * *

    Inasmuch as the 1991 definition was found to be unsound and 
impractical, we must question the wisdom of writing a similar 
definition into statute.
    The compensation provisions in Title VIII, while cloaked in 
the language of the Fifth Amendment, are in fact a major 
departure from over 2000 years of constitutional jurisprudence 
as to what constitutes a ``taking'' for the public good. In 
fact, wetlands policy is designed to prevent people from using 
their property in such a manner that they adversely affect 
other private property or public property. The issue of 
constitutional ``takings'' is an ongoing issue for the federal 
court system.
    H.R. 961 would provide compensation to any landowner whose 
property values were diminished by 20 percent or more as a 
result of wetlands regulation. In the few cases where federal 
courts have found regulatory takings, the loss in value is far 
greater than 20 percent. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 
landmark Lucas decision, regulatory takings occur ``where 
regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use 
of the land.'' Scalia later described a regulatory taking as 
``total deprivation of beneficial use.''
    Supporters of the compensation provisions claim they are 
neither an expensive entitlement, nor an effort to eliminate 
environmental protection. Obviously, these cannot both be true. 
The federal government will be forced to either make 
significant outlays as the cost of wetlands enforcement, or opt 
for non-enforcement of wetlands laws. The cost of this 
provision will be increased deficit spending or environmental 
degradation, neither of which we can afford.
    We can sympathize with the committee's desire to classify 
wetlands according to their importance, but we remain skeptical 
about the A-B-C system contained in H.R. 961. We do not believe 
there is adequate science available to make such a 
determination at this time, and that the proposal is 
politically, rather than scientifically based. The most damning 
evidence of the political nature of this is found in the 
proposed Section 404(g) Subparagraph C requirement that no more 
than 20 percent of the wetlands in any county, borough, or 
parish may be considered Type A wetlands. This provision quite 
obviously subverts the question of wetlands' environmental 
significance to the political consideration of county borders. 
Under such a provision, many of our nation's most important 
wetlands, such as the Everglades, could be destroyed.
    We believe that the House should reject Title VIII of the 
bill and wait for the release of the NAS study. With that 
information, the committee could develop a scientifically sound 
wetlands policy that would preserve our wetlands inventory. 
Unfortunately, the committee has chosen to proceed in haste.
    In summary, the bill contains a demonstrably unworkable 
definition of a wetland that will de-classify a significant 
portion of our nation's wetlands. It creates a compensation 
system that will result in an increase of dollars in new 
federal spending, significant non-enforcement, or both. It 
contains a classification system based on politics rather than 
science. And, it ignores a congressionally-mandated study into 
wetlands functions and values. We believe this to be a serious 
mistake with dire consequences for our nation's water quality 
and wildlife.

             the repeal of stormwater provisions in the act

    Stormwater management is a critical component to the 
improvement of water quality in the United States. Today, over 
25% of all water quality impairment in our nation is the result 
of stormwater discharges into lakes, streams and estuaries. 
Because stormwater pollution often encompasses large geographic 
areas and enormous volumes of water it poses significant 
challenges to those working to control its impact.
    However, section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act has been 
responsible for important steps toward reducing stormwater 
pollution. Today, 342 large cities and 134,000 industrial 
facilities already have stormwater permits to control this 
important source of water pollution. Controlling stormwater 
runoff in communities under 100,000 and at light industry 
facilities poses more significant problems. Recognizing this 
EPA has issued a six year moratorium on any additional 
requirements on communities under 100,000.
    H.R. 961, would turn back the clock on efforts to control 
stormwater pollution by repealing section 402(p) of the Clean 
Water Act. We cannot, and should not, turn our backs on this 
major source of water pollution. Stormwater is responsible 
water quality impairment in urban and coastal areas across this 
nation. Swimming and fishing are not available to millions of 
Americans because of stormwater pollution. To repeal the 
provisions in the Clean Water Act that address stormwater 
pollution is short sighted and irresponsible.

             the weakening of pollution discharge standards

    One of the cornerstones of the Clean Water Act's success 
since 1972 is the way in which point source discharges have 
been held to comparable standards across the nation. Prior to 
the enactment of the Clean Water Act, states often lowered 
water quality requirements to attract water polluting 
industries. States were in bidding wars to have the least 
protective water quality standards. Recognizing this problem, 
Congress acted to curtail the problem of balkanization and low 
water quality standards, and to establish a level playing field 
for industry, by requiring industrial and sewage treatment 
plants to have discharge permits under the Clean Water Act.
    We believe that H.R. 961 would roll back the quality and 
technology-based standards implemented under the Clean Water 
Act to protect Americans from discharges of toxic pollution 
into city sewer lines. For example, under the committee bill, 
dischargers would be allowed to trade pollution between water, 
air, and land--with so few restrictions that a paper recycling 
program could be used as an excuse to increase discharges of 
heavy metals into a delicate ecosystem. Additionally, 
opportunities to update and strengthen controls on toxic and 
other discharges would occur only once every decade, rather 
than every five years, as under current law.
    The process of establishing water quality standards based 
on sound science will also be rolled back, supplanted by an 
approach based on undefined ``economic and social 
considerations.'' Specifically, the bill requires EPA to be 
able to prove in court that the performance rules maximize 
social benefits.
    In conclusion, by relaxing federal standards and deadlines, 
rather than creating flexibility in achieving them, the bill 
will increase the pressure on states to degrade or waive water 
quality standards.

                       nonpoint source pollution

    Over half of the water pollution in America's lakes, 
rivers, and estuaries is the result of nonpoint source 
pollution. Since 1972, the federal government has provided 
cities over $60 billion to control point source pollution, but, 
less than $1 billion has been spent on nonpoint source 
pollution. Controlling nonpoint source pollution is the largest 
major hurdle to improving the quality of this nation's waters.
    H.R. 961 simply does not provide the frame work for 
effectively addressing nonpoint source pollution.

                          the repeal of czara

    Over the past five years, over 10,000 beaches in the United 
States have been closed because of coastal water pollution. 
Over one-third of all shellfish beds in the United States are 
closed or threatened by water pollution. The majority of 
coastal water quality impairment is the result of nonpoint 
sources of pollution. To focus greater resources and attention 
on this problem, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Act 
Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) in 1990. Since coastal areas 
are more densely populated than the nation as whole, and serve 
as critical ecosystems for many aquatic and other species as 
well, these areas, which are downstream of all nonpoint source 
pollution, need extra protection.
    H.R. 961 repeals CZARA in its entirety. While we recognize 
that aspects of CZARA need to be reviewed, the program, which 
serves 29 states, is critical to the protection and 
rejuvenation of coastal waters. The potential environmental and 
economic impacts of the repeal of CZARA would be significant: 
beach closing and advisories affecting the public that swims 
and eats fish and shellfish; closed or harvest-limited 
shellfish beds, and declining fisheries; and red tides and 
other harmful plankton blooms would impact individuals owning 
coastal property. Last but not least is the potential impact 
the repeal of CZARA could have on the quality drinking water.

                                   Wayne T. Gilchrest.
                                   Sherwood Boehlert.
                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                              introduction

    The Clean Water Act is one of the most highly regarded 
environmental statutes on the books today. It has been 
achieving steady progress in cleaning up our Nation's waters 
since it was enacted in 1972, and it has achieved great 
benefits for the health of our people, for the liveability of 
our riverfront, lakefront, and coastal areas, and for the 
availability of the clean water so necessary for economic 
growth.
    H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995, does not 
build on that success; in fact it does quite the opposite. 
There may be disagreement about how much farther we should go 
beyond existing law in creating new requirements to clean up 
our Nation's waters, but there is widespread agreement that we 
should not do less than we are doing today and we should not 
weaken existing standards for clean water.
    Yet, that is exactly what this bill would do. Over and over 
again this bill rolls back the requirements of existing law, 
creates new loopholes for special interests, creates new 
opportunities for legal challenges to any effort to limit 
pollution of our waters, and makes enforcement of the few 
standards which remain very difficult. There is very little 
that the polluters and special interests asked for that they 
did not get in this bill. This is their dream come true. This 
is a polluter's bill of rights.
    The average American would be far better off if this 
Congress passed on Clean Water bill than if it passed this 
bill. Without enactment of any bill in this Congress most of 
the existing Clean Water law would continue in effect, 
providing far greater protection to average Americans than the 
tattered and gutted Clean Water Act which would remain after 
enactment of this bill. This bill does not just amend the Clean 
Water Act, it largely undoes the Clean Water Act. That is not 
what Americans want and not what they voted for.
    Of this bill the EPA Administrator says, ``It exempts 
important sources of pollution, prohibits states from 
controlling certain discharges, and undermines good science. 
The bill creates loopholes aimed at lessening current 
requirements, making it difficult to enforce against even 
egregious polluters. The Clean Water Act is a highly workable 
and effective statute and this bill would roll back 
longstanding public health and environmental protections.''
    The Department of Justice says, ``This bill would create 
exemptions and loopholes for polluters, making enforcement much 
more difficult.''
    The National Conference of State Legislatures says the bill 
`` could undermine the states' progress in protecting water 
quality.'' The NCSL lists many provisions in the bill they 
oppose. Just to give one example, it says, ``Many newly-added 
provisions in Title III would undercut the states' ability to 
control toxic pollution from point sources. For example, there 
are new provisions that would slow down and weaken national 
effluent guidelines; allow increased discharges of toxic 
pollutants to sewage treatments plants; and allow permits for 
industrial dischargers that violate water quality standards. 
Other newly drafted sections in Title III would open the door 
to widespread relaxation of water quality standards for rivers, 
lakes, and coastal areas.''
    While considerable progress has been made since 1972 in 
cleaning up our Nation's waters, there is much that remains to 
be done. In the most recent assessment by the states of our 
Nation's waters they found that 40% of our Nation's waters 
still do not meet the water quality standards for the uses 
designated for each waterbody by the states. The existing Act 
would continue to make steady progress in dealing with those 
remaining water pollution problems. This bill would do the 
opposite.
    At the very least we should do no less to clean up water 
pollution than we are doing today. This bill does not even pass 
that minimal test.
    What we should be doing is retaining most of the existing 
Act, making a few modifications to strengthen the Act where 
there is a clearly demonstrated need to do so, and correcting a 
few specific problems which have arisen. The result would be a 
continuation of steady progress on cleaning up pollution. 
Instead, under this bill we would be weakening and rolling back 
major portions of the Act.
    The most surprising area of rollback is in point source 
pollution. Point sources are the discharges by industries and 
sewage treatment works directly into rivers, lakes, or oceans. 
This is the area where the Act has been most successful and has 
contributed most to the cleanup of our Nation's waters. Little 
of H.R. 961 as introduced last February would have changed the 
point source standards. However, beginning in Subcommittee 
markup, the bill was drastically expanded and much of it now 
contains loopholes, waivers, and exemptions which seriously 
weaken the point source core of the Clean Water Act.
    The bill expands from five to 70,000 the number of so-
called non-conventional pollutants dischargers can seek waivers 
from having to treat to currently applicable standards.
    If a discharger calls its treatment method ``innovative'' 
it can get a new waiver from existing standards, and even if it 
fails to meet the new lower standards, it can be excused 
entirely if it had ``good faith.''
    If a discharger claims it is not polluting the air to the 
allowable limit under the Clean Air Act, it can pollute the 
water more than allowed today.
    Industries which discharge into municipal sewage systems 
would have to do less treatment of their industrial waste 
before it was dumped into the municipal treatment works, where 
industrial toxins would somehow become less offensive by being 
diluted by enormous quantities of municipal sewage.
    Would a discharger be part of a watershed plan? If so, 
there's a new waiver to get its discharge permit relaxed.
    Secondary treatment, the floor level of treatment for 
municipalities, is waved for an unknown number of coastal 
cities and for thousands of smaller communities in general, 
without regard for what that might do in specific cases to 
water quality.
    Would it be inconvenient to the discharger to comply with 
its discharge permit all year long? Would it be easier not to 
comply during the busiest months? No problem, this bill opens 
up for the first time the option of 12-month averaging, so you 
can be out of compliance during the months that it matters 
most, but average it out in the slack months.
    Every one of the provisions just mentioned is a weakening 
of the existing Act. And not one of these provisions was in the 
introduced bill on which hearings were held. These provisions 
and a great many more like them, undermine the very feature of 
the Clean Water Act which has worked the best and which average 
Americans rely on to limit the amount of pollution dumped into 
our waters by major industries and by sewage treatment works.
    The number of waivers, loopholes, and exemptions created by 
this bill for point source dischargers is so great that most 
dischargers should be able to find a provision they can use to 
discharge more pollution. As a result, average Americans are 
going to have to live with exposure to increased pollution, and 
in some cases are going to have to pay more for the sewage 
treatment in their own city because others are leaving the 
receiving waters much more polluted.
    There are specific areas of the Act where there are 
problems of procedure or policy which need to be corrected in 
order to achieve clean water goals in a more practical, 
equitable, and efficient manner. Those problems can and should 
be fixed in ways which do not detract from our clean water 
goals. However this bill does not adopt that approach. Instead 
of fixing problems, it uses problems as excuses to cripple or 
eliminate existing cleanup programs.
    For example, in the area of wetlands protection, there are 
specific problems which need to be addressed: a time limit on 
consideration of a permit needs to be set to deal with 
unreasonable delays; an administrative appeals process needs to 
be established so that those who cannot afford a full judicial 
challenge have a practical right of appeal; small and manmade 
wetlands, such as upland drainage ditches, small artificial 
lakes and ponds, wetlands created incidental to construction 
activity, and stormwater and sewage treatment ponds, need to be 
exempted from the program because they really are not the 
resource we are trying to protect; the role of states in the 
administration of the program needs to be enhanced; and we 
should clarify that in evaluating applications for development 
in wetlands the relative value of each wetland should be 
evaluated and taken into account.
    Yet these reforms of the wetlands program were offered in 
Committee and were specifically rejected in favor of provisions 
which drastically reduce the protection afforded to wetlands 
and which would impose dramatic new costs on taxpayers.
    Rather than exclude truly marginal and insignificant 
wetlands, this bill invents a new definition which by itself 
would eliminate over half of this Nation's wetlands from 
protection, including significant parts of the Everglades. (The 
Association of State Wetlands Managers estimates that the 
definitional changes alone would remove 60-80% of all wetlands 
from protection.) Rather than requiring the relative value of 
each wetland to be judged when and if someone wants to develop 
it, the bill inexplicably would require the classification of 
all wetlands, whether anyone wants to devleop them or not. This 
provision alone is expected to cost over a billion dollars and 
take many years and about 1,000 additional employees to 
implement. Its sole purpose is to further reduce the amount of 
wetlands accorded any significant protection under this bill.
    And of greatest concern to taxpayers is a very extreme 
takings provision, under which anyone who could claim that 
wetlands protection results in the loss of 20% of the value of 
any part of their property as compared to what it would be if 
they could develop it without any restrictions, could demand to 
be compensated by the taxpayers. Why the taxpayers should be 
punished for the perceived problems of the wetlands program is 
never explained, but the punishment would be severe: cost 
estimates for this provision range into the tens of billions of 
dollars.
    There is no valid reason why reforming the wetlands program 
should result in substantially increased costs to the 
taxpayers. That is clearly not the solution to wetlands 
problems which most Americans want.
    Another example is the stormwater program. Under existing 
law, cities over 100,000 have discharge permits which do not 
require specific levels of treatment (called numeric limits), 
but which simply require certain practices (called best 
management practices or BMPs), such as street sweeping or 
settlement ponds. However, interpretations of existing law have 
recently begun requiring stormwater permits to go to the 
numeric limits necessary to achieve water quality standards. No 
such technology is available in many instances, so clearly an 
adjustment should be made.
    What should happen is that the stormwater program should be 
modified so that cities can go on using BMP's under their 
existing permits to move steadily closer to water quality 
goals, but they should not be under a legal requirements to 
treat stormwater to numeric limits.
    Instead, this bill wipes our the existing permit program 
for municipalities entirely, ending all monitoring and all 
enforceable requirements. The bill claims to deal with these 
issues under the nonpoint program, but that program has been 
notoriously ineffective and unenforceable. Furthermore, the 
bill eliminates the stormwater permit program not only with 
respect to municipalities, but also with respect to industrial 
sites. This would end enforceable standards for industries 
which leave piles of chemical stocks out in the open, subject 
to runoff into the nearest stream.
    There is a valid reason why stormwater permits, should not 
move to numeric limitations, but there is no reason why 
municipalities and industries cannot continue doing what they 
are doing today to control stormwater pollution. Once again 
this bill has opted for rolling back cleanup which is happening 
today.
    The advocates of this bill say they do not want to harm the 
environment, they just want to give state and local governments 
more flexibility. And where it is to the advantage of the 
polluter to give state and local governments more flexibility, 
they do so. but where it is to the advantage of the polluters 
to give less flexibility, that is what the bill does.
    For example, in the new provisions creating more lax 
standards for discharge by industry into municipal sewage 
systems, states would have only limited say in the matter. If 
the conditions in this bill for a pretreatment waiver were met, 
the states could not stop the waiver from being granted. When 
it is for the benefit of the polluter, Washington still knows 
best.
    Another example is in the area of nonpoint (runoff) 
pollution, which is now the greatest cause of water pollution 
in the United States. The bill grants broad and vague 
exemptions to agriculture (the largest source of nonpoint 
pollution), which a state could not override even if it felt it 
needed to do so in order to deal with its water pollution 
problems. Again, when it is in the polluter's interest. 
Washington still knows best.
    The bill repeals the nonpoint program of the Coastal Zone 
Management Act (CZMA), even though the coastal states did not 
want it repealed and specifically asked that it be retained. 
But unlike the nonpoint programs elsewhere, the CZMA nonpoint 
program actually holds promise of achieving improvements 
(albeit modest) in reducing nonpoint pollution. Again, where it 
is the interest of the polluters, against the idea of greater 
state role and flexibility, the polluters won out.
    The stormwater provisions are another example: the 
provisions in the bill which weaken control of municipal 
stormwater pollution, and virtually eliminate any meaningful 
control of industrial stormwater pollution control, are 
federally mandated and the states cannot choose otherwise. 
State and local government are pushed aside on the question of 
relaxing these stormwater controls; the rollback would be in 
federal statute and no one else would have a say in the matter.
    The advocates of this bill say they do not want to harm the 
environment, they just want to assure that ``good science'' is 
used before regulatory decisions are made. This is their 
rationale, for example, in including risk assessment provisions 
even more extreme and onerous that those contained in the 
House-passed risk assessment bill. But when it would be to the 
disadvantage of the polluter to require ``good science,'' then 
science is tossed aside.
    For example, at Congress' direction, the National Academy 
of Sciences has been working for over two years on a study of 
how wetlands should be defined. That study is expected this 
month. Yet here we are using to the floor with a bill which 
drastically redefines wetlands so as to exclude the majority of 
all wetlands nationwide, immediately before having this ``good 
science'' on the very question we are deciding Clearly here the 
advocates of this bill do not thing ``good science'' is going 
to agree with them.
    Another example is the new provisions effectively allowing 
water quality standards to be lowered even when ``good 
science'' says they should not be. At present, it is up to the 
states to select the designated use for each waterbody, such as 
swimmable, or navigation, or whatever. Having selected that 
designated use, science determines what water quality standards 
are necessary to achieve that designated use, for example, how 
clean water must be for it to be swimmable without being a 
health hazards. That is a scientific question: either the 
medical evidence is that a given body of water is safe to swim 
in, or it is not. Under this bill, we would effectively adjust 
the water quality standards downward to accommodate cost 
concerns, so that we could still call a body of water swimmable 
even though medical evidence established that it was no. 
Existing law takes costs into account in other ways; we should 
not be disregarding the science and calling something swimmable 
which is not.
    The advocates of this bill say they do not want to harm the 
environment, they just want to make sure that costs and 
benefits are properly balanced in making decisions setting 
environmental standards. Again this is the rationale for the 
extreme risk assessment provisions in the bill. Where it is to 
the advantage of the polluter, this bill requires extensive and 
difficult benefit-cost analysis and risk assessment.
    But many of the most significant regulatory decisions to be 
made under this bill are the granting of the countless new 
kinds of waivers created by the bill. In the aggregate these 
waiver decisions will be the most far-reaching impacts of this 
bill. Certainly if we believe that we should thoroughly 
understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with major 
regulatory decisions, these waiver decisions should be subject 
to the same benefit-cost and risk analyses as other regulatory 
decisions would be under this bill. But they are not. Under the 
bill the kinds of regulatory decisions likely to control 
pollution could not go ahead without these extensive and 
burdensome analyses, but the kinds of regulatory decisions 
which are likely to benefit polluters, such as waivers, and 
degrade the environment are not required to have any of these 
new analyses.
    Furthermore, perhaps the most basic benefit-cost issue in 
the Act is the fact that we are requiring higher and higher 
cost efforts by point dischargers precisely because we are 
unwilling to require those same pollutants to be removed at far 
lower cost by nonpoint sources. Yet this bill, rather than 
taking the most cost-effective option of requiring nonpoint 
sources to do at least modestly more pollution reduction, takes 
the opposite course of requiring nonpoint to do less than it 
does today. The result is that the task of cleaning up our 
Nation's waters will become less cost-effective under this 
bill, rather than more cost-effective. But the advantage of 
nonpoint polluters will have been served.
    The advocates of this bill say they do not want to harm the 
environment, they just want to defend private property rights. 
And where it is to the advantage of polluters they include 
extreme private property provisions. But this bill would 
fundamentally harm the private property rights of those whose 
property will be subject to increased flooding because others 
have chosen to destroy wetlands, of those whose private 
property derives its value from fish stocks or wildlife or 
recreational opportunities made possible by wetlands, and of 
those whose private property can be enjoyed or developed only 
if clean water has not been polluted by those upstream. Where 
it is to the advantage of the polluter, this bill is aggressive 
in its defense of property rights, but where concern over the 
property of the rest of us is concerned, our property rights 
would take a back seat to the right this bill holds in highest 
esteem, and that is the right pollute.
    The rollbacks, waivers, exemptions, and repeals of existing 
law make this bill absolutely unacceptable. The bill at every 
turn advantages the major polluters and disadvantages the rest 
of us. It is an extreme bill in a country which wants 
reasonable and cost-effective efforts to clean up our Nation's 
waters and to bequeath them to our children. It would take 
major modifications for this bill to become acceptable. If that 
can be accomplished, then we should move forward. But if it 
cannot, then we would all be far better off passing no bill and 
continuing to operate under the existing Clean Water Act.

