[House Report 105-237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    105-237
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                COASTAL POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT OF 1997

_______________________________________________________________________


 August 1, 1997.--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

                        [To accompany H.R. 2207]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 2207) to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act concerning a proposal to construct a deep 
ocean outfall off the coast of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Coastal Pollution Reduction Act of 
1997''.

SEC. 2. MAYAGUEZ, PUERTO RICO.

  (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
          (1) The existing discharge from the Mayaguez publicly owned 
        treatment works is to the stressed waters of Mayaguez Bay, an 
        area containing severely degraded coral reefs, and relocation 
        of that discharge to unstressed ocean waters could benefit the 
        marine environment.
          (2) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act should, 
        consistent with the environmental goals of the Act, be 
        administered with sufficient flexibility to take into 
        consideration the unique characteristics of Mayaguez, Puerto 
        Rico.
          (3) Some deep ocean areas off the coastline of Mayaguez, 
        Puerto Rico, might be able to receive a less-than-secondary 
        sewage discharge while still maintaining healthy and diverse 
        marine life.
          (4) A properly designed and operated deep ocean outfall off 
        the coast of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, coupled with other 
        pollution reduction activities in the Mayaguez Watershed could 
        facilitate compliance with the requirements and purposes of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act without the need for more 
        costly treatment.
          (5) The owner or operator of the Mayaguez publicly owned 
        treatment works should be afforded an opportunity to make the 
        necessary scientific studies and submit an application 
        proposing use of a deep ocean outfall for review by the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under 
        section 301(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  (b) Application for Secondary Treatment Waiver for Mayaguez, Puerto 
Rico, Deep Ocean Outfall.--Section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
  ``(q) Application for Waiver.--
          ``(1) Study.--In order to be eligible to apply for a waiver 
        under this section, the owner or operator of the Mayaguez, 
        Puerto Rico, publicly owned treatment works shall transmit to 
        the Administrator a report on the results of a study of the 
        marine environment of coastal areas in the Mayaguez area to 
        determine the feasibility of constructing a deep ocean outfall 
        for the Mayaguez treatment works. In conducting the study, the 
        owner or operator shall consider variations in the currents, 
        tidal movement, and other hydrological and geological 
        characteristics at any proposed outfall location. Such study 
        may recommend one or more technically feasible and 
        environmentally acceptable locations for a deep ocean outfall 
        intended to meet the requirements of subsection (h). Such study 
        may be initiated, expanded, or continued not later than 3 
        months after the date of the enactment of this subsection.
          ``(2) Section 301(h) application for mayaguez, puerto rico.--
        Notwithstanding subsection (j)(1)(A), not later than 18 months 
        after the date of the enactment of this subsection, an 
        application may be submitted for a modification pursuant to 
        subsection (h) of the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) by 
        the owner or operator of the Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, publicly 
        owned treatment works at a location recommended in a study 
        conducted pursuant to paragraph (1). Such application shall not 
        be subject to the application revision procedures of section 
        125.59(d) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations. No such 
        application may be filed unless and until the applicant has 
        entered into a binding consent decree with the United States 
        that includes, at a minimum, the following:
                  ``(A) A schedule and milestones to ensure expeditious 
                compliance with the requirements of subsection 
                (b)(1)(B) in the event the requested modification is 
                denied, including interim effluent limits and design 
                activities to be undertaken while the application is 
                pending.
                  ``(B) A schedule and interim milestones to ensure 
                expeditious compliance with the requirements of any 
                modification of subsection (b)(1)(B) in the event the 
                requested modification is approved.
                  ``(C) A commitment by the applicant to contribute not 
                less than $400,000 to the Mayaguez Watershed Initiative 
                in accordance with such schedules as may be specified 
                in the consent decree.
          ``(3) Initial determination.--On or before the 270th day 
        after the date of submittal of an application under paragraph 
        (2) that has been deemed complete by the Administrator, the 
        Administrator shall issue to the applicant a tentative 
        determination regarding the requested modification.
          ``(4) Final determination.--On or before the 270th day after 
        the date of issuance of the tentative determination under 
        paragraph (3), the Administrator shall issue a final 
        determination regarding the modification.
          ``(5) Additional condition.--The Administrator may not grant 
        a modification pursuant to an application submitted under this 
        subsection unless the Administrator determines that the new 
        deep water ocean outfall will use a well-designed and operated 
        diffuser that discharges into unstressed ocean waters and is 
        situated so as to avoid discharge (or transport of discharged 
        pollutants) to coral reefs, other sensitive marine resources or 
        recreational areas, and shorelines.
          ``(6) Effectiveness.--If a modification is granted pursuant 
        to an application submitted under this subsection, such 
        modification shall be effective only if the new deepwater ocean 
        outfall is operational on or before the date that is 4\1/2\ 
        years after the date of the Administrator's initial tentative 
        determination on the application.''.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