        the bill dramatically rolls back point source standards

Background

    The widely acknowledged successes of the Clean Water Act 
over the past 20 years are attributable to the Act's control of 
pollutant discharges from so-called ``point sources.'' Point 
sources are confined and discrete conveyances such as pipes, 
ditches and channels used by industry and municipalities to 
discharge their polluted wastewater into our Nation's lakes, 
rivers, streams and the ocean. The backbone of the point source 
control program is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) program established under Section 402 of the 
Act.
    The Act (at section 301) prohibits any point source 
discharges, unless authorized in an NPDES permit. These permits 
contain effluent limitations that specify the types and amounts 
of pollutants that may be discharged. The limitations are 
derived from two types of standards: technology-based and water 
quality-based. Technology-based standards are based on what can 
be accomplished using technologies available and economically 
achievable for a particular industry. While technology-based 
standards for each industry group are nationally applicable 
(unless one of the limited available waivers or variances is 
granted), the discharger has the flexibility to select the 
technology it will use to meet these standards.
    Sometimes technology-based standards are not adequate to 
achieve State water quality standards. In these instances, 
water quality-based standards are adopted. Water quality-based 
standards are based on the capacity of the receiving water to 
accommodate pollutants, which in turn depends on the use of the 
receiving water as determined by the State. Hence, a waterbody 
that is used for swimming and drinking water supply will have 
higher standards than will one with which humans do not have 
direct contact.
    One of the Clean Water Act's feature that has been credited 
for the success of the point source pollution control program 
is its establishment of uniform minimum standards for similarly 
situated dischargers. Such national baselines serve several 
important functions.
    First, they provide a level playing field. They protect 
against states and cities having to choose between protecting 
water quality and losing business and jobs to competitors in 
states which roll back water quality protection to attract 
industry.
    Second, national baselines protect residents who live 
downstream, as does most of the population, from dumping of 
toxics by their upstream neighbors who, because they do not 
live with the impact of their own discharges, might be tempted 
to pollute with impunity. It is well known that the adverse 
impacts of polluted water known no political boundaries. 
National baselines ensure that residents of one community do 
not have to worry about contamination of their drinking water 
supply, swimming beach and favorite fishing spot by upstream 
discharges of sewage and industrial wastewater.
    Third, national baselines provide a degree of 
predictability and simplicity in implementation. They allow the 
regulated community to know what is expected of them under the 
law and to make planning decisions accordingly. They allow the 
regulator, usually the State, to implement the Clean Water Act 
without exhausting its resources on complex, resource-intensive 
scientific judgements such as those required under many of the 
waiver provisions in H.R. 961. The demanding and often 
impossible judgements the agencies are called on in H.R. 961 to 
make on a facility by facility basis will divert the agencies' 
resources from moving forward with an effective statewide 
program.

H.R. 961's waiver provisions generally

    Through creation of dozens of waivers and exemptions. H.R. 
961 would eliminate fundamental provisions of the Clean Water 
Act that establish uniform baselines that have resulted in the 
significant gains of the Clean Water Act over the past 20 
years.
    The bill would introduce vague, unworkable and inconsistent 
new standards that create uncertainty and confusion; exhaust 
local, State and federal governmental resources; lead to 
spiraling litigation; and, most significantly, devastate our 
Nation's waters and the people that depend on them for 
employment, recreation and sustenance. As stated by the Acting 
Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of 
Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs, ``the bill would 
create exemptions and loopholes for polluters, making 
enforcement much more difficult'' (letter dated March 29, 1995, 
from Mr. Kent Markus to Chairman Shuster). The National 
Conference of State Legislators reached a similar conclusion: 
``Many newly-added provisions in Title III would undercut the 
states' ability to control toxic pollution from point sources. 
For example, there are new provisions that would slow down and 
weaken national effluent guidelines; allow increased discharges 
of toxic pollutants to sewage treatment plants and allow 
permits for industrial dischargers that violate water quality 
standards * * *'' (letter dated March 30, 1995, from Mr. 
Patrick Dougherty, Chair, NCSL Environment Committee, to 
Chairman Shuster).
    The bill contains a myriad of industry-specific waivers 
which both expand currently available waivers and create new 
loopholes in the Act's point source standards. For example, 
there are one or more specific waivers available to each of the 
following industries: mining, pulp and paper, iron and steel, 
photo processing, food processing, electric power, cattle, oil 
and gas and others. In addition, a select group of 
municipalities, including San Diego and Los Angeles, would 
become eligible for new or expanded waivers of standards for 
treating the wastewater from their sewage treatment plants.
    The bill also would create generally applicable loopholes, 
such as the provision that a discharger is deemed in compliance 
if it complies with its technology based standard a certain 
percentage of the time; the one that allows for permits that 
will not meet water quality standards if a watershed plan has 
been written; and the entitlement to intake credits in a wide 
variety of circumstances.

Responses to suggested rationales for the multiple waivers

    The nagging question is: WHY? Has enough already been done 
to protect water quality? Do Americans want reductions in water 
quality? The answer to both of these questions is a resounding: 
NO.
    Notwithstanding the frequent observation that ``the Clean 
Water Act is the most successful Federal environmental law,'' a 
lot remains to be done to maintain the progress that has 
already been made, and to address remaining water quality 
problems. Although the point source program has resulted in 
enormous strides in cleaning up our Nation's waters, 40% of our 
Nation's waters still do not meet State designated water 
quality standards. That means that our waters are not yet clean 
enough. Our successes do not warrant the waivers in this bill, 
unless we are prepared to say, and hear said, that ``the Clean 
Water Act was the most successful Federal environmental law--
until 1995, when it was dismantled by Congress.'' 
Unfortunately, H.R. 961 seems to be based on the premise that 
we have gone too far in cleaning up our Nation's waters, that 
the goals of the Clean Water Act's point source control program 
have already been achieved. Not only would the bill prevent 
further progress, it would return us to the days before the 
gains we today enjoy--even take for granted--had been achieved.
    It is equally clear that Americans do not want to roll back 
environmental laws that are responsible for the water quality 
and quality of life that we have come to expect. In a report 
issued this month entitled ``Setting Priorities, Getting 
Results: A New Direction for the Environmental Protection 
Agency,'' the National Academy of Public Administration cited 
as an ``enduring principle'' that ``the American people 
overwhelmingly desire a healthier environment and increasingly 
see it as critical to the nation's future'' (Summary Report at 
p. 4). The Academy also noted that ``EPA has greatly enhanced 
the quality of life in America * * * [such that] most Americans 
now take a relatively clean environment for granted'' (Summary 
Report at pp. 7 and 9).
    Many of the waivers and variances created under the bill 
have been promoted in the name of increasing flexibility and 
reducing burdens. We fully agree that enhancing flexibility and 
reducing regulatory and financial burdens, both for State and 
local governments and for the regulated community, are laudable 
goals. But, there are ways to increase flexibility and reduce 
burdens that do not have the serious adverse consequences of 
this bill which, in many instances, do not reduce but actually 
increase burdens on State and local governments.
    It has been argued that the waiver provisions will not 
cause a setback in water quality because waivers are not 
available unless authorized by a State or EPA. Unfortunately, 
under the bill's provisions agency approval is often an 
illusory safeguard.
    First, in several instances, the waiver is automatic or a 
State or EPA is required to grant the waiver if certain 
conditions are met, and the conditions do not necessarily focus 
upon water quality, but rather on taking certain actions. The 
result is waivers based not upon good judgment founded in 
science, but upon behavior. The bill thereby limits the States' 
and EPA's authority to exercise discretion in determining 
whether a waiver is appropriate in a particular situation.
    Examples of the mandatory nature of certain waivers are: 
coal remining operations (``Any operator of a coal mining 
operation * * * shall be deemed to be in compliance with 
sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 402 of this Act if * * *'') 
(Sec. 301(d) of the bill, amending Section 301(p) of the Act); 
coastal discharges (``any municipal wastewater treatment 
facility shall be deemed the equivalent of a secondary 
treatment facility if * * *'') (Section 309(a) of the bill, 
amending Section 304(d) of the Act); modification of secondary 
treatment requirements (``The Administrator, with the 
concurrence of the State, shall issue a 10-year permit under 
Section 402 which modifies the requirements of subsection 
(b)(1)(B) * * * if * * *'') (Section 309(b) of the bill, 
amending Section 301(s) of the Act); waiver of industrial 
categorical pretreatment standards (``the approved pretreatment 
program shall be modified to allow the publicly owned treatment 
works to apply local limits in lieu of categorical pretreatment 
standards [if] * * *'') (Section 311 of the bill, amending 
Section 307(f) of the Act).
    Second, this rationale ignores the fact that the uniform 
minimum standards that are the foundation of the current point 
source program are the cornerstone of the Act's success. As the 
National Academy of Public Administration concluded, ``EPA has 
a role in setting and enforcing national standards or ensuring 
that States and local governments enforce them, thus preventing 
polluters from externalizing their pollution costs and creating 
a renewed `race to the bottom' '' (Summary Report at pp. 14-
15).
    Third, even where the granting of a waiver is discretionary 
with a State or EPA, frequently the standards created by the 
bill for granting a waiver are extremely resource intensive of 
not impossible to implement.
    The bill offers little or no guidance on how the dozens of 
new, often vague and ambiguous, standards are to be 
implemented. Nor does it direct EPA to develop any guidance 
that would provide some degree of consistency in interpretation 
and application. Adoption of complex tests, coupled with 
significant limitations on discretion in how they might be 
applied, creates an impossible situation for State and Federal 
agencies attempting to follow them, and exponentially increases 
delays, up from burdens and later litigation in permit appeals. 
Each State that runs its own Clear Water Act permitting program 
will be required to expend additional resources to develop, and 
defend against challenges to, every permit. The increased 
resources demanded of State and Federal agencies, coupled with 
the limitations on their exercise of discretion, set them up 
for a losing situation, which then adds fuel to Congress' 
criticism of the agencies' performance.
    As stated by Mr. Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant 
Administrator for Water, ``Across the board, lengthy litigation 
over newly crafted but fundamental provisions may put off basic 
protections. The administrative burden of making tens of 
thousands of new, cases by case determinations may overwhelm 
available Federal and State resources, leading to backlogs, 
frustration and delay or hasty and perhaps bad decisions'' 
(Letter to Chairman Shuster dated April 4, 1995).
    In addition, without explanation and inconsistent with 
other provisions of the Act, the bill repeatedly creates a dual 
standard for granting waivers, depending on whether EPA or a 
State is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act in a 
particular State. For example, under several provisions, where 
a State that has not been authorized to implement the Clean 
Water program, the Administrator may act on a waiver 
application only with the concurrence of the State. However, an 
authorized State is not required to seek the concurrence of, or 
in many instances even to consult with, the Administrator 
before granting a waiver. Similarly, some provisions provide 
that under given circumstances EPA shall and a State may grant 
a waiver (see, for example, Sec. 406 of the bill regarding 
intake credits).
    Some of the bill's waiver provisions are couched in terms 
that may sound environmentally responsible, such as ``pollution 
prevention,'' ``innovative technologies,'' ``pollution 
reduction agreements'' and ``watershed management.'' But, 
behind the section headings are some sweeping waivers that will 
do anything but prevent pollution. Rather, these sections 
contain perverse incentives for polluters to take advantage of 
liberally available loopholes to maximize profit at the expense 
of the quality of the Nation's water and the everyday life of 
the people in this Country.
    Many of the waiver provision also fail to take into 
consideration the cumulative impact of waivers to multiple 
sources, instead treating each discharger as if in a vacuum.
    Risk assessments are not allowed, much less required, 
before standards may be waived. This includes standards for 
toxic and other bioaccumulative and persistent pollutants that 
are known to threaten human health. While the bill calls for an 
elaborate form of risk assessment, more onerous than that 
recently passed by the House, it applies risk assessment only 
to regulatory activities likely to impose requirements on 
polluters. On regulatory decisions likely to be to the 
advantage of polluters, however, such as the many new waivers 
allowed by this bill, the bill does not apply risk assessment, 
so that these decisions can be made with greater speed and less 
analysis of their consequences. This is not an oversight. The 
subcommittee and full committee rejected amendments that would 
have subjected waivers to risk assessment.
    In addition, the waivers have potentially significant 
impacts on other industrial and municipal dischargers and on 
nonpoint sources of pollution. Any increase in discharges by 
one source will need to be offset by reducing the discharges by 
another source, if water quality standards are to be met. Those 
industries and municipalities that were effective in securing 
specific waivers in the bill will have a competitive advantage 
over other industries, municipalities and other dischargers, or 
else our water quality will deteriorate. In the guise of 
increased flexibility, the bill creates loopholes that create a 
very unlevel playing field.
    The vast majority of the point source waivers in the bill 
were never addressed in testimony during any of the seven Clean 
Water Act hearings during the 104th Congress before the Water 
Resources and Environment Subcommittee, and were developed 
behind closed doors. Thus, whatever conceivable justification 
there may be for the waivers remains elusive to most of us. 
Their short term and long term impacts have never been openly 
examined. We do know, however, that whatever their impacts, 
they will be compounded by the fact that the bill doubles the 
term of most permits from 5 to 10 years. So, we would be living 
with the impacts of this unravelling of the Clean Water Act 
well into the next century.

Examples of point source waivers in H.R. 961

    A more detailed discussion of some of the specific point 
source waiver provisions follows:
    1. Modifications of Effluent Limitations for 
Nonconventional Pollutants: Section 301(b) of the bill, which 
amends Section 301(g) of the Act, expands from five to more 
than 70,000 the number of pollutants that would be eligible for 
waivers of the applicable technology-based standard of best 
available technology economically achievable (``BAT'').
    Current law lists five nonconventional pollutants for which 
a discharger may seek a modification of the BAT standard 
(ammonia, chlorine, color, iron and total phenols). These five 
pollutants were identified in the Act based on a determination 
that there was sufficient information to warrant making them 
eligible for consideration for waivers.
    Under current law, for waivers to be granted for any 
additional nonconventional pollutants, they must undergo a two-
step approval process. First, for a nonconventional pollutant 
to be eligible, it has to be added to the list, based on a 
demonstration to the Administrator that, among other things, 
the pollutant is not a toxic pollutant. A nonconventional 
pollutant that is approved for the list may be considered for a 
waiver, based on the required showing by the applicant. 
Petitions for listing must be filed within 270 days after 
promulgation of an effluent guideline for a particular 
nonconventional pollutant.
    The bill would dramatically enlarge the number and type of 
pollutants for which waivers may be sought. The bill eliminates 
the prerequisite that an applicant demonstrate that the 
pollutant for which the modification of the BAT standard is 
sought is not a toxic pollutant. This is problematic because 
many of the approximately 70,000 so-called ``nonconventional'' 
pollutants would meet the criterion for toxic pollutants under 
Section 307(a) if EPA were to carry out the procedure for 
formally listing additional toxic pollutants. The term 
``nonconventional'' includes any pollutant other than the five 
conventional pollutants and 126 toxic pollutants designated 
under the Act. Since EPA has been slow to add to the list of 
126 toxic pollutants under Section 307 of the Act, many toxic 
pollutants are currently in the enormous catchall category of 
``nonconventional'' pollutants. Nonconventional does not mean 
non-toxic. This bill would expand the waiver of BAT standards, 
which currently is available only for nonconventional 
pollutants, to certain toxic pollutants, including pollutants 
that may be highly persistent and bioaccumulative. The 70,000 
pollutants that would become eligible include most of the 
chemicals referred to as dioxins, and all of the chlorinated 
dibenzo-furans.
    The fact that State water quality standards would still 
apply does not mitigate the potential adverse impacts of this 
provision, since states have standards for only a small 
fraction of the tens of thousands of pollutants that would be 
eligible for waivers under H.R. 961.
    In addition, the bill would eliminate the deadline for 
applying for a waiver. Hence, dischargers of approximately 
70,000 nonconventional pollutants, including some toxic 
pollutants, could at any time drown EPA with applications for 
modifications.
    As with most of the waiver provisions in the bill, this 
waiver was never raised in hearings before the Water Resources 
and Environment Subcommittee. The creation of this potentially 
sweeping modification of applicable baseline standards for 
nonconventional pollutants was achieved without any disclosure 
of any justification for the amendment.
    2. Waivers Under the Guise of ``Pollution Prevention 
Opportunities''.
    a. Waivers for ``Innovative Production Processes'': We 
strongly support the concept of improving provisions on 
innovative technologies in order to provide greater incentives 
for development of innovative production and pollution control 
processes, and, in appropriate circumstances, protecting those 
who take advantage of the incentives from liability if their 
innovations fail. We also agree with the bill's increase from 
two to three years of the extension for meeting applicable 
standards under this provision.
    However, Section 302 (a) and (f) of the bill, which amends 
Sections 301(k) and 307 of the Clean Water Act, raises several 
serious concerns.
    First, the provision creates new standards that reduce the 
likelihood that so-called ``innovative'' measures taken under 
these provisions actually will succeed in developing innovative 
approaches to meeting water quality requirements. The new 
standards also increase the potential for abuse by those who 
view this provision as an opportunity to extract a three-year 
extension of deadlines for meeting applicable standards.
    For example, under current law, proposals must have a 
``substantial likelihood'' of achieving an effluent reduction 
that is ``significantly greater'' than otherwise required, and 
must have the potential for industry-wide application. Under 
the bill, the innovative method must only have the 
``potential'' to achieve an effluent reduction that is 
``greater,'' by some unspecified amount, than otherwise 
required, and there is no requirement that the technology have 
any application beyond the facility that developed it. A barely 
perceptible reduction in the effluent would meet the new 
standard, and allow a three-year extension from meeting 
applicable standards.
    Second, the bill liberally excuses violations of more 
lenient interim standards applicable pending expiration of the 
extension. The bill requires a reduction in or elimination of 
any penalty if the permittee has made good faith efforts to 
implement the innovation and to comply with any interim 
limitations. Although it is appropriate to provide some 
protection against liability if an effort at innovation under 
this provision fails, the bill goes too far in compromising the 
requirement to comply with the weaker interim limits 
established to reflect the permittee's capability pending 
completion of the innovation. For penalties to be forgiven, the 
permittee merely has to meet the subjective ``good faith'' 
test, regardless of how inadequate its practices are.
    Forgiveness of even interim limits is especially 
problematic in the context of indirect dischargers to publicly 
owned treatment works (``POTWs''). There, the interim standards 
are necessary to prevent interference with the operation of the 
POTW, and discharges that will pass through the POTW. By 
excusing the requirement to meet even these interim standards, 
the bill would increase the burden on the POTW and municipal 
ratepayer, in order to provide an inappropriately high degree 
of protection for the industrial discharger.
    b. Waivers for Pollution Prevention Programs: Section 
302(b) of the bill, adding Section 301(q) to the Act, turns a 
highly promising concept into a dangerously broad loophole. We 
enthusiastically endorse inclusion of pollution prevention 
planning in the Clean Water program, and commend the many 
companies that already have developed and implemented 
successful pollution prevention programs.
    Unfortunately, through the creation of vague and unworkable 
standards and the oversimplification of an enormously complex 
endeavor, the bill creates another substantial loophole without 
ensuring that the return will even approximate the potential 
damage.
    The provision allows waivers of virtually all standards 
under the Act, including technology-based standards (best 
conventional technology (``BCT''), best practicable technology 
(``BPT''), BAT and secondary) and water quality-based 
standards, including standards for toxic pollutants and for 
pretreatment by industrial dischargers into POTWs. The 
prerequisite for obtaining a waiver under this provision is 
that so-called pollution prevention measures or practices will 
``achieve an overall reduction in emissions to the environment 
(including emissions to water and air and disposal of solid 
wastes) from the facility * * * that is greater than would 
otherwise be achievable * * * and will result in an overall net 
benefit to the environment.''
    The determinations required under this provision are, at 
best, enormously complex. For example, how would a permit 
writer determine whether an increase in discharges of PCBs to a 
lake coupled with a reduction in discharges to the air of 
sulfur dioxide at a facility will result in an overall 
reduction in emissions and net benefit to the environment? 
Application of these standards, if possible at all, would 
require sophisticated modeling and speculation. 
Notwithstanding, conspicuously absent from the bill is any 
provision directing EPA to issue guidance or regulations on how 
state and federal permit writers are to make complex multimedia 
tradeoff determinations required by this section. By omitting 
any federal guidance, the bill sacrifices any possibility of 
consistency and equity in implementation.
    Notwithstanding the high stakes, since this provision would 
allow discharges that violate all current standards in the Act 
in exchange for some unspecified benefit to the air or other 
environmental media, each State and federal employee will be 
left on his or her own in interpreting the provision without 
any guidance from Congress or EPA. Implementation of this 
provision will strain the resources of the State and federal 
environmental agencies and relax Clean Water standards. 
Benefits, if any, will not necessarily be to water quality--
rather, they will be at the expense of water quality.
    c. Waivers for Pollution Reduction Agreements: This is the 
first of two provisions in the bill concerning pollutant 
trading. The other, which establishes a pilot program under 
principles that are not entirely consistent with this 
provision, are in the section of the bill on watershed 
management (Section 321(a), discussed below).
    Section 302(c) of the bill, adding Section 301(r) to the 
Act, authorizes the issuance by States and EPA of permits that 
do not meet applicable standards if the owner or operator of a 
facility (point source discharger or nonpoint source) enters 
into a ``binding contractual agreement'' with another source 
``in the same watershed'' to ``implement pollution reduction 
controls or measures beyond those otherwise required by law * * 
*,'' and the State or EPA determines that ``such pollution 
reduction control or measures will result collectively in an 
overall reduction in discharges to the watershed that is 
greater than would otherwise be achievable if the parties to 
the pollution reduction agreement each complied with applicable 
requirements * * * resulting in a net benefit to the 
watershed.''
    This provision suffers from many of the same shortfalls as 
the pollution prevention provision addressed above. It is 
another example of a very promising concept that has not been 
adequately developed into a workable program that will benefit, 
or at a minimum not impair, water quality.
    The only criterion for trading agreements is that they will 
result ``collectively in an overall reduction in discharges to 
the watershed that is greater than would otherwise be 
achievable if the parties to the pollution reduction agreement 
each complied with applicable requirements * * * resulting in a 
net benefit to the environment.'' There is no definition of 
what constitutes a ``net benefit to the environment.'' There 
are no guidelines as to the elements of an acceptable trading 
agreement, and no provision for EPA's issuance of regulations 
or guidance on how a State or federal employee might make these 
sophisticated determinations.
    Trading is authorized for the purpose of implementing 
``pollution reduction controls or measures beyond those 
otherwise required by law * * *.'' But there is no requirement 
that the added reduction be beyond a de minimis amount and, 
again, no guidance on how this measurement might be made.
    The bill gives a carte blanche for modifications under this 
provision--modifications are available for any ``otherwise 
applicable requirements.'' There is no backstop that, for 
example, discharges meet, at a minimum, technology-based 
limits.
    Similarly, the provision does not limit in any way the type 
of pollutants that may be traded. It leaves open the 
possibility of trades between highly toxic pollutants and 
conventional pollutants. In addition, the provision allows 
trading between dischargers in the same watershed, 
notwithstanding that some watersheds are thousands of square 
miles and include hundreds of different waterbodies. Trades 
could result in the creation of toxic hot spots at one outfall 
if the discharges at the facility of the other party to the 
agreement result in an overall reduction in discharges. And, as 
with the other waivers, this one is immune from risk 
assessment.
    It is not clear that the trading agreements would be 
enforceable in federal court, and in certain instances they 
clearly will not be. The agreements are required to be embodied 
in ``binding contractual agreements'' and in modifications to 
NPDES permits. In the event that an NPDES permit's effluent 
limitations are relaxed under an agreement by a nonpoint source 
to reduce discharges, and the nonpoint source fails to hold up 
its end of the bargain, it appears that absent enforceable 
nonpoint source requirements, which are not required, the state 
and federal government would have no recourse to ensure that 
overall discharges are no greater than would have been allowed 
absent the trading agreement.
    These concerns regarding the provision are compounded by 
the fact that the expanded ten year permit terms may be further 
lengthened under the watershed planning provisions.
    The bill imposes on EPA the obligation to report to 
Congress within three years on the discharge reductions 
achieved as a result of modifications made under pollution 
reduction agreements. However, the bill has no provision for 
parties to an agreement to conduct monitoring or provide EPA 
analyses of the impacts of their agreements.
    Mr. Robert Perciasepe, EPA's Assistant Administrator for 
Water, summarized the Agency's reaction to this provision as 
follows: ``Administrator Browner and I fully support preventing 
pollution and exploring ways to increase pollution trading, but 
I believe the provisions at Section 302(b) in H.R. 961 are not 
good policy for a number of reasons. Progress to date on 
methods for assessing and comparing pollution generated and 
energy used during a product's life cycle shows that judgments 
about pollutant trade-offs can be very complicated. H.R. 961 
would allow discharges that exceed State water quality 
standards and deviate from EPA's technology-based standards on 
the basis of site-by-site decisions regarding transfers of 
pollutants between air, water and landfills, energy use and 
other factors, with no guidance or methodology to establish 
even the slightest consistency among States.''
    d. Waiver of Antibacksliding Requirements: Section 302(d) 
of the bill, amending Section 402(o)(2) of the Act, creates 
broad new exemptions from the antibacksliding requirements of 
the Act. Under current law, new permits generally must be as 
strict as existing permits. This requirement helps ensure that 
water quality will not become worse.
    The bill makes clear that backsliding from a permit's 
effluent limitations is allowed through waivers under new 
Sections 301(q) (relating to pollution prevention) and 301(r) 
(relating to so-called ``pollution reduction agreements''). 
Hence, new permits issued for ten year terms can be weaker than 
current permits if, for example, there are unquantified 
reductions in air pollution in the same watershed.
    In addition, the bill creates a new vague catchall 
authorization for backsliding, where a discharger is ``taking 
pollution prevention or water conservation measures that 
produce a net environmental benefit.'' As in other places in 
the bill, there is no guidance on how a permit writer might 
calculate the circumstances where the ``net environmental 
benefit'' standard will be met.
    Backsliding is allowed by the bill in a variety of 
circumstances, including where a discharger is taking measures 
that ``increase the concentration of a pollutant while 
decreasing the discharge flow; or increase the discharge of a 
pollutant * * * from one or more outfalls at a permittee's 
facility, when accompanied by offsetting decreases in the 
discharge of a pollutant or pollutants from other outfalls at 
the permittee's facility.'' Both of these scenarios potentially 
impair water quality. Increases in concentration of certain 
toxic pollutants can cause acute impacts even if the overall 
mass of the pollutant is reduced. In addition, recognition of 
offsets between different outfalls at a facility often is not 
appropriate. For example, some facilities are miles long with 
multiple outfalls. An increase in discharges from one outfall 
can be devastating to water quality in the vicinity of that 
outfall, devastation that will not be offset by reductions in 
discharges a mile or more away.
    e. Waiver of Antidegradation Review Requirements: 
Regulations under the Clean Water Act currently require states 
to adopt policies and methods to prevent degradation of high 
quality waters. Section 302(e) of the bill, amending Section 
303(d) of the Act, prevents EPA from requiring a State to 
conduct antidegradation review in various circumstances, 
including where increases in a discharge are authorized under 
various waivers addressed above (such as Section 301(g) (waiver 
of standards for nonconventional pollutants), 301(k) 
(innovative technologies), 301(q) (pollution prevention) and 
301(r) (pollutant trading agreements)). The provision also 
precludes a federal requirement for antidegradation review 
where the concentration of any pollutant in a discharge is 
increased, if the increase in concentration is caused by a 
reduction in flow, and where an increase in discharge from one 
outfall at a facility of any size is offset by a decrease in 
the discharge of a pollutant from another outfall at the 
facility.
    This provision raises concerns similar to those addressed 
in the discussion of the antibacksliding provision. In 
addition, this provision discourages any evaluation of the 
impacts of the bill's rollbacks in water quality protection.
    3. Waivers of Categorical Pretreatment Standards: Section 
311 of the bill, which amends Section 307 of the Act, allows 
for waivers of national categorical pretreatment standards by 
industries that discharge their wastewater to municipal sewage 
treatment plants instead of directly to waterbodies.
    The bill identifies as the purpose for awarding waivers the 
avoidance of ``redundant or unnecessary treatment'' that has 
``little or no environmental benefit,'' and the reduction of 
certain alleged administrative burdens. These criteria are 
unclear and promise to be resource intensive for the municipal, 
state and federal agencies responsible for applying them. For 
example, the meaning of the concept ``unnecessary treatment'' 
which has ``little environmental benefit'' is unclear, since 
the necessity of treatment depends on the goal that one is 
striving to attain. The replacement of categorical standards 
with some unspecified local standards for which the bill has no 
minimum standard virtually eliminates any meaningful goal, 
making circular the differmination of whether treatment is 
``necessary'' and will have more than a ``little environmental 
benefit.''
    We support the avoidance of redundant or unnecessary 
treatment and any corresponding waste of resources. Our concern 
is that the provision, as currently drafted, has implications 
far beyond any reduction of redundancy or of any administrative 
or other burden. specifically, the waiver provision threatens 
to adversely impact the operation of municipal sewage treatment 
plants, increase to municipal ratepayers, and increase 
discharge of industrial pollutants to the environment.
    The provision requires EPA or the State to grant a POTW's 
request to modify its pretreatment program to allow the POTW to 
apply local limits in lieu of categorical pretreatment 
standards, if four specified conditions are met, relating to 
the POTW maintaining compliance with its NPDES permit. State 
requirements, and requirements relating to air emissions and 
biosolids. The bill requires that the POTW demonstrate that it 
is ``likely'' to remain in compliance with its permit and other 
specified requirements. It is unclear how this demonstration 
may be made.
    Moreover, even if the POTW does continue to meet its 
standards, there is no assurance that the POTW is not 
discharging untreated industrial toxic pollutants. POTWs are 
not designed to treat, and generally do not have limits for and 
are not required to monitor for, the sometimes numerous 
different nonconventional and toxic pollutants introduced by 
industrial users. The bill fails to guard against the discharge 
of industrial pollutants that are not susceptible to 
conventional treatment for domestic waste and therefore pass 
through the POTW. The provision seems to suggest that if you 
simply dilute toxic and industrial waste with enough domestic 
sewage, it is no longer harmful.
    The impact of waiving categorical pretreatment standards 
will be felt most severely in communities with combined sewer 
overflows (``CSO'') and sanitary sewer overflows (``SSO''). 
Adoption of local pretreatment standards in lieu of more 
stringent categorical pretreatment standards guarantees that 
each time there is a CSO or SSO, there will be less 
pretreatment at the factory than currently required, resulting 
in increased amounts and concentrations of industrial waste 
being discharged with absolutely no treatment by the POTW. In 
the best case scenario, this toxic and other industrial waste 
will be discharged directly to a waterbody. Under other 
conceivable and, in some localities, likely scenarios, the 
toxics and other industrial waste will end up in the basements 
of residents' homes, in playgrounds, and along the streets. EPA 
has expressed concern about such a scenario. In his April 4, 
1995 letter to Chairman Shuster, EPA's Assistant Administrator 
for Water cautioned that ``[w]ithout national pretreatment 
standards, EPA's widely praised, flexible policy on addressing 
combined sewer overflows may need to be revised to incorporate 
new provisions for toxic pollutant discharges.''
    Also of concern is that this provision invites competition 
between municipalities for industry. Whichever municipality can 
offer the best deal as far as the cost of wastewater 
pretreatment required of an industrial discharger, the more 
likely it is to attract business and jobs. This provision would 
eliminate the baseline federal standards that are intended to 
provide protections for all people regardless of which 
community they live in, and regardless of whether they live 
downstream from a municipality that elects to adopt loose 
standards in order to attract industry.
    Furthermore, even if an annual review reveals that the POTW 
cannot meet its requirements while applying local pretreatment 
limits, then the industrial discharger is entitled to ``a 
reasonable period of time'' (not to exceed two years) to come 
into compliance with the categorical pretreatment limits. The 
outside limit of two years and the ``reasonable period of 
time'' standard are unduly lax, in view of the fact that the 
categorical standards that would be imposed are ones that the 