  (a) Grants for Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans.--
Section 320(g)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
1330(g)(2)) is amended by inserting ``and implementation'' after 
``development''.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(i) of such Act (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 1997, and 
$20,000,000 for fiscal year 1998''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2207, the ``Coastal Pollution Reduction Act of 1997,'' 
has two basic purposes. The first is to allow Mayaguez, Puerto 
Rico to apply to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
for an alternative to ``secondary treatment'' requirements 
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act 
or Act), subject to various conditions and criteria intended to 
protect the environment. Specifically, the bill would amend 
section 301 of the Act to allow the publicly owned treatment 
works (POTW) in Mayaguez to apply for a waiver of secondary 
treatment requirements, and to meet the requirements of section 
301(h) by satisfying requirements of section 301, in 
combination with the construction and operation of a deep ocean 
outfall. A second purpose of H.R. 2207 is to improve efforts to 
implement the Clean Water Act's National Estuary Program. 
Specifically, the bill would amend section 320 of the Act to 
allow grants to be used for implementation of comprehensive 
conservation and management plans developed under that program, 
and to authorize the section 320 program for FY 1998 at a level 
of $20 million.

                          Background and Need

    Section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act, enacted in 
1972, requires POTWs to achieve ``secondary treatment,'' which 
is defined in regulations to include, among other things, the 
removal of 85% or more of biochemical oxygen demand and total 
suspended solids. The 1972 amendments required POTWs to achieve 
secondary treatment capability by 1977. After passage of the 
1972 Act, some municipalities with POTWs that discharged into 
marine waters argued this requirement might be unnecessary on 
the grounds that such POTWs usually discharge into deeper 
waters with large tides and substantial currents, which allow 
for greater dilution and dispersion than their freshwater 
counterparts.
    In response, Congress added section 301(h) to the Act in 
1977, allowing for a case-by-case review of treatment 
requirements for marine dischargers and providing for the 
opportunity for a waiver of the secondary treatment 
requirements for those discharges that applied by September 13, 
1979. Eligible POTW applicants that met the set of 
environmentally stringent criteria in section 301(h) would 
receive a modified section 402 National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit waiving the secondary 
treatment requirements under section 301. In 1981, Congress 
amended section 301 to extend the application deadline to 
December 31, 1982. In 1987, Congress amended section 301, 
adding a number of new requirements and prohibitions to the 
program, but not modifying the 1982 deadline for new 
applications.
    In 1994, Congress enacted legislation (P.L. 103-431) to 
allow the City of San Diego, California to apply for a section 
301(h) waiver. This legislation, known as the Ocean Discharge 
Reduction Act, responded to concerns about the cost of 
secondary treatment at the City's Point Loma POTW and to 
recommendations within the scientific community that 
chemically-enhanced primary treatment, coupled with other 
measures, would not harm the marine environment.
    In fact, in 1993 the National Research Council of the 
National Academy of Sciences issued a report ``Managing 
Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas'' that included several 
findings and recommendations relevant to the issue of whether 
secondary treatment is always necessary to protect the ocean 
environment. Specifically, the Council found that a flexible, 
integrated approach to coastal management (known as 
``integrated coastal management'' or ICM), relying on a wide-
array of management strategies, offered beneficial solutions in 
a cost-effective manner.
    The Council found that a technology-based approach--such as 
secondary treatment--would not necessarily be cost-effective or 
appropriate by itself in certain marine environments under 
specified conditions. ICM is an ecologically based, iterative 
process for identifying, at a regional scale, environmental 
objectives and cost-effective strategies for achieving them. It 
requires that all sources of pollutants be considered in the 
development of regional strategies, and that polices be 
integrated across all media, taking account of environmental 
impacts on water, air, and land. For example, advanced primary 
treatment, coupled with other measures to prevent or manage 
wastewater, nonpoint sources and stormwater, in combination 
with controls in other media, could protect the marine 
environment adequately and in a more cost-effective manner, 
according to the report.
    The Council found that reduction or elimination of 
pollutants at their sources is an effective tool for managing 
both point and nonpoint sources. Consistent with this finding, 
and the requirements of section 301, the Committee expects the 
POTW--or more specifically, the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer 
Authority (PRASA)--to implement necessary pretreatment 
requirements expeditiously.
    In Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, the POTW is not currently meeting 
secondary treatment but has signed a consent decree to do so. 
Because of various environmental and economic considerations, 
PRASA wants to pursue a deep ocean outfall alternative. For 
example, PRASA claims it could achieve significant savings ($65 
to $85 million) if allowed to pursue an outfall rather than a 
new secondary treatment plant. PRASA, however, would first need 
to obtain a section 301(h) waiver and the Act currently 
prohibits EPA from receiving new applications after December 
31, 1982.
    H.R. 2207 is designed to respond to the concerns of PRASA 
and others in Mayaguez and to be consistent with findings and 
recommendations of the National Research Council's 1993 report.
    H.R. 2207 also responds to the concerns and recommendations 
of the environmental community and the many coastal communities 
and other participants involved in the Clean Water Act's 
National Estuary Program. The program's authorization expired 
at the end of FY 1991, although the program has continued 
toreceive annual appropriations. In addition, there has been growing 
support over the years to broaden the eligible uses of section 320 
grants to include implementation of comprehensive conservation and 
management plans rather than solely development of the plans.

      Discussion of Committee Bill and Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 identifies the short title of the Act as the 
``Coastal Pollution Reduction Act of 1997.''