industrial discharger was required to have been meeting prior 
to receiving the waiver under this provision. If an industrial 
user's discharges pursuant to local limits are causing 
violations by the POTW, impairment to water quality or to the 
ability of the POTW to effectively operate, or increases in 
costs to ratepayers, there is no justification for allowing it 
to drag its feet--in simply turning back on treatment systems 
that have already been installed--to meet the nationally 
applicable standards.
    Interactions between this provision and others in the bill 
also must be considered. For example, the bill fails to include 
safeguards against abuse of this provision by privately owned 
for-profit treatment works that treat primarily industrial 
waste. Under the bill's definition of a publicly owned 
treatment works in Section 504 of the bill (amending Section 
502(27) of the Act), a private owner of a for-profit treatment 
works may take advantage of the waiver of categorical 
pretreatment standards. If the privately owned treatment works 
is designed and constructed ``principally'' to treat a 
``mixture'' of some unspecified combination of ``domestic 
sewage and industrial wastes,'' it may take advantage of the 
waiver of categorical pretreatment standards. Without 
safeguards, this lends itself to abuse by privately owned 
treatment plants seeking to increase their profit margins.
    Finally, this provision threatens to shift from industry to 
residential ratepayer the costs of treating industrial waste, 
and to increase burdens on municipalities with responsibility 
for implementing the provision.
    4. Waivers for Watershed Management Plans.
    a. Waivers Under Pollutant Transfer Pilot Projects: Section 
321(a) of the bill adds a new Section 321(g) to the Act, which 
establishes a program for pollutant transfer pilot projects. 
Under the provision, a point source discharger, or a source of 
nonpoint pollution, may seek approval to increase its 
discharges of a pollutant ``by entering into arrangements, 
including the payments of funds,'' for another discharger or 
source to take measures or implement controls on its own 
pollution through a pollution reduction credits trading 
program.
    This provision drastically oversimplifies a highly complex 
concept which holds promise, but is just at its inception. 
Moreover, the provision is void of guidelines or meaningful 
limitations and does not direct EPA or the States to develop 
criteria for approval of projects. The absence of meaningful 
criteria or control minimizes the likelihood of a successful 
pilot project or of the ability to generalize any results or 
lessons learned to other sources.
    The only criterion for approval is that a request include 
``appropriate safeguards * * * to ensure compliance with 
technology based controls and to protect the quality of 
receiving waters.''
    This vague criterion falls short of requiring the transfer 
of responsibility for reducing pollution contribute to the 
attainment of water quality standards. The bill does not 
elaborate on what may be ``appropriate'' safeguards or on what 
constitutes ``protection'' of water quality. There is no 
requirement that the reduction in pollution by the discharger 
who agrees to take measures or implement controls with respect 
to its own pollution is at least sufficient to offset the 
discharge by the other source, or beyond what would otherwise 
be required. Nor is there any requirement that the pollutants 
discharged by the two parties to the agreement be similar in 
toxicity or impacts on the environment, or that the discharges 
be in the same vicinity.
    b. Waivers of Water Quality Standards as an Incentive for 
Watershed Management: Section 321(b) of the bill, which adds 
Section 402(r) to the Act, authorizes the issuance of permits 
that do not meet water quality standards. The conditions for 
issuing such a permit are inadequate to ensure that water 
quality is not impaired through implementation of this 
provision.
    A noncomplying permit may be issued if: the receiving water 
is in a watershed with an approved watershed management plan, 
the plan includes so-called ``assurances'' that water quality 
standards will be met by some ``specified date,'' and the point 
source does not have a history of ``significant noncompliance'' 
with its permit. Water quality stands to lose far more than it 
stands to gain under this provision.
    First, since a watershed plan is not required to include an 
entire watershed, this provision could be available in a 
portion of a watershed that is not even covered by a watershed 
plan, so long as the receiving water is in a watershed for 
which a portion of the watershed is covered by a watershed 
plan.
    Second, the requirement that the plan include assurances 
that water quality standards will be met by a specified date is 
so vague as to be meaningless. This criterion could be met by 
the statement ``I promise to meet water quality standards by 
the year 3000.'' There is no requirement for any demonstration 
that the ``assurances'' be anything other than empty promises 
that are not backed up by a reasonable certainty of meeting 
water quality standards. And, there is no requirement that the 
``specified date'' be anytime within the lifetime of anyone 
living today.
    5. Exemptions for So-Called ``Waste Treatment Systems''.
    The bill includes several exemptions for so-called waste 
treatment systems. Sections 401, 411 and 502 of the bill exempt 
specified waste treatment systems from the definition of waters 
of the United States. Since the jurisdiction of the Clean Water 
Act extends only to navigable waters, excepting a waterbody 
from the definition of navigable waters exempts it entirely 
from the Clean Water Act. The first of the provisions below 
relates to waste treatment systems generally. The second one 
addresses a subset of the first, concentrated animal feeding 
operations. The interaction between the two provisions, and the 
reasons for having multiple provisions on this issue, are not 
clear.
    a. Exemption In New Definition of ``Waste Treatment 
Systems'': Section 411 and 502 of the bill, adding a new 
Section 406 and amending Section 502(7) of the Act, remove 
significant waterbodies from protection under the Act by 
defining them not to be ``navigable waters.''
    Section 411 of the bill directs EPA to issue regulations 
that define ``waste treatment systems.'' Section 502 in turn 
provides that waste treatment are not navigable waters. The 
bill mandates that certain areas be included in the definition 
of waste treatment systems, and therefore are not waters 
subject to the Act. The bill thereby limits the Agency's 
authority to apply its expertise and exercise discretion to 
appropriately limit the exclusions from the Act in developing 
these regulations.
    Unless covered by an exception, the following areas are 
required to be exempted from regulation under the Act: ``areas 
used for detention, retention, treatment, settling, conveyance, 
or evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water. * * 
*'' The bill creates three exceptions to the exemption: (1) if 
``the area was created in or resulted from the impoundment or 
other modification of navigable waters and construction of the 
area commenced after the date of [enactment]''; (2) on or after 
February 15, 1995, the owner or operator allows the area to be 
used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational 
purposes; or (3) on or after February 15, 1995, the owner or 
operator allows the taking of fish or shellfish from the area 
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
    The bill precludes EPA and the States from requiring a new 
permit under Sections 402 or 404 of the Act before issuing the 
regulations, for any discharge into any area used for 
detention, retention, treatment, settling, conveyance, or 
evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water, unless 
the area is within one of the three exceptions noted above.
    Like most of the other waiver provisions, this concept was 
not addressed at any of the seven hearings held during this 
Congress before the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee, so its impact has not been explored by the 
Committee.
    Since waterbodies that qualify as waste treatment systems 
under this provision would no longer be protected under the 
Clean Water Act, the waterbodies would be available for 
unrestricted discharges of industrial waste. Industries that 
generate large quantities of wastewater and have undeveloped 
land adjacent to waterbodies could take advantage of and abuse 
this provision. For example, mining, electric power and the 
pulp and paper industry are known to use large areas for 
detention, retention, treatment, settling or conveyance of 
wastewater.
    The impacts of this provision are illogical and 
significant. The following illustrate some of its potential 
consequences:
    The owner of a mine who, before enactment of this 
provision, commenced construction of an impoundment in a 
navigable water, would be able to discharge wastewater 
containing mine tailings into the water above the impoundment, 
no matter how toxic the discharge. Such a discharge would not 
be covered under the Clean Water Act if the discharger had not 
obtained a permit under Section 402 of the Act prior to 
February 15, 1995.
    An electric power plant that impounds a stream and uses the 
pool created above the impoundment as a cooling pond would be 
exempt from NPDES permit requirements under the Clean Water Act 
even if the owner allows the area to be used for recreational 
purposes by residents of the State in which the plant is 
located, or allows the taking of fish or shellfish for sale 
within the State, if the plant had not obtained an NPDES permit 
prior to February 15, 1995.
    However, a permit would be required if the owner allows the 
area to be used for recreation by interstate or foreign 
travelers, or allows taking of fish or shellfish from the area 
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
    If, on February 1, 1995, a State learned that a factory was 
discharging its wastewater into a pool formed by an impoundment 
it constructed in a stream, and determined that the discharger 
is required to have a permit since these are discharges into a 
water of the United States, the discharger will not be required 
to obtain a permit if the State had not issued a permit before 
February 15, 1995.
    These examples demonstrate some of the perverse incentives 
and illogical effects of this provision. It encourages so-
called waste treatment systems to be located directly in waters 
of the United States, rather than at locations where they are 
less likely to adversely impact water quality. It rewards 
violators who did not obtain NPDES permits prior to February 
15, 1995, regardless of whether they were required by law to do 
so. It provides greater protection to interstate and foreign 
travelers who fish or swim in an electric utility plant cooling 
pond than it does to residents of the state, even though the 
later are far more likely to frequent the pond. It threatens to 
eliminate protections of the Clean Water Act from certain 
streams and other waters of the United States and turn them 
into dump sites.
    b. Exemption for Confined Animal Feeding Operations: 
Section 401 of the bill, which amends Section 402(a) of the 
Act, excludes from the definition of waters of the United 
States ``waste treatment systems, including retention ponds or 
lagoons, used to meet the requirements of this Act for 
concentrated animal feeding operations [``CAFOs''].'' This 
sweeping provision exempts from regulation under the Act all 
waters of the United States that are used as ``waste treatment 
systems'' (eg. for settling, retention, etc.) for animal wastes 
at CAFOs.
    This provision gives a license for factory farms, no matter 
how large, to dump animal wastes into lagoons, retention ponds, 
wetlands and other waters of the United States without a 
permit, destroying wetlands and degrading water quality. It is 
a total exemption for an entire industry, ultimate special 
interest loophole.
    6. Waivers for Select Municipalities.
    Section 309 of the bill contains four different waivers of 
secondary treatment requirements for discharges by POTWs. 
Collectively, these provisions make more than 10,000 
communities eligible for waivers from the technology-based 
minimum level of treatment that all municipalities were 
required to have met by July 1, 1988. Three of the provisions 
apply to ocean discharges by POTWs. The fourth applies to 
discharges from POTWs that serve small communities.
    a. Waivers for Municipal Ocean Discharges: Section 301(h) 
of the Clean Water Act allowed coastal communities to apply for 
waivers for secondary treatment, if the applicant could 
demonstrate that a lesser level of treatment would not harm the 
marine environment. Section 301(h) sets forth detailed criteria 
that must be met to demonstrate that a waiver will be 
sufficiently protective. The authority to apply for a waiver 
expired in 1982.
    Three of the four waiver provisions in Section 309 of H.R. 
961 apply to coastal discharges by POTWs, and are intended for 
the benefit of San Diego and Los Angeles, California, and 
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, respectively. Hundreds of other 
municipalities are in the process of upgrading or have upgraded 
their sewage treatment plants to meet the law's longstanding 
secondary treatment requirements. The communities singled out 
for waivers in H.R. 961 were not selected because their 
situations are unique. They are not.
    The waivers are established in three separate and notably 
inconsistent provisions in the bill.
    Section 309(a) of the bill (amending Section 304(d) of the 
Act) is intended to benefit (but does not mention) San Diego. 
It provides that treatment by a POTW will be ``deemed the 
equivalent'' of secondary treatment if the facility employs 
chemically enhanced primary treatment, discharges into the 
ocean at least 4 miles offshore into a depth greater than 300 
feet, the discharge is in compliance with local and State water 
quality standards, and the discharge will be subject to an 
approved ocean monitoring program.
    Section 309(b) of the bill (adding Section 301(s) to the 
Act), which is intended to benefit (but does not mention and in 
fact is not limited to) Los Angeles, contains different terms. 
It requires issuance of a ten year permit that modifies 
secondary treatment requirements if the POTW discharges at 
least 1 mile offshore to a depth of at least 150 feet and meets 
other specified requirements, including that the effluent 
receives at least chemically enhanced primary treatment and 
achieves a monthly average of 75% removal of suspended solids.
    Section 309(d) of the bill (adding Section 301(t) to the 
Act), expressly addresses Puerto Rico. This provision 
authorizes a study regarding the feasibility of constructing a 
deep water ocean outfall at Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, and reopens 
the deadline for applying to EPA for a waiver pursuant to 
Section 301(h) of the Act.
    There is no policy rationale to justify the substantial 
inconsistencies between these provisions. For example, of the 
three waiver provisions, only the one for Puerto Rico requires 
the applicant to demonstrate that the waiver will not harm the 
coastal environment, as required under Section 301(h) of 
current law. That demonstration, which was required of each of 
the 40 municipalities that timely sought and obtained waivers, 
is waived for San Diego, Los Angeles, and all of the other 
municipalities that qualify to apply for waivers under the 
bill's provisions. This Congressional waiver of any scientific 
standard is at direct odds with the themes of sound science and 
risk analysis that have been embraced in the ``Contract With 
America.''
    By way of further example, two of the three provisions (Los 
Angeles and Puerto Rico) require that any waiver be reevaluated 
at the time of permit reissuance. This is consistent with 
current law, under which all permits, including all waivers 
issued under Section 301(h), are reviewed every five years 
(under H.R. 961, this would be extended to every ten years). 
The purpose of the review is to evaluate limits in view of new 
information and new standards. Under the bill, San Diego's 
waiver is permanent--it is outside the permitting system and 
may never be revisited.
    Also highly problematic is the fact that, notwithstanding 
any intentions to the contrary, the waivers are not limited to 
the three locations mentioned. EPA estimates that at least 
nineteen communities meet the criteria for waivers under 
Section 309(b) of the bill, including several in California and 
Washington state. Six large dischargers in South Florida could 
become eligible by extending their outfalls by one-third of a 
mile. EPA estimates that more may be eligible.
    The single most noteworthy aspect of the San Diego waiver 
provision is that it is totally and completely unnecessary. San 
Diego applied for a waiver of secondary standards in April of 
1995, and EPA has publicly announced its expectation that the 
waiver will be granted and is committed to act on the 
application expeditiously.
    H.R. 961 is not the first time San Diego has been singled 
out by Congress for preferential treatment. San Diego was able 
to apply for a waiver last month only because of a bill passed 
in the closing days of the 103rd Congress and signed into law 
by President Clinton in October 1994. Of the hundreds of 
communities required to achieve secondary treatment, only San 
Diego was authorized to apply for a waiver last year, 14 years 
after the deadline.
    Last year, San Diego agreed to reduce effluent through a 
major reclamation project, meet treatment standards only 
slightly less strict than secondary for two pollutants, and 
make the demonstration for a waiver in current law regarding 
impacts upon human health and the environment, and argued that 
it should therefore be given a waiver of secondary treatment 
requirements for two pollutants. Notwithstanding that earlier 
San Diego had voluntarily withdrawn its waiver application, and 
had agreed to meet secondary treatment standards, Congress 
accepted last year's promises and passed a bill which allowed 
San Diego to apply for its waiver.
    EPA has spent considerable resources in assisting San Diego 
in the development of its waiver application. There is every 
indication that EPA will approve the waiver in the near future. 
There is no conceivable justification for Congress to again 
modify the standard for a waiver, much less grant a permanent 
waiver.
    Section 309(a) of the bill allows San Diego to back out of 
what it said it was able to do and agreed to do. It eliminates 
minimum standards for Total Suspended Solids and Biological 
Oxygen Demand that were included in the law passed last year, 
provides for a broad waiver that is no longer limited to these 
two pollutants, requires ``compliance with all local and state 
water quality standards for the receiving waters'' 
notwithstanding that state and local standards do not apply at 
the outfall's location four miles out, and eliminates any 
reclamation requirements.
    It is sometimes said that the Scripps Institute and the 
National Academy of Sciences support these provisions. Neither 
statement is accurate. Scripps has taken no position on the 
bill's waiver provision, although individual employees of 
Scripps have expressed their personal views. And, the National 
Academy of Sciences made it quite clear when it testified 
before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment that 
it did not take a position on the question of whether a 
secondary waiver would be justified or harmful in the case of 
San Diego.
    The three waiver provisions under Section 309 mark a 
dramatic step backward from minimum standards for POTWs. 
Neither the number of coastal cities that will be eligible for 
waivers under Section 309(b) of the bill, nor the impact of 
returning to an approach more akin to primary treatment (which 
simply skims and settles solids out of sewage), has been 
examined. Unfortunately, in time, their impacts will become 
known, to recreational beach users, the fishing industry, and 
others, and all will pay the price.
    b. Waivers for Small Treatment Systems: Section 309(c) of 
the bill, which adds a new Section 301(t) to the Act, creates a 
procedure for communities that serve 20,000 or fewer people to 
obtain a waiver from secondary treatment requirements. Waivers 
are available where the effluent is ``primary'' from domestic 
users, the POTW operates a system that is ``equivalent'' to 
secondary treatment or will provide an ``adequate'' level of 
protection to human health and the environment and contribute 
to the attainment of water quality standards.
    While we could support certain targeted relief, in the form 
of extensions and financial assistance, to certain small and 
hardship communities, and agree that development of innovative 
and alternative treatment techniques should be encouraged in 
appropriate circumstances, the sweeping waiver in this 
provision is unnecessary, creates a heavy burden on states and 
EPA, and promises to degrade water quality.
    According to EPA, more than 10,000 communities will be 
eligible to apply for this new waiver. A substantial number of 
them currently are meeting secondary or more stringent water 
quality-based limits. This provision would encourage these 
dischargers to turn off existing treatment to save operational 
costs, with no savings in capital costs. Moreover, since many 
of these municipalities received considerable federal funding 
to achieve secondary treatment, federal taxpayer dollars will 
have been wasted.
    In addition, the surge of applications requiring case by 
case determinations will be another drain on the resources of 
the State and EPA water programs, who will have to interpret 
yet another vague standard in deciding whether a POTW provides 
an ``adequate'' level of protection. The inadequacy of this 
standard is heightened by the fact that this waiver is 
available to POTWs that receive industrial waste, so long as 
the wastewater meets the vague standard of being ``primarily'' 
domestic.
    7. Countless Additional Waivers: The examples discussed 
above provide only a taste of the bill's devastation of a 
generally very effective point source control program. The list 
cited is by no means exhaustive. Other equally troublesome 
waivers include: a handful of loopholes for the mining 
industry, relating to stormwater discharges from mineral 
exploration and mining sites (Section 322(p)), and waivers of 
water quality standards for coal remaining operations (Section 
301(d) of the bill, amending Section 301(p) of the Act); 
extending an exemption from applicable effluent limits for 
certain iron and steel manufacturing plants that are ``central 
treatment facilities'' (Section 307(g) of the bill, amending 
Section 304(n) of the Act); a postponement by up to five years 
for photo processing labs and others who discharge silver to 
POTW's to meet pretreatment requirements for silver, including 
pretreatment requirements imposed by the POTW (Section 312 of 
the bill, amending Section 307 of the Act); and a reduction in 
the standard for cooling water intake structures (Section 318 
of the bill, amending Section 316(b) of the Act). And there are 
more, many more . . . .

              Designated Uses and Water Quality Standards

    The attainment or nonattainment of desired water quality 
under the Clean Water Act is accomplished by measuring actual 
water quality against water quality standards.
    Unlike other environmental laws where the Federal program 
sets absolute standards for pollutants in the environment, the 
Clean Water Act allows for a partnership with the states where 
the states have a lead role in defining water quality 
standards. Water quality standards are a combination of water 
quality criteria and designated uses.
    Designated uses are set by the states. They reflect the use 
of the waterbody which the state determines is appropriate. 
Examples of designated uses are aquatic life support, fish 
consumption, shellfish harvesting, drinking water supply, 
primary contact recreation, secondary contact recreation, and 
agriculture. Each of these uses requires a different level of 
water quality--differing levels of control of concentrations 
and amounts of pollutants.
    Water quality criteria are usually developed by EPA. EPA 
does the study and analysis necessary to determine what amount 
and concentration of pollutants are allowable in a waterbody 
which will allow for the state-selected designated use to be 
met. After a state has determined a designated use, the 
corresponding water quality criterion is chosen for that use, 
and the result is the water quality standard which is 
applicable to that waterbody. The process is repeated for each 
waterbody, and for those pollutants for which EPA has developed 
criteria.
    Section 303 of the bill would amend section 303 of the Act 
to provide a mechanism for states to downgrade existing uses. 
Currently there are methods to remove a designated use which is 
not being met, but the downgrading of existing designated uses 
which are being met represents a major step backwards in 
maintaining and achieving water quality.
    Currently, a state may change a designated use if attaining 
the use is not feasible because the more stringent controls 
would result in substantial and widespread economic and social 
impact. The bill would expand the ability to downgrade water 
quality standards if a state determines that the costs of 
achieving the designated use are not justified by the benefits.
    This again raises the continuing problem with the bill in 
that cost is given a status greater than the concern for the 
environmental and human health impacts. Cost is and always 
should be of concern in the Clean Water Act. However, cost 
should be used when determining the method of achieving water 
quality goals--it should not operate as a limit upon those 
goals.
    Even more troubling than the new standard for downgrading 
uses where the use has not yet been attained is the new 
authority to downgrade uses where the use is being attained. To 
allow states to downgrade uses which are being attained is a 
total abandonment of the commitment to make our Nation's waters 
fishable and swimmable as envisioned by the 1972 Act.
    The bill would allow states to downgrade uses ``if the 
state determines that continued maintenance of the water 
quality necessary to support the designated use will result in 
significant social or economic dislocations substantially out 
of proportion to the benefits to be achieved from maintenance 
of the designated use.'' This provision will set up the 
opportunity for the worst type of competition among the 
states--trading environmental protection for jobs. That is 
precisely what a uniform clean water program was designed to 
avoid.
    By definition, the dischargers to a waterbody that is 
currently meeting water quality standards are currently 
controlling pollution sufficient for the waterbody to achieve 
its state designated use. Therefore, if continuing to meet the 
standard would result in ``significant social or economic 
dislocations,'' then a situation where a discharger threatens 
to relocate out of the area would be a prime target for the 
provision. Business and industry would now be in a situation 
where they could hold states hostage, threatening to leave the 
state, unless the state agreed to downgrade the designated use 
of the waterbody, and therefore allow for increased discharge 
of pollution.
    This new authority will promote pollution shopping and may 
force states to abandon long-term environmental goals for 
short-term economic gains.
    The provision is also deficient in that the protection of 
public comment in the process appears to be lacking. Currently, 
designated uses are reflected through the adoption of state 
water quality standards. The revision of state water quality 
standards is done after public hearings. Since changing a 
designated use will have the effect of changing the water 
quality standard, such changes should be subject to public 
comment.
    Additionally, the bill provides that water quality based 
permits are to be modified to conform to any modified 
designated use. Again the bill has removed the protection 
associated with the public comment requirements associated with 
the issuance of permits under the Clean Water Act. Since the 
language states that modifications will be made 
``notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,'' the public 
participation features appear to have been overturned.
    This provision allowing the abandonment of currently 
achieved water quality, in combination with the reduction of 
the protection of the anti-backsliding provision and the 
reduction of the anti-degradation protection, will reduce the 
water quality of the Nation and unacceptably postpone the date 
by which water quality will meet the original goals of the 
Clean Water Act.

       the bill will drain municipal, state and federal resources

    H.R. 961 represents a frontal attack on the already 
inadequate resources of local and State governments and the 
federal government. The new burdens created by the bill are too 
plentiful to fully address here, but a sample of some of the 
most onerous aspects of the bill follows.
    The multiple waivers and exemptions created by the bill and 
discussed above will require investment by States and EPA of 
considerable resources in making case by case waiver 
determinations on numerous waiver applications. The difficulty 
of making these determinations will be exacerbated by the 
nature of the new standards in the bill, many of which are 
vague and unclear and, in some instances, patently impossible 
to implement. The sheer number and lack of clarity of the new 
waivers is compounded by the absence of any provision for 
federal guidance to ensure some degree of consistency in 
application for the waivers. Federal guidance could avoid the 
need for each permit writer to wrestle in isolation with 
difficult scientific and policy determinations. The potential 
availability of numerous waivers inevitably will prolong the 
time for permit issuance, by increasing the complexity of 
developing new or revised permits in the first instance, and 
the likelihood of litigation borne of permit appeals.
    In addition to the newly available waivers, the bill's 
provisions regarding water quality criteria and State water 
quality standards will require numerous additional 
modifications to discharge permits. Since responsibility for 
administering the Clean Water program has been assumed by 40 
states, the states will be forced to bear the greatest weight 
of the new and greatly increased burdens associated with permit 
issuance.
    The bill will further drain resources by dramatically 
increasing the amount and complexity of litigation under the 
Clean Water Act. For example, the so-called ``statistical 
noncompliance'' defense established under Section 404 of the 
bill will turn what are currently routine and relatively 
straightforward enforcement actions into prolonged and complex 
document intensive proceedings. This new defense allows any 
person who has admittedly exceeded any technology-based 
effluent limitation in its permit to claim that it has not 
violated its permit or the Act. It provides that a discharge in 
excess of a permit's technology-based effluent limitation is 
deemed in compliance with the permit limit if the number of 
exceedances ``are no greater, on an annual basis, than the 
number of excursions expected from the technology on which the 
limit is based. * * * '' A similar defense is established under 
Section 307(d) of the Act for industrial dischargers to POTWs.
    This defense invites violators to effectively relitigate in 
every enforcement action the rulemaking process which resulted 
in the effluent guideline. It is based upon an erroneous 
assumption that EPA sets technology-based effluent limits with 
the expectation that they will be exceeded a certain percentage 
of the time. Further, because the provision would allow a 
discharger to calculate noncompliance on an annual basis, a 
discharger would be allowed to violate its permit with impunity 
during the season of greatest activity, and on an annual basis 
claim compliance. Moreover, since the defense is based solely 
on the number of excursions and not on their magnitude, it 
could excuse a one-time violation with devastating 
environmental impacts if, when that violation is averaged with 
a large number of relatively minor violations, the discharger 
had a high compliance rate. This provision is certain to 
dramatically complicate enforcement actions and thereby drain 
resources of State and federal agencies responsible for 
enforcing the Clean Water Act.
    Other provisions will deplete resources available to 
municipalities to meet requirements of the Clean Water Act. For 
example, Section 603(a) of the bill, amending Section 603(c) of 
the Act, enlarges eligible uses of the State Revolving Fund to 
include activities such as the acquisition by any person, 
including a private entity, of property rights for the 
restoration or protection of privately owned riparian areas. 
Such activities divert funding from actual treatment and can 
quickly deplete the funding intended to assist municipalities 
in meeting Clean Water Act requirements.
    Other provisions that reduce standards for treatment by 
industrial indirect dischargers are likely to heighten the 
burdens on municipalities. For example, Section 406 of the Act 
requires that under specified circumstances EPA must grant 
intake credits for industrial dischargers under Section 307(b) 
of the Act. The provision would relieve industrial dischargers 
of responsibility for removing or treating the amount of a 
pollutant in its discharge below the amount in its intake. This 
credit is required without regard to the impact that the intake 
pollutants may have on the POTW, its receiving water, sludge 
quality, or other applicable requirements, and corresponding 
increases in treatment costs that will be borne by municipal 
ratepayers. In addition, as discussed above, the reduction in 
pretreatment requirements under Section 311 of the bill 
threatens to impede the effective operation of POTWs, which 
would increase burdens on municipalities.
    The above are only a few examples of the bill's many 
provisions that increase burdens on State and local governments 
and EPA.