Section 2. Mayaguez, Puerto Rico

    Section 2 identifies the findings of Congress regarding 
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico and amends Section 301 of the Clean Water 
Act to enable the POTW in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, within 18 
months of enactment of the section, to apply for a waiver under 
section 301(h) to construct and operate a deep ocean outfall in 
lieu of secondary treatment. Section 2 of the bill does not 
weaken the criteria for issuance of a waiver or override the 
judgment of EPA; it does, however, add requirements intended to 
provide additional protection for the Mayaguez Watershed. The 
Committee believes the Mayaguez POTW should demonstrate support 
for activities to help protect and restore the Mayaguez 
Watershed.
    Subsection (a) findings recognize the need to apply 
flexibility when implementing the Clean Water Act to take into 
consideration the unique conditions in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. 
The present outfall location discharges to stressed waters 
containing degraded coral reefs; relocation to a deep ocean 
area off the coastline might benefit the marine environment.
    Subsection (b) of the bill amends section 301 of the Clean 
Water Act by adding a new subsection (q). New subsection (q) 
would allow a waiver application under section 301(h) under 
specified criteria and conditions, and allows EPA to review the 
proposal.
    This provision requires the Mayaguez POTW, in order to be 
eligible to apply for a 301(h) waiver, to report the results of 
a study of the marine environment of the coastal areas of 
Mayaguez to determine the feasibility of and acceptable 
locations for constructing a deep ocean outfall for the POTW. 
The report on the results of the study may be transmitted as an 
appendix to the application submitted under this subsection. 
The study must consider--in addition to other criteria under 
section 301(h) of the Act--the variations in currents, tidal 
movement, and other hydrological and geological characteristics 
in order to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act and to 
ensure that the discharge will not be detrimental at either the 
proposed outfall point or other nearby ecosystems, including 
the coral reefs of Mayaguez Bay. The study should also consider 
means of constructing the outfall that will avoid or minimize 
any adverse effects to the environment. The study is to be 
initiated, expanded, or continued not later than 3 months after 
enactment.
    This provision also specifies additional conditions that 
must be met prior to submission of a waiver application. The 
applicant must enter into a binding consent decree with the 
United States which, at a minimum, must meet the requirements 
listed in section 301(q)(2)(A-C). These requirements recognize 
the importance of ensuring expeditious compliance and provide 
conditions that must be met in the event the modification 
application is denied or approved. They also require the 
applicant to contribute $400,000 to the Mayaguez Watershed 
Initiative.
    Once submitted, the application is not subject to the 
application revision procedures of section 125.59(d) of title 
40, Code of Federal Regulations. This condition allows the 
Mayaguez POTW to submit only one proposed outfall location in 
order to help expedite the process and minimize the 