                                wetlands

    Perhaps no issue has so defined controversy and the Clean 
Water Act as has the issue of wetlands protection. While there 
are many programs which can operate to protect and advance the 
protection of wetlands, only section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
actually serves to regulate activities which could degrade 
wetlands.
    There have been two ideologies concerning the wetlands 
program. Do you wish to protect wetlands, yet make the 
regulatory program less cumbersome, more efficient, and more 
responsive to the needs of landowners, or do you wish to 
deregulate most of the wetlands in this country and accelerate 
wetlands losses? This bill is designed to accomplish the 
latter.
    Historic wetlands losses have been staggering. States such 
as California and Iowa have lost over 90% of their historic 
wetlands. Other states such as Alaska have preserved much of 
their wetlands, although development pressures continue to 
diminish wetlands even in those states. Fortunately, on a 
national basis, the trend in wetlands losses has slowed. 
Current estimates of loss are at 250 to 300 thousand acres per 
year, down from a high of 400-500 thousand acres in the 1960's. 
While this is encouraging, the fact remains that under the 
existing program very substantial wetlands losses continue.
    Wetlands were once thought of as areas which served as 
breeding grounds for disease and as eyesores, to be filled and 
eliminated when possible. We now know that wetlands serve 
valuable functions of water quality, flood control, groundwater 
recharge, and wildlife and fishery habitat. We also know that 
wetlands provide enormous economic benefits to the Nation as 
well.
    The economic value of wetlands for flood control alone is 
enormous. For example, the Corps of Engineers has estimated 
that the loss of floodplain in the Charles River basin in 
Massachusetts would increase flood damages by $17 million per 
year. Nationally, estimates of flood damages prevented by 
wetlands are placed at nearly $31 billion annually.
    Wetlands are also vital to other aspects of the economy 
such as fish and shellfish harvesting and recreation. Contrary 
to the belief that protecting wetlands retards economic 
development and costs jobs, wetlands in fact contribute to the 
economy of the Nation. The $55 billion commercial and 
recreational fishing industry in Florida, for example, employs 
110,000 people, with a dockside value of $162 million, and 
annual sportfishing industry expenditures of over $3 billion.
    Unfortunately, Title VIII, the misnamed Comprehensive 
Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, will add 
nothing to the protection of wetlands in this country, but will 
allow for the loss trend to be increased.
    The bill would not contribute to the conservation of 
wetlands. Instead, it chooses to adopt an arbitrary and 
unscientific definition of wetlands so deficient that areas of 
wetlands in the Everglades no longer would be considered to be 
wetlands. And, as if to add insult to injury, the bill would 
reduce the level of protection afforded even those wetlands 
which remain.
    When the sponsors of this legislation described the bill 
originally, they said that the wetlands title was based upon 
H.R. 1330 from prior Congresses. The proponents of that bill 
always maintained that they were expanding the types of 
activities regulated under the section 404 program, but that in 
return, there would be a right of compensation for the loss of 
property rights which accompanied the inability to use one's 
property as one saw fit. The original legislation also 
contained a presumption that permits would not be issued to 
undertake activities in type A wetlands, and it would have 
assured the protection of the most valuable wetlands by 
requiring the federal government to purchase those wetlands and 
protect them in public ownership.
    While H.R. 1330 in past years was not a bill which was 
worthy of being enacted, it at least included a few provisions 
which would have sought to protect a few wetlands. None of the 
wetlands protecting features of H.R. 1330 have been retained, 
all that is left of that proposal is the deregulation of 
wetlands and accelerated destruction of wetlands resources.
    First, the definition of what is a wetland. Current 
scientific knowledge states that a wetland must have three 
characteristics--hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and 
hydrology sufficient to cause the first two. Even the bill 
acknowledges that this is the case. Where the bill fails is 
that the bill then completely ignores science and says that as 
a matter of policy and law, wetlands which do not have water at 
the surface for at least 21 days during the growing season will 
not be wetlands, regardless of whether they are in fact 
wetlands, and regardless of their value and functions.
    Soil scientists will tell you that it is not necessary for 
water to be at the surface for 21 days for hydric soils to 
form. Likewise, botanists will tell you that one need not have 
21 days of water at the surface for hydrophytic vegetation to 
occur. All that is necessary is for anaerobic conditions to be 
formed, and for plants which cannot live in such conditions to 
no longer be present.
    Surprisingly, while the halls of Congress have been filled 
with the calls of making sure that environmental programs are 
based upon ``sound science,'' when it comes to wetlands, all 
pretense of making decisions based upon science is abandoned. 
There is a rightful place for policy in determining what the 
Nation's wetlands laws will look like. But, that place is not 
in deciding what is or is not a wetland.
    As policymakers, we should be focusing our efforts upon 
what we want to do about regulating activities in wetlands, not 
what is a wetland. Once science tells us what is a wetland, it 
is then our responsibility as lawmakers to determine what the 
wetlands program should be. If we do not want to regulate 
activities in all wetlands, then we should debate that issue 
and make a determination honestly: we should say we will not 
protect wetlands, not that what we choose not to protect is 
therefore not a wetland.
    For example, we could decide that there is no federal 
interest in regulating activities in wetlands which are less 
than one acre in size, or 10 acres for that matter. But, we 
would be making a determination based upon the types of policy 
judgments which the Congress is supposed to make--determining 
the federal interest, not turning science upon its head.
    However, as this bill is currently written, the arbitrary 
definition of a wetland ignores science and eliminates the 
policy option of protecting even valuable wetlands. It is 
appropriate to set aside from protection very small wetlands, 
artificial wetlands, and the like. That was proposed and 
rejected in Committee in lieu of this much more far-reaching 
standard, which exempts not only small and marginal wetlands 
but also vast portions of some of the most important wetlands 
in our country.
    Second, the classification of wetlands will result in 
diminished protection of even valuable wetlands. What the bill 
creates is a new system of wetlands classification which will 
reduce the level of protection for the majority of wetlands 
which remain regulated, and will eliminate any protection for 
other wetlands.
    Under the bill, type A wetlands are considered to be the 
most valuable and will allegedly be afforded the greatest 
protection. To qualify as a type A wetland, it must be of 
critical significance to the long-term conservation of the 
aquatic environment of which such wetland is a part, and meet 4 
other requirements.
    A type A wetland must serve a critical function, including 
the provision of critical habitat for a concentration of avian, 
aquatic, or wetland dependent wildlife. This requirement is 
deficient in several respects. First, the use of the term 
``critical'' implies that the function and habitat must be 
indispensable or vital to the relevant species. This is too 
strict a test to determine whether a wetland is to be afforded 
protection. Additionally, the requirement of a concentration of 
wildlife creates a hurdle which might often not be able to be 
met. For example, what would constitute a concentration of bald 
eagles? Such birds feed in wetland areas, but because they are 
birds of prey, they rarely exist in any concentrated 
population. Therefore, a wetland serving as habitat for bald 
eagles would not appear to be able to qualify as a type A 
wetland under this language.
    A type A wetland must represent a scarcity within the 
watershed of the functions identified, such that the use of the 
wetland would seriously jeopardize the availability of the 
identified functions. This language would allow for the 
destruction of even valuable wetlands which would otherwise be 
type A, except for the fact that the wetlands happen to be in 
abundance in the area. Since such an abundant wetland would not 
qualify for type A protection, these valuable wetlands could be 
filled until they became scarce. This will accelerate the 
decline of valuable wetlands in this country.
    A type A wetland must also be one where there is unlikely 
to be an over-riding public interest in the use of such 
wetlands for purposes other than conservation. This is one of 
the most troubling and unworkable parts of the wetlands 
classification scheme of the bill. First, this might be the 
type of inquiry which is appropriate in determining whether a 
particular activity should be authorized in a permit, but it is 
entirely inappropriate in determining the type of wetland which 
is present. Second, when a classification occurs, the 
classifying official will be expected to make predictions based 
upon future expectations of activity which are unknown at the 
time of the classification. If a wetland is of ``critical 
significance,'' it is of critical significance. It is not of 
less significance because there may someday be a public 
interest in destroying the wetland. This is yet another example 
where the bill unacceptably intertwines policy decisions with 
what should be a scientific inquiry.
    Even after a wetland passes the scrutiny to become 
classified as type A, it is not entitled to a high level of 
protection under the bill. Permits are specifically authorized 
using a sequential analysis of avoidance, minimization and 
compensation. Although these are familiar words to the existing 
permitting process, the emphasis needs to be on whether the 
proposed activity can avoid impacting wetlands, and therefore 
obviate the need for a permit rather than assume that a permit 
will be granted.
    Too great an emphasis is placed upon ineffective 
requirements for mitigation. There is no general rule that 
losses of type A wetlands will be compensated. Under the bill, 
mitigation is such as is ``appropriate to prevent the 
unacceptable loss or degradation of type A wetlands.'' This 
implies that mitigation will be used only when losses or 
degradation are unacceptable. Other losses will be 
uncompensated. Apparently, there are acceptable losses of type 
A wetlands for which no compensation will be required. If type 
A is to reflect the Nation's most valuable wetlands, then 
avoidance rather than mitigation for losses should be the 
preference, and not the other way around as provided in the 
bill.
    Additionally, the bill says that state approved mining 
reclamation will fully compensate for wetlands losses, 
regardless of whether any wetlands protection or restoration 
efforts are associated with the reclamation. This is another 
industry specific exception to the general rule which fails to 
adequately consider the environmental impact upon the resource 
being degraded.
    Once the bill creates tests for type A wetlands which are a 
mix of science and policy, and allows for the loss and 
degradation of these wetlands with inadequate requirements for 
mitigation, the bill includes yet another way to limit the 
protection afforded to the most valuable wetlands. It places an 
artificial cap upon the area in any county, borough or parish 
which may be considered to be type A wetlands. Under the bill, 
by operation by law, no more than 20% of any jurisdiction could 
be classified as type A--regardless of how valuable the wetland 
might be, how scarce it might be, or what the impact of the 
loss of wetlands functions might be on human welfare or the 
environment.
    This arbitrary limitation on type A wetlands is yet another 
glaring example of the true motivation behind title VIII. It is 
not about making the wetlands regulatory process more fair and 
reasonable. It is not about making wetlands regulation more 
understandable to the small landowner. It is not about creating 
the flexibility to recognize that certain wetlands are worthy 
of greater protection than others. No, this bill is about 
assuring that wetlands regulation is greatly reduced in this 
country whether or not the wetlands serve critical functions 
benefitting people or wildlife.
    The second category of wetlands are those called type B. 
Type B wetlands are defined as those which provide significant 
wetlands functions, or provide habitat for a significant 
population of wetland dependent wildlife. These wetlands would 
have even less review for protection afforded them than would 
type A wetlands. In addition, these wetlands are subject to 
less extensive mitigation requirements. For example, the costs 
of mitigation and the social, recreational and economic 
benefits associated with the proposed activity are to be 
balanced one against the other.
    Additionally, the types of mitigation activities which are 
deemed acceptable include activities which will not contribute 
to the Nation's wetlands base, and will result in losses of 
wetlands functions and values. For example, preservation of 
existing wetlands is specifically made eligible as a mitigation 
method for type A and B wetlands. Preservation should not be 
considered in and of itself to be compensation for wetland 
losses. Such a provision assures the continued decline of 
wetland resources. The bill also allows for coastal protection 
projects to qualify as mitigation. Coastal protection often 
consists of placing rip rap on eroding shores. It can hardly be 
argued that replacing a wetland with rip rap will enhance the 
habitat features of a wetland.
    The final type of wetland classification is for type C 
wetlands, which will be everything else which meets the new, 
unscientific definition of a wetland. The bill also specifies 
that certain wetlands will as a matter of law be type C. 
Classification as type C is particularly important because such 
a designation means that a person does not need any permit to 
undertake any activity in these wetlands. These include 
wetlands serving marginal wetlands functions, but which exist 
in abundance, are prior converted croplands, are fastlands, or 
are within intensely developed areas. A review of these 
classifications demonstrates the further erosion of any wetland 
protection under the bill.
    For example, the term prior converted cropland is defined 
in the bill in a much broader fashion than it is defined for 
purposes of existing agricultural programs. Under the 
definition in the bill, any agricultural land where either 
wetland hydrology has been removed, or the land was used for 
agricultural production prior to December 23, 1985, would be 
prior converted cropland, and no permit would be required for 
any activity since the are would be type C.
    As a second example, the classification for fastlands. This 
term is also defined. It includes all lands behind levees which 
permit the use of such lands. In some areas of the country, 
this could include thousands of acres of potential wetlands, 
and extend for miles perpendicular to the levees. By law, these 
areas would be permanently exempt from any permitting or 
mitigation requirements as wetlands.
    The bill also includes the ill-advised provisions 
concerning takings which were included in the ``Contract with 
America.'' Government, at all levels, has the right to affect 
actions which individuals take upon their private property as 
necessary to protect other property owners and the public 
health and safety. This has been well established and well 
documented. If regulation on the use of property becomes so 
invasive as to diminish the right to use of property so as to 
deprive the owner of the economic use of the property, then the 
government has engaged in a taking, and the property owner is 
entitled to compensation. What is included in this bill is a 
gross and unwarranted expansion of the rights of a small group 
of property owners at the potentially great expense of 
taxpayers generally.
    The 20% threshold for compensation is simply too low. 
Variances in market conditions and appraisals can cause a 20% 
variance in property values from time to time. More 
importantly, the diminution in value is to be calculated upon 
the effect on any portion of the property. In practice that 
will mean loss of far less than 20% will result in the 
taxpayers having to pay for a ``taking.''
    For example, let's assume a property owner possesses a 200 
acre parcel which the owner seeks to develop into homes on one-
half acre lots. If the property contains even a one-half acre 
wetland, the equivalent of one lot out of 400, that owner will 
be able to seek and receive compensation from the federal 
government if the use of that one-half acre parcel is limited 
by the wetlands regulatory program. The analysis would have 
completely ignored the fact that the owner was able to develop 
the other 199.5 acres of the parcel, and that even if the loss 
of value of that half acre lot was 100%, the loss of value of 
the total parcel would have been only one-quarter of one 
percent. Clearly, any calculation of the diminution in value 
should consider the entire parcel and the economic effects of 
regulation on it.
    Also of concern is the requirement that any compensation 
due to property owners be paid out of the operating budget of 
the agency whose action caused the reduction in property value. 
While clearly the intent of the provision is to discourage 
agencies from taking any actions which would diminish property 
values, this provision could have a devastating effect upon the 
programs of the Corps of Engineers and of the Department of 
Defense, of which the Corps is a part.
    Although the bill is very unclear, it appears as though 
there is an obligation on the part of the agency to pay 
compensation in a timely fashion. Because the threshold is so 
low for obligating federal payments, this could result in great 
strains upon the budget of the Corps of Engineers. The result 
would be an inability to carry out is civil works functions, 
and an adverse effect upon flood control and navigation. 
Carried to its extreme, the bill could even require the 
Department of Defense to divert funds from its basic defense 
mission to the payment of what are arguably unfounded claims of 
takings.
    The compensation issue also appears to create an unworkable 
situation to the disadvantage of both the government and the 
property owner. The bill provides that a permit issuance or 
denial is subject to compliance with the compensation 
provisions. Therefore, the issuance of a permit which includes 
conditions which might cause a 20% reduction in value to a 
portion of property, and the denial of a permit which might 
cause a 20% reduction to a portion of a parcel of property 
cannot occur until the compensation is paid. Apparently, the 
property owner would then be in legal limbo awaiting payment 
from an agency--a payment which the agency may or may not have 
the funds to make in the current, or even the subsequent fiscal 
year.
    The bill also includes a very expensive and unnecessary 
requirement for the Secretaries of the Army and Agriculture to 
undertake a 10-year program to classify all of the wetlands in 
the United States. Testimony at the hearings indicated that 
such an effort could cost billions of dollars and require 
thousands of new federal employees. This is a tremendous waste 
of resources at a time when all discretionary programs are 
being evaluated for reductions, and the Corps in particular has 
been targeted with nearly $1 billion in cuts (25% of its civil 
works budget) over the next 5 years.
    Such a classification is unnecessary because there is no 
reason to suspect that most of these wetlands acres are 
scheduled for development in the foreseeable future. 
Determining the exact location of wetlands is a resource 
intensive project, requiring metes and bounds descriptions and 
actual on-site inspection on the property. It is information 
which will be nearly useless in the greatest number of cases, 
because there are no plans to develop the property. At present 
the relative importance of a wetland is evaluated and taken 
into account at the time someone seeks to develop it. It would 
be an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars to require that 
determination to be made of millions of acres of wetlands which 
no one had plans to develop in the foreseeable future.
    The bill then requires that the presence of wetlands upon a 
parcel of property be placed upon the land records in the 
appropriate county or parish. This will also cost millions of 
dollars in employee costs and in recording fees since local 
governments collect charges for recordations upon the land 
records.
    Finally, the wetlands title, having reduced the number of 
acres which even qualify as wetlands, and having reduced the 
protection which is afforded the remaining wetlands, creates 
numerous additional exemptions to the wetlands permitting 
program. While some of these exemptions are necessary, such as 
anthropogenic wetlands and certain created wetlands in upland 
areas, other exemptions reflect little more than the desires of 
certain areas of the country or certain special interests to no 
longer be subject to any federal regulation.
    These unwarranted exceptions include numerous activities in 
Alaska, 10-acre per year expansions of cranberry producing 
areas, utility distribution and transmission lines, 
concentrated animal feeding operations, railroad lines, actions 
pursuant to state and local land management plans (because of 
nonexistent safeguards), actions pursuant to a marsh management 
and conservation program in Louisiana (because of nonexistent 
safeguards), aggregate or clay mining, oil and gas structures, 
and construction of log transfer facilities and mine tailing 
impoundments, among others.
    When added together, the bill's major accomplishment would 
be to greatly accelerate the loss of wetlands in this country. 
There are no goals of preserving wetlands, only methods to 
assure their development. This bill would result in the loss of 
a resource which we cannot afford to lose, which cannot be 
replaced, and which will prove costly to live without.

                       nonpoint source pollution

    Water pollution is often associated with large pipes 
spewing obnoxious chemicals from industrial and manufacturing 
plants. These are referred to and regulated as point sources. 
While this was the major source of water pollution 25 years 
ago, these point sources have been largely controlled through 
the current Clean Water Act permit program. Today, the major 
remaining source of water pollution comes from diffuse sources, 
known as nonpoint sources. These include land use activities 
such as construction, agriculture, logging, and mining, as well 
as atmospheric deposition and contaminated sediments.
    The states conduct a biennial survey of the quality of 
their waters. According to the most recent survey, agriculture 
is now the leading source of water quality impairment in rivers 
and lakes. For estuaries, agriculture was third. Clearly, the 
emphasis for a renewed Clean Water Act needs to be upon 
nonpoint source pollution, and agriculture must do its share.
    Unfortunately, H.R. 961 does not include a program which 
will result in the type of reductions in nonpoint source 
pollution which water quality needs require. It fails to 
include real deadlines for attaining water quality standards 
around which an effective program could be developed and 
implemented. It also fails in that too much of the ``new'' 
nonpoint source program addresses exceptions from the program 
rather than achieving results. And it repeals the one feature 
of nonpoint pollution control already in the books, the 
nonpoint program for coastal zones.
    Current law requires that best management practices to 
control nonpoint sources are to be utilized at the earliest 
practicable date. The amendment strikes references to ``best'' 
and also deletes the requirement that steps be implemented at 
the earliest practicable date. Instead, there is a new standard 
developed to provide for reasonable further progress toward the 
goal of attaining water quality standards within 15 years of 
approval of the state program (which is 4 years after enactment 
for a total of 19 years.)
    Unfortunately for the program, it is very unclear what the 
standard of performance actually is. If the intent is to attain 
water quality standards within 19 years, then the bill should 
say so. Instead, the perplexing language seems designed to be 
loose enough to allow states and individuals to not achieve 
water quality standards even after 19 years. Later, however, 
the bill speaks in terms of attaining water quality standards 
as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 15 years 
after program approval.
    If the bill stands for a firm target of achieving water 
quality standards through reductions in nonpoint source 
pollution in no greater than 19 years, then such a target 
should be clearly stated. Although an additional 19 years to 
achieve water quality is longer than our citizens should have 
to wait for clean water, a firm target for developing and 
implementing nonpoint source controls is clearly needed to make 
the program viable. This point should be clarified and 
corrected.
    The history of the Clean Water Act is to take steps to 
improve water quality, reevaluate the results, and then take 
whatever additional steps are determined to be necessary to 
meet the goals of the Act. That is why the Act has been 
revisited for amendment approximately each 5 years. 
Unfortunately for the interests of achieving water quality 
through reducing nonpoint source pollution, the bill would not 
build upon the efforts of the past 5 years in addressing 
nonpoint source pollution in coastal areas, but instead would 
repeal the coastal water quality protection program of the 
Coastal Zone Amendments and Reauthorization Act (CZARA). This 
is a retreat from a commitment to improving water quality, and 
a retreat from H.R. 961 as introduced, which did not contain 
such a repeal.
    The bill's sponsors have argued that they do not support 
reduced protection of coastal waters but rather have taken the 
CZARA program and folded it into the Clean Water program. What 
they have done is repealed a program which shows promise of 
being effective, and made it a part of a program which has been 
marked by its ineffectiveness. And, contrary to the stated goal 
of working to address the wishes of the states, the bill 
ignores the desires of the Coastal States Organization, the 
organization of state agencies which would implement the CZARA 
program, which has specifically requested that the CZARA 
nonpoint program not be repealed.
    The bill proponents again have given in to the interests of 
those contributing to coastal pollution rather than demonstrate 
a commitment to improved coastal water quality. Rather than 
fold an effective coastal program into an ineffective national 
program, the bill should be exploring ways to upgrade an 
ineffective national program to more closely resemble the 
stronger coastal program.
    This repeal of CZARA is yet another example of the trend in 
the bill which adheres to the desires of the states when it is 
in the interest of the polluter, but ignores the desires of the 
states if the states' interests are contrary to the desires of 
the polluter. If the authors of the bill truly support 
achieving water quality standards, the CZARA program is the 
model--the states and EPA know it, and water quality needs 
require it.
    The repeal of the CZARA nonpoint program and the lack of a 
clearly stated date by which programs are to result in the 
attainment of water quality standards are not the only 
shortcomings of the nonpoint provisions. Additionally, the 
terms of the program are designed around inaction and 
exception, with too many opportunities for water quality goals 
not to be met.
    From the outset, Clean Water Act programs have been 
focusing on point source pollution. That was the sensible and 
appropriate approach to water quality improvement in the past, 
because the most serious water pollution problems were caused 
by industrial and municipal discharges. Over the years, our 
efforts have produced significant beneficial results, as most 
of the major point source problems were being addressed.
    Now the Clean Water Act programs are at strategic 
crossroads. One option is to continue the current approach of 
relying on point source reduction for water pollution cleanup. 
Supporters of this approach would point to previous successes 
as the reason for maintaining the same approach.
    There is little dispute that efforts in the past two 
decades have led to much improved water quality and a cleaner 
aquatic environment. But the substantial improvement from our 
persistent long-term efforts also means that the law of 
increasing cost may be setting in. Henceforth, even modest 
additional improvement in water quality from further reducing 
point source pollution may come only with a big price tag. 
Those same improvements could be achieved at far lower cost by 
taking moderate steps to reduce nonpoint pollution.
    In addition to the efficiency consideration is the question 
of equity. Is it fair to ask industrial and municipal 
dischargers to continue to foot the lion's share of the bill, 
when the majority of the water pollution problem today is no 
longer point source in nature? The answer is clearly ``no.''
    So if we are attempting to get the ``biggest bang for the 
buck,'' this strategy of continually relying on reducing point 
source discharges to improve water quality is destined to 
produce inefficient and inequitable results.
    We should recognize that the majority of our water 
pollution problems is now arising from nonpoint sources, with 
agriculture being the biggest contributor. Greater water 
quality improvement would be achieved if point source and 
nonpoint source dischargers would pay their fair share of the 
total cost of water pollution control. This alternative would 
ask nonpoint source dischargers to play a larger role in water 
quality improvement than they have heretofore been required to 
do. But the result would be greater equity among all 
dischargers, lower total cost, and greater efficiency in 
improving water quality.
    Thus, for equity and efficiency reasons, shifting the 
burden toward a better balance between point source and 
nonpoint source dischargers is the preferred approach. It makes 
economic, equity, and environmental sense.
    Water pollution control is a zero sum game. For every 
individual who does not contribute to the reduction in 
pollutant loadings, some other individual will have to increase 
the reduction which that individual might otherwise have been 
expected to carry out.
    For example, the principal sources of nutrients (the number 
2 cause of water quality impairment in rivers and lakes, and 
the number 1 cause in estuaries) are municipal sewage treatment 
plants and agricultural runoff. Municipal plants are point 
sources and agriculture is generally a nonpoint source. If 
effective reduction in nutrients is to occur, then reductions 
must come from one or both of these major sources.
    Municipalities have participated in reducing nutrients for 
over 20 years. Over $60 billion in federal investment and an 
equal amount of nonfederal investment have greatly reduced 
nutrient loading from municipalities, and additional steps are 
increasingly expensive to accomplish. For municipal discharges, 
we have invested heavily at all levels of government, and the 
easy pollutants have been mostly addressed.
    In the meantime, agriculture has been asked to contribute 
very little to reducing nutrient loadings from its activities. 
Meanwhile, the states indicate that agriculture is a source of 
impairment for 72% of impaired river miles. But municipal point 
sources account for impairment of only 15% of river miles. 
Clearly there is a message that meaningful reductions in 
nutrient loadings will have to come in part from agriculture, 
and not just from municipalities.
    Such a shift in burden-sharing is consistent with the 
current discussions about the need to make decisions based upon 
sound economics (benefit-cost analysis, sound science, and risk 
assessment). The failure to effectively address nonpoint 
pollution from agriculture certainly will result in additional 
expenditures by municipalities which are unjustified and a 
misallocation of resources. That is why the bill's enormous 
exemptions for agricultural activities, exemptions which a 
state could not override even if it is chose to, are so 
objectionable.
    Again, it appears as though the bill is more interested in 
assuring that polluters not be brought to the table than it is 
in being responsive to water quality needs, or in even being 
consistent in its application of sound scientific and economic 
principles. Where the polluter would benefit from benefit-cost 
analysis, the bill includes it. Where benefit cost analysis 
would be to the detriment of a class of polluters, the bill 
ignores benefit-cost. The application of cost-benefit 
principles would dictate a more effective nonpoint program, and 
would not require expensive additional requirements upon 
municipalities.
    The bill creates an entire class of exemptions from state 
nonpoint source programs for any producers who is implementing 
a whole farm or ranch natural resources management plan. These 
plans are underfined in the Clean Water Act context, and 
largely undefined even within the agriculture programs. There 
is no mention in the provision about the ability of a state to 
want to require more than what might be in such a plan--
participation is compliance. There are not requirements than 
improvements in water quality be a consideration in the plan, 
there are no standards by which these plans will be evaluated.
    Under the bill, the participation in a whole farm plan, a 
plan which has no requirements to include water quality 
components, will effectively exempt agricultural producers from 
taking any additional steps to achieve water quality--
regardless of how necessary such steps may be. By requiring 
states to allow whole farm plans to serve as compliance with a 
state's nonpoint source control program, a state will not have 
sufficient flexibility to achieve water quality standards by 
2014, if that is the intent of the section. State programs are 
to be evaluated by EPA to determine whether the program is 
resulting in reasonable further progress toward the goal of 
attaining water quality standards by 2014.
    Under the concessions to agricultural producers in allowing 
whole farm plans to serve as compliance, a state would not have 
the ability to require more from these producers, even if the 
state program was not making progress. This will unnecessarily 
hamper the efforts of states in achieving environmental 
results, and all because the bill is overly concerned with 
excepting agriculture from Clean Water Act requirements rather 
than developing an effective partnership with these interests.
    A viable alternative to this approach would be to allow 
participation in established agriculture programs such as 
Swampbuster, Sodbuster, or the like to operate as compliance to 
the extent that water quality is addressed within that program. 
This would result in meaningful standards to be used in 
evaluating programs, and for there to be assurances that the 
programs have water quality protection as a component. Even 
whole farm planning could be used as a tool for the states, but 
there would have to be water quality components built into the 
programs, and states would have to have the ability to require 
more of an individual producer should water quality needs 
dictate it.
    Such features are lacking in the bill's provisions, and 
make the section unacceptable.
    Finally, the bill establishes as a new test of determining 
compliance with environmental protection, the amount of federal 
assistance which is provided. The bill states that the amount 
of federal financial assistance will be taken into account in 
determining whether a state's program is demonstrating 
reasonable further progress toward the attainment of water 
quality standards. Additionally, the requirements on states for 
assessments, program implementation and monitoring are all to 
be delayed one year for each year that the federal 
appropriation for nonpoint programs falls even $1 short of the 
amount authorized.
    These concepts of linking Clean Water Act goals with 
federal funding are troubling for three reasons. First, the 
Clean Water Act has never been a fully federally funded 
program. The federal government has chosen to participate in 
the funding of clean water activities, but the responsibility 
to not pollute exists independent of whether the federal 
government chooses to assist in that effort. People expect that 
their neighbors will not pollute them, and should not be 
expected to pay to have those expectations fulfilled.
    Second, Clean Water programs are a federal-state-local and 
private-public partnership. States, municipalities, and private 
industries expect a reasonable return on their pollution 
control investments, which can be realized only if there is 
certainty about the progress of the programs. Unilateral 
alteration of the programs, such as postponement of compliance 
deadlines by the states due to less-than-full federal funding 
for nonpoint pollution programs, undermines that certainty and 
may deprive the non-federal partners of the legitimate returns 
on investment they expect.
    Third, those who would advocate that there must be federal 
funding or there will be no nonpoint source control program act 
as though the only people who are interested in clean water in 
this country are ``pointy-headed bureaucrats'' in Washington. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Our constituents demand and expect clean, healthy waters. 
Will polluters incur some costs in controlling pollution? Of 
course they will. But, to argue that the only reason to do so 
is because somebody requires it misses the whole point. Tourism 
and recreation are multi-billion dollar industries. Likewise 
the commercial fishing industry depends upon clean water to 
assure a safe and abundant supply for markets. Job growth in 
many firms similarly requires a reliable supply of clean water.
    The reason we need effective programs in this country to 
control water pollution is not because some faceless bureaucrat 
determined that it should be so. It is because the people of 
this country demand and expect it. The nonpoint source 
provisions of the bill will perpetuate our not achieving the 
water quality goals of our constituents. It is therefore 
unacceptable.

                               stormwater

    Urban runoff from storm sewers is the second leading cause 
of water quality impairment in lakes and estuaries, and the 
third leading cause in rivers. Despite this evidence, H.R. 961 
as approved by the Committee will reduce the controls currently 
in place to reduce pollutant loadings from stormwater, and will 
make it more difficult to ever achieve water quality goals.
    The current stormwater program is clearly in need of 
repairs. Municipalities need to have the law clarified so that 
municipal stormwater discharges are not required to meet 
numeric limitations in their stormwater. There should also be 
no current requirement that permits for stormwater discharges 
be water quality based. Instead, municipalities should be 
expected to put in place a system of management practices and 
measures which will reduce stormwater related pollutant 
loadings. Such efforts, coupled with effective monitoring and 
analysis of water quality, will allow individual municipalities 
to tailor their programs over time to meet the water quality 
needs of the receiving waters.
    The new stormwater program of the bill is on the right 
track in that most of the responses to municipal stormwater 
will be related to the same types of measures which might be 
used to control nonpoint source pollution. Where the bill is 
seriously flawed is that it eliminates the valuable aspects 
associated with a permit process, thereby eliminating 
information which is necessary to make valid judgements about 
future actions; and, it virtually eliminates controls on 
stormwater associated with industrial activity, which unlike 
municipalities, has control over the area and pollutants likely 
to be included in stormwater. The bill also does not include a 
clearly stated date by which stormwater management programs are 
to contribute to the attainment of water quality standards. 
Finally, the bill requires states to conduct new assessments 
and create new stormwater management programs, even in those 
states where EPA is the current permitting agency.
    This new program is one of the true contradictions 
contained in the bill. Although the bill is touted as 
increasing state flexibility in addressing water pollution, the 
new pollution program not only mandates that all states create 
new programs for stormwater, it is rigid and inflexible in the 
way that it restricts the ability of states to address 
stormwater. Once again, the emphasis of this bill is that when 
it is in the interest of the polluter to be flexible, the bill 
does so; where it is in the interest of the polluter to be 
inflexible, the bill does so. Flexibility is not the consistent 
theme of this bill; the interest of the polluter is.
    The framework of a permitting program for stormwater should 
be retained, and states should have the flexibility to more 
effectively address stormwater discharges should they choose to 
do so.
    The proponents of the bill argue that it costs an average 
of over $600,000 to prepare an application for a stormwater 
permit under the current law, and that therefore the permit 
program should be scrapped. This position is incorrect on two 
counts. First, the costs cited are inflated with costs not 
directly related to the permit application. Second, many of 
these costs are one-time costs which will not be repeated in 
subsequent permit applications and have already been paid.
    The bill changes the definition of a point source so that 
it does not include stormwater discharges. This is regardless 
of the size of the discharge (many stormwater discharges are 
millions of gallons) and regardless of the pollutants present 
in the discharge. Under this new program, point source 
discharges which are highly toxic and susceptible of treatment, 
and which are currently being treated, may no longer have to 
undergo treatment which has already been demonstrated to be 
economical and achievable.
    This redefinition and relaxation of stormwater pollution 
controls is clearly a reduction in water quality protection. It 
clearly contemplates reduced levels of control. That is evident 
from the terms of the provision itself in that it has to 
specifically state that actions taken to convert from the 
current stormwater system to the new program are not to be 
subject to the anti-backsliding provisions of the Act. If back-
sliding were not intended for currently permitted activities, 
there would be no need for such protection.
    By eliminating the monitoring features associated with a 
permit program, the bill eliminates the availability of 
valuable information for making future decisions. A permitting 
program allows for monitoring of the discharge to determine 
what constituents are present in the discharge. Contrary to the 
apparent belief that monitoring will lead to increased 
controls, it is also likely that monitoring can reveal that no 
additional controls are necessary, thereby avoiding the 
implementation of measures when measures are not necessary.
    Municipalities need to have the permitting program fixed, 
they do not need to have the program eliminated.
    As disturbing as the bill's provisions are on municipal 
stormwater discharges, what the bill would do concerning 
industrial, mining, and oil and gas activities is an 
abandonment of any effective measures to reduce the impacts of 
stormwater from nonmunicipal sources. Under the bill, 
industrial sources of stormwater may have purely voluntary 
programs in several instances. The bill's proponents argue that 
the remainder will have enforceable stormwater pollution 
prevention plans, but the missing piece of the puzzle is the 
details of the plans.
    These plans include such ineffective requirements as the 
creation of a pollution prevention team, annual inspections and 
annual visual stormwater discharge inspections. There is no 
monitoring of what is in the stormwater. there are also no 
limits on what may be present in the stormwater. The types of 
steps which must be taken include ``good housekeeping'' and 
employee training. While these steps can be the basis for the 
implementation of a successful plan for plant management, they 
cannot form the sole basis for effectively controlling 
stormwater pollution from in industrial sites.
    Municipalities have argued that they cannot control 
everything which might be discharged through their stormwater 
system. Therefore, municipalities argue that they should not be 
expected to be able to achieve numeric limits or water quality 
based permitting. On this there is agreement. However, 
industrial concerns can control what is present on their site. 
They can control the finite amount of area which a private 
concern entails. And, they can control what their employees 
allow to be discharged through stormwater. Because of the 
complex nature of the pollutants which might be present at an 
industrial site, it is appropriate to require monitoring of the 
discharge, to require permitting and, if necessary, to require 
that the pollutants present in the discharge be treated to meet 
the requirements of the Act the same as any other point source 
discharge.
    This bill will allow currently treated stormwater to be 
discharged without treatment, which is a significant rollback 
of existing law, and will exacerbate the water quality 
impairment associated with stormwater. It is intellectually 
dishonest to treat stormwater discharges from industrial 
facilities as anything other than what they are--point source 
discharges. Should EPA or the states determine that it is 
possible to control pollutant loadings from industrial 
stormwater through management practices rather than treatment, 
that is perfectly acceptable. But, it should be done within the 
permit program.
    A permitting program also aids in holding dischargers 
accountable for their actions. The bill only includes a self-
certification method for compliance. Such self-certification 
operates to excuse an industrial facility from any permit 
requirements, any analytical monitoring, any effluent 
limitation or other numeric standards--apparently even if there 
are adverse water quality impacts.
    The bill also adds as a component of whether a state is 
making progress in achieving water quality goals a requirement 
that the adequacy of federal funding be taken into account. In 
one instance, the standard is whether the federal funding has 
matched the authorized amount. If it has not, then compliance 
with water quality standards is delayed by one year--even if 
the appropriation is only $1 short.
    In another instance, the demonstration of reasonable 
further progress by which a state program is to be judged is to 
take into account the adequacy of federal funding under the 
section. Since the only federal funding under the section is 
$20 million annually for 5 years for demonstration projects, it 
appears that federal funding will always be inadequate to meet 
the needs under the section. Therefore, the bill appears to 
allow for virtually any progress to be sufficient to meet the 
tests under the new section. This will result in indefinite 
delay in addressing stormwater pollution, and indefinite delay 
in meeting water quality standards where stormwater is a major 
factor in not achieving such standards.
    The weakness of the stormwater provision underscores the 
bill's abandonment of the commitment to move steadily forward 
in achieving acceptable water quality. Until we are prepared to 
take necessary steps to address precipitation-induced 
pollution, we cannot claim to be working effectively toward the 
water quality needs which our constituents expect.

               risk assessment and benefit-cost analysis

    H.R. 961 requires elaborate risk assessment and benefit-
cost analysis to be performed before regulations to protect 
clean water can be issued. Supporters of the bill argue that 
the House has already adopted H.R. 1022, the risk assessment 
bill, and that provisions in H.R. 961 are consistent with those 
in H.R. 1022. But H.R. 961 in fact goes well beyond the House-
passed risk assessment bill in three specific areas to include 
provisions that are more extreme and onerous.
    First, the bill requires EPA and the Corps of Engineers to 
conduct comparative risk analysis. Instead of providing 
relevant information that could help improve regulatory 
decisionmaking or enhance understanding by the public, it would 
lead to confusion and mistakes.
    We face many different risks every day. But there are 
fundamental differences in their nature, even among risks 
affecting human health or the environment. Some risks we assume 
voluntarily, and we are willing to accept higher thresholds. 
Other risks we are asked to assume involuntarily, and our 
tolerance of those risks is correspondingly low. Comparing 
dissimilar kinds of risk, therefore, would be comparing apples 
and oranges.
    Furthermore, each federal agency tailors its risk 
assessment methodology according to the risks it regulates. In 
the process, it acquires knowledge of those risks and develops 
expertise about how to control them. Comparing risk assessment 
results produced by different methodologies is a recipe for 
drawing misleading conclusions that would simply create 
confusion, and not greater clarity that would help rational 
decisionmaking.
    Finally, requiring EPA and the Corps of Engineers to 
compare risks that they know something about, such as the 
health effects of toxics in water of flooding due to filling of 
wetlands, with those about which they know nothing, such as 
auto accidents on highways or airplane accidents, would 
inevitably cause EPA and the Corps to make mistakes which, in 
turn, could lead to an explosion of legal challenges to the 
validity of comparative risk analyses that the agencies are 
mandated to conduct.
    H.R. 1022 takes these important complications into account 
and, accordingly, limits risk comparisons to those involving 
similar risks that are regulated by the same federal agency. 
The same limitations, however, are not included in H.R. 961.
    Second, H.R. 961 contains an unfair look-back provision 
that requires a retroactive review of regulations issued prior 
to the bill's enactment. The goal of this provisions is very 
similar to that of the Barton amendment to H.R. 1022 offered on 
the House floor. The amendment would permit an individual 
aggrieved by a regulation to petition the agency to conduct a 
review, which would be undertaken only if the petition is 
supported by substantial evidence. The issue was debated at 
length. But even with the safeguards, the amendment was 
rejected by the House because it would overwhelm the regulatory 
process in general and to new risk assessment procedures in 
particular.
    The look-back provision in H.R. 961 is far more damaging 
then the rejected Barton amendment because it lacks those 
safeguards. Without a doubt, it would be damaging to water 
quality protection and to the regulatory process which protects 
water quality. An existing regulation has already once gone 
through public notice and comments, as well as vigorous 
internal analysis (including risk assessment and benefit-cost 
analysis for major regulations), review, and deliberation. The 
regulation is now final, yet is still subject to judicial 
review under the ``arbitrary and capricious'' standards of the 
Administrative Procedures Act. Retroactively reviewing 
regulations that have been finalized, therefore, is patently 
unfair. It amounts to changing the rule after the game is over 
and having the game played over again under new rues in hope of 
a different outcome. Any new risk assessment and benefit-cost 
analysis requirements should apply prospectively, affecting 
only future regulations, and not retroactively that would 
undermine delicately balanced regulations that have already 
been issued.
    The Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative is a good case in 
point. The final program plan was issued on March 13, 1995. As 
such, it would be subject to the retroactive review 
requirements of the bill. It is the culmination of a 6-year 
collaborative effort involving state environmental agencies, 
industry, environmental and other public citizen groups, 
municipalities, academia, and EPA. EPA alone has devoted 90 
staff-years and $1.5 million in contract funds to the effort. 
EPA's partners have spent millions more. The plan has already 
under gone rigorous risk assessment and benefit-cost analysis. 
Yet this bill would require that the entire effort be repeated 
one more time, thus wasting taxpayer's and industry's money, 
creating uncertainty about the program, and postponing 
environmental cleanup What real benefit can society expect from 
such a redundant exercise?
    Third, H.R. 961 sets up an unworkable system to evaluate 
environmental regulations because the underlying economic 
analysis is useless, the attendant concepts meaningless, and 
the needed information inaccurate, unreliable or unavailable. 
The bill establishes as a national policy goal that water 
quality protection programs ``maximize net benefits to 
society.'' To ensure that a given regulation would indeed 
achieve maximum net benefits, the bill mandates that it undergo 
a benefit-cost analysis. The bill further stipulates that, as 
part of the analysis, ``incremental benefits and costs 
associate with plausible alternatives'' be estimated.
    This is the standard approach to economic analysis, in 
which the marginal (incremental) benefit and cost are measured. 
Maximum total profit is obtained at the production level where 
marginal benefit equals marginal cost. The marginal analysis is 
designed to evaluate private manufacturing decisions. It is 
ill-suited to evaluating environmental regulations, however.
    Private manufacturing decisions are usually made where the 
product is unique and only the output quantity is changed to 
determine the manufacturing level that maximizes profit. 
Moreover, benefits, such as revenue and profit, and costs are 
easily quantified and monetized (measured in monetary terms). 
The marginal analysis works well in this neat situation.
    Public environmental standard-setting and rulemaking 
operate in a vastly different situation, and are characterized 
by two complications; first, alternatives are often distinct 
from one another in terms of basic approach and, therefore, 
fundamental nature; second, benefits--and often costs, too--are 
very difficult to quantify or monetize.
    Marginal analysis is virtually useless in this situation, 
because the choice is not about expanding or contracting the 
scope of a particular pollution control measure (to do more or 
less of the same thing) in order to maximize net benefits. If 
obtaining maximum net benefits is the goal, then the analysis 
would have to entail determining the net benefit of each of the 
identified pollution control measures and choosing the one with 
the largest net benefit. ``Incremental benefits and costs 
associated with plausible alternatives,'' even if it is 
possible to calculate them, are meaningless when the analysis 
involves jumping from one alternative to another the 
fundamental nature of which is entirely different.
    The bill does require the estimation of ``total social, 
environmental, and economic costs'' of options. But it leaves 
out the estimation of corresponding total benefits. With only 
half of the needed information available, determining the net 
benefit of each alternative is impossible.
    But adding a requirement of estimating the total benefits 
to the bill still will no solve the problem because we lack the 
ability to quantify and monetize benefits (in particular) and 
costs accurately and reliably. H.R. 1022 adopts a more flexible 
standard, requiring that benefits would likely ``justify, and 
be reasonably related to,'' costs. H.R. 961, in contrast, 
adopts an inflexible and for more stringent standard in two 
respects. First, it requires that benefits not merely justify 
costs, but that they exceed the costs, and second, only the 
option with the greatest net benefits may be selected for the 
final regulation. This maximum net benefits standard 
presupposes a level of measurement precision that presently 
does not exist.
    Benefit-cost analysis is simply incapable of providing 
answers to a host of waxing questions necessary to ascertain 
the net benefits of various environmental regulatory options. 
How many lives would be saved or injuries avoided by each of 
the regulatory alternatives? What is the tradeoff between 
developmental disabilities and mortality (or say, how many IQ 
points among children equal one adult cancer death)? What is 
the tradeoff between human health benefits and environmental 
benefits (for example, between birth defects and flood 
mitigation)? At the base is the question of how much each of 
these benefits or costs is worth.
    It is simply wrong to suggest that benefit-cost analysis, 
though a very useful economic evaluation tool, is able to come 
up with all the answers at a level precise enough to pick the 
winning option all the time. But the decision criterion of 
``maximum net benefits to society'' provided in the bill is 
predicated on the mistaken premise that benefit-cost analysis 
is precise enough to do the job.
    Beyond the analytical difficulties are jurisdictional 
obstacles, which will make it impossible for EPA or the Corps 
to satisfy the certification requirement that a regulation 
indeed maximizes the net benefits to society. This issue has 
implications which cut across pollution media and agency 
domains. For example, it is difficult enough for EPA to 
ascertain if a particular water quality problem should be 
tackled directly through clean water programs or indirectly 
through clean air programs. The maximum net benefits standard 
requires an evaluation of all plausible alternatives, many of 
which are administered by other federal or state agencies. EPA 
will have little knowledge of, and certainly no control over, 
these other programs. EPA, therefore, cannot possibly meet the 
certification requirement under this provision of the bill.
    Additionally, the system established in this bill to 
evaluate regulatory requirements creates the so-called 
supermandate that not only allows economics to juxtapose on 
science in environmental regulation, it demands that economics 
overrule science. If there is a conflict, the bill stipulates 
that the economic decision criterion supersedes other decision 
criteria that are based on health or water quality 
requirements. Unfortunately, as indicated above, benefit-cost 
analysis is not up to the task. However strong is the urge, it 
is ill-advised to expect the impossible from benefit-cost 
analysis, and fantasy to pursue the unrealistic standard of 
maximum net benefits.
    Finally, the regulatory evaluation system in the bill 
changes the ``arbitrary and capricious'' standard by which a 
court reviews an agency's final action to the higher 
``substantial evidence'' standard. So instead of reviewing the 
agency's record as a whole to determine if the agency's action 
is arbitrary and capricious, the bill would have the court 
delve into whether the chosen option maximizes net benefits to 
society. The inquiry would mire the courts in complex technical 
debates, a role that judges themselves have said is 
inappropriate.
    In sum, the above requirements under the risk assessment 
and benefit-cost analysis provisions of the bill, some of which 
go beyond those found in H.R. 1022, guarantee that regulatory 
waste and inefficiency will increase, that litigation and delay 
will multiply, and that gridlock and paralysis will become much 
more pervasive.

                  Tradeoff Between Economy and Ecology

    Supporters of the bill argue that we have gone too far in 
protecting water quality, and that overly restrictive 
environmental laws are harming our economic wellbeing. Their 
argument can be summarized as follows: environmental protection 
would raise the cost for our producers, which would make our 
products uncompetitive on the international market and 
ultimately would lead to reduced employment, especially high-
paying manufacturing jobs. Their conclusion is that we should 
not do any more to improve water quality or our environment. 
Quite the opposite, we should roll back environmental standards 
to help spur the economy.
    Implicit in this argument is an alleged tradeoff between 
the environment and the economy. Such a tradeoff is much talked 
about, but it is simply not true.
    The suggestion that environmental cleanup costs jobs has 
repeatedly been refuted by academic analyses. Empirical 
findings have consistently shown that a cleaner environment is 
actually good for the economy--strong environmental standards 
go hand in hand with a vibrant economy and strong environmental 
regulation is associated with job growth.
    For example, Stephen Meyer of MIT tested the 
``environmental impact hypothesis''--the assertion that 
rigorous environmental management hurts economic growth and 
development--and found it to be wrong. In two separate reports, 
one in 1992 and another in 1993, Professor Meyer concluded that 
``the U.S. record of the past two decades clearly and 
unambiguously refutes the environmental impact hypothesis at 
the state level.'' ``States with stronger environmental 
standards tended to have higher growth in their gross state 
products, total employment, construction employment, and labor 
productivity than states that ranked lower environmentally.'' 
And not even in bad economic times did environmental 
requirements prove to be a drag on economic recovery. He 
cautioned ``those who * * * are now contemplating rolling back 
environmental standards as a quick fix to jump-start their 
economies out of recession should reconsider. Based on the 
evidence there is no reason to expect that loosening 
environmental standards will have any effect on the pace of 
state economic growth.''
    Similar results at the national level were found by Eban 
Goodstein of Skidmore College. He stated in a 1994 report that 
``environmental regulation is not responsible for the long-term 
decline of manufacturing employment in the U.S. * * * Firms are 
relocating, but the overwhelming reason is lower labor costs. 
As for the net effect of environmental regulation on the rate 
of growth of productivity, its impact has been quite small and, 
indeed, may have been positive.'' Updating a 1978 study, he 
estimated that ``we might expect gains on the order of 5,000 to 
10,000 net jobs per billion dollars of expenditure on 
environmental protection measures.''
    Most recently, the National Commission for Employment 
Policy issued two reports in April 1995 that show ``the 
environmental policy versus jobs tradeoff is not the obvious 
conflict that some would assume.'' The analysis found an 
average gain of 17,000 to 20,000 gross jobs per billion dollars 
of environmental investment. Recognizing that environmental 
policies are driving technological advance through investments 
in efficiency and productivity, the authors identified three 
clear winners from environmental initiatives. ``The first is 
the people and families who benefit from the new employment 
opportunities. The second is the economy in general since 
productivity investments would drive up per capita income. The 
third is the environment as reduced volumes of waste and higher 
energy efficiencies mean fewer pollutants.''
    Notwithstanding the scientific evidence which has been 
accumulating for almost two decades, and which has consistently 
pointed to the contrary, supporters of this bill have continued 
to use the faulty tradeoff rhetoric to buttress their claim 
that rollbacks, waivers, loopholes, and exemptions are needed 
to save our industries, our communities, and our economy. But 
these studies, which are just a few examples of a large body of 
scientific analysis, should lay to rest the baseless claim that 
environmental protection is bad for jobs, bad for business, and 
bad for the economy. Repeating a falsehood often and loudly is 
simply not sufficient to turn it into the truth.

                               Conclusion

    The Clean Water Act is a success story in environmental 
law. Unfortunately, H.R. 961 as reported by the Committee will 
not build upon that legacy. Instead, the bill rolls back 
requirements and creates new ways to introduce additional 
pollutants into the Nation's waters. This is not what the 
American people want or expect--it is only what the polluters 
want.
    The preceding pages do not discuss all of the flaws of the 
bill, but they are an indication of the breadth and seriousness 
of the potential problems of the bill. This bill should be 
reconsidered by the Committee and the Congress before the House 
takes action upon it. In the absence of such review, this bill 
should not go forward, and the House should reject it.

                                   James L. Oberstar.
                                   Robert A. Borski.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   James E. Clyburn.
                                   Barbara-Rose Collins.
                                   Eleanor H. Norton.
                                   Peter A. DeFazio.
                                   Norman Y. Mineta.
                                   Nick Rahall.
                                   Bob Wise,
                                   William O. Lipinski.
                                   Robert Menendez.
                                   Corrine Brown.
                                APPENDIX

                                ------                                  
    


                          EXCHANGE OF LETTERS

                              ----------                              

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 1995.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House 
        Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the information that the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had reported 
H.R. 961, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act. I believe we can agree that the Committee on Agriculture 
could be successful in asserting a right to a sequential 
referral of such bill.
    The Committee on Agriculture recognizes the general 
importance of this legislation. Also, as you know as one of the 
Committees with jurisdiction over wetlands and other programs 
related to the activities of the Department of Agriculture, 
this Committee is interested in the provisions of H.R. 961.
    The Committee on Agriculture, in subtitles A and C of the 
Food Security Act of 1985, and in amendments to those subtitles 
in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, 
addressed the issues of wetlands as regards farmers and 
producers of agricultural commodities. Furthermore, the 
Committee expects to hold hearings and amend title XII of the 
Food Security Act of 1985 in the consideration of the 1995 Farm 
Bill later in this Session.
    However, in the interest expediting the consideration of 
H.R. 961, I do not intend to request a sequential referral of 
the bill to the Committee. However, I would appreciate 
receiving assurances that certain of the agreements worked-out 
between our respective staffs will be effected to our 
satisfaction without the need for a Floor amendment by this 
Committee. Meanwhile, my action here is not intended to waive 
the Committee's jurisdiction over this matter, and should this 
legislation go to a House-Senate Conference, the Committee on 
Agriculture reserves the right to request to be included as 
conferees on any provisions within this Committee's 
jurisdiction.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                             Pat Roberts, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 1995.
Hon. Pat Roberts,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Longworth 
        Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 2, 
1995, regarding a bill reported by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, H.R. 961, to amend the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
    I appreciate the interest that the Committee on Agriculture 
has in this important legislation. As your letter indicates, 
the Committee could be successful in asserting a right to a 
sequential referral of H.R. 961. Therefore, I am most 
appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in 
the interest of expediting consideration of the bill.
    You have my assurance that agreements worked out by our 
respective staffs will be included in a manager's amendment as 
we take the bill to the House floor.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for your 
support of this legislation.
    With kind regards, I am
            Sincerely,
                                             Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                                     Committee on Commerce,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 1995.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House 
        Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Shuster: I am writing to thank you for your 
cooperation in addressing several issues of interest to the 
Commerce Committee in H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 
1995, which the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
marked up and ordered reported to the House on April 6, 1995.
    With respect to section 409 of H.R. 961, it is the position 
of the Commerce Committee that, pursuant to Rule X of the Rules 
of the House, section 409 directly affects provisions of 
statutes within the Committee's jurisdiction. In particular, 
section 409 would create a new waste remediation program which 
may be inconsistent with authorities under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA).
    In view of your desire to move H.R. 961 to the Floor in an 
expeditious fashion, I do not intend to seek a sequential 
referral of H.R. 961. However, I would appreciate your 
acknowledgement of the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction over 
section 409 and an acknowledgement of the Commerce Committee's 
right to seek conferees in the event that this legislation is 
considered in a House-Senate conference. The Commerce Committee 
will refrain from seeking a sequential referral of H.R. 961 
with the understanding that this action will not in any way 
compromise the Committee's jurisdiction with respect to any 
amendments offered to the bill during consideration by the 
House and with respect to any Senate amendments thereto. I 
would further request that our exchange of letters on this 
matter be included in the Committee's report on H.R. 961.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look 
forward to working with you in the future, both on this bill 
and other legislation of mutual interest to our two Committees.
    With every good wish,
            Sincerely,
                                   Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.
                                ------                                

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 1995.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Rayburn 
        Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 2, 
1995, regarding H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, 
reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
    I appreciate the interest that the Committee on Commerce 
has in this important legislation. As your letter indicates, 
the Committee could be successful in asserting a right to a 
sequential referral of section 409, relating to abandoned 
mines. Therefore, I am most appreciative of your decision not 
to request such a referral in the interest of expediting 
consideration of the bill.
    You have my assurance that agreements worked out by our 
respective staffs will be included in a manager's amendment as 
we take the bill to the House floor. I also recognize your 
Committee's right to seek conferees on section 409, as 
currently written in H.R. 961.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for your 
support of this legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                            Bud Schuster, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                       Washington, DC, May 3, 1995.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House 
        Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the opportunity to review 
H.R. 961 on behalf of the Resources Committee before the filing 
of the report by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. Having participated in the three days of markup 
in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on H.R. 961, 
I understand the need to move this legislation forward quickly 
to achieve the many reforms made by the bill. Furthermore, I am 
sure that you share my concern that without reauthorization, 
appropriations for vital Clean Water Act programs are in 
jeopardy.
    The Resources Committee has a valid claim to jurisdiction 
of a number of provisions in H.R. 961. While I do not intend to 
request a sequential referral, this in no way should be viewed 
as diminishing the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. I 
seek your agreement on four specific jurisdictional items.
    First, the Resources Committee recognizes that the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has primary 
jurisdiction over the coastal nonpoint pollution program 
established in section 6217 of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990. The Resources Committee is entitled 
to a sequential referral of section 319(n)(1), which repeals 
section 6217, because it affects programs and activities in its 
jurisdiction. This does not, however, expand, diminish, or 
otherwise affect jurisdiction over other nonpoint source water 
pollution programs.
    Second, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has 
primary jurisdiction over the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act and, in particular, section 404 relating to wetlands. The 
Resources Committee has primary jurisdiction over various 
programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Interior 
relating to wetlands protection and conservation. The Resources 
Committee has the right to a sequential referral over 
provisions of the bill relating to wetlands based on its 
jurisdiction over fisheries and wildlife.
    Third, section 320 of the Clean Water Act establishes the 
National Estuary program. While the management conferences 
authorized under that program are principally concerned with 
water quality matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, one of the purposes of a 
management conference is to develop a comprehensive 
conservation and management plan for the estuary. Because this 
impacts the Resource Committee's jurisdiction over coastal zone 
management, the Resources Committee would have an interest in 
the amendments in section 320 of the bill.
    Finally, section 104 establishes a grant program and 
section 409 establishes a permitting program for remediation of 
abandoned or inactive mine sites from which there is a 
discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters. The Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) establishes 
a fund and a program for reclamation and restoration of land 
and water resources adversely affected by past coal mining. The 
Resources Committee is entitled to a sequential referral of 
sections 104 and 409 to the extent that they are inconsistent 
with SMCRA.
    It has been an honor to work with you on this legislation 
and I look forward to continuing to work together as we move 
the bill through the House.
            Sincerely,
                                               Don Young, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
                                       Washington, DC, May 3, 1995.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 2 
regarding H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. I 
appreciate your cooperation in not insisting on a sequential 
referral, so that we can proceed expeditiously to take the bill 
up on the House floor next week.
    I agree that the Resources Committee has a valid claim to 
jurisdiction of a number of provisions in H.R. 961. 
Specifically, I concur with your statements relating to coastal 
nonpoint pollution, wetlands, the national estuaries program, 
and abandoned or inactive mine sites.
    Again, thank you for your cooperation and assistance, and I 
look forward to continuing to work with you as we proceed.
    With warm regards, I remain
            Sincerely,
                                             Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
Washington, DC, May 3, 1995.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 3, 
1995. I understand you concerns about moving expeditiously to 
reauthorize important Federal water resource programs.
    Based on your letter, and your stated willingness to work 
together to address any differences the Science Committee may 
have with the provision of the bill outlined in your letter, I 
have informed the Speaker of the House of Representatives that 
the Science Committee is no longer requesting a sequential 
referral on H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendment of 1995.
    As I informed the Speaker, the Science Committee has a 
valid jurisdictional claim to a number of the provisions in 
H.R. 961. The Committee continues to maintain these 
jurisdictional claims and its willingness to forgo a sequential 
referral on the bill should in no way be construed as a waiver 
of its jurisdiction.
    Thank you again for your letter. I look forward to working 
with you to address any difference our two Committee's may have 
concerning provision in H.R. 961 over which we share 
jurisdiction.
            Cordially,
                                        Robert S. Walker, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                       Washington, DC, May 3, 1995.
Hon. Robert Walker,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your expeditious 
consideration of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. 
This bill makes important reforms in the Clean Water Act and 
has strong bipartisan support as well as the support of a broad 
coalition of state and local officials and business and 
agriculture groups. It is important that we not have sequential 
referrals on this bill so that we can proceed to the House 
Floor next week.
    The Science Committee has a valid jurisdictional claim to a 
number of the provisions in H.R. 961. I understand that you 
will withdraw the referral request for the Science Committee on 
this bill. I agree that this in no way should be viewed as a 
waiver of the Science Committee's jurisdictional claims to the 
bill. We will support your request for conferees on matters 
within your jurisdiction.
    Under Rule X, 1(n) of Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Science Committee has jurisdiction over 
``all bills, resolutions, and other matters relating to . . .
    ``(4) Environmental research and development.''
    ``(5) Marine research.''
    Specifically, the Committee on Science has jurisdiction 
over the following provisions of H.R. 961:
          Section 102, Research, Investigations, Training, and 
        Information, amends Section 104 of the Federal Water 
        Pollution Control Act. Section 104 includes water 
        quality research and historically has been within the 
        Science Committee's jurisdiction.
          Section 107 (a) establishes the Great Lakes Research 
        Council. Section 107 (d)(1) authorizes appropriations 
        which are available for research, among other things.
          Section 320, National Estuary Program, to the extent 
        that the funding authorized by this section is 
        available for Section 320 (j), Research.
          Section 323, Risk Assessment and Disclosure 
        Requirements, to the extent that it prescribes the 
        contents of risk assessments.
          Section 702, John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water 
        Research Laboratory, renames a water research 
        laboratory established under Section 104 (e) of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1254 
        (e)). The laboratory is in an environmental research 
        facility and falls within the jurisdiction of the 
        Science Committee.
    Again, I appreciate your cooperation and expeditious 
consideration of this matter and I look forward to continuing 
to work with you on this bill.
    With warm regards, I remain
            Sincerely,
                                             Bud Shuster, Chairman.

                                