administrative burden on EPA. Although PRASA would be unable to 
submit a revised application, the EPA would retain the ability 
to work with PRASA to modify the proposal within the scope of 
the original application as part of the normal process. In 
addition, the provision is not intended to modify or exclude 
any of the other requirements of section 125 of title 40, Code 
of Federal Regulations, including public participation or 
environmental review criteria. In fact, the Committee is aware 
of some controversy or opposition surrounding the section 
301(h) waiver proposal and reiterates the need for EPA to 
provide adequate opportunities for public participation.
    Under subsection (b), EPA is required to make an initial or 
tentative determination on or before the 270th day after 
submission of a complete application. A final determination 
must be issued on or before the 270th day after the issuance of 
the tentative determination. The secondary treatment 
requirements from which PRASA seeks a waiver required 
compliance by July 1, 1988. The Committee encourages EPA to 
make prompt decisions on any application so as not to further 
delay improvements in water quality and protection of the coral 
reef.
    Section 2 places an additional condition on granting the 
modification. The Administrator must determine that the deep 
ocean outfall uses a well-designed and operated diffuser that 
discharges into unstressed waters and is situated to avoid 
discharge to coral reefs, other sensitive marine resources, or 
recreational areas, and shorelines. This condition, which is in 
addition to other criteria and conditions in 40 CFR 125 Subpart 
G, is intended to help ensure that healthy and diverse marine 
life is maintained and additional damage to recreation areas is 
prevented. The Committee also expects that any construction of 
a deep ocean outfall will be conducted in a manner that avoids 
or minimizes adverse impacts to the environment.
    Finally, new subsection (q) provides the permit 
modification is effective only if the new deep ocean outfall is 
operational on or before 4\1/2\ years after the Administrator's 
initial tentative determination.
    The Committee-reported bill does not include a provision in 
the introduced bill relating to the payment and use of an 
application fee. The Committee does not believe it is 
necessary, or appropriate, to include language specifying the 
amount of a fee, the method of payment, and the deposit and use 
of such payment. However, the Committee fully expects the 
applicant and EPA to agree upon the specifics of the payment 
and use of an application fee. If the parties are not willing 
or able to resolve these matters, the Committee will consider 
revisiting the issues legislatively.

Section 3. National Estuary Program

    Section 3 amends section 320 of the Clean Water Act to 
allow for the use of Federal funds for implementation, as 
opposed to just development, of comprehensive conservation and 
management plans (CCMP) under subsection (g)(2) and authorizes 
appropriations for the program under subsection (i) at $20 
million for FY 1998. The Committee believes CCMP implementation 
is an appropriate use of section 320 funds. However, this 
broadening of uses should not be construed as a shift in 
responsibility from non-Federal interests to the Federal 
Government. State, local, regional, private and other non-
Federal interests are primarily responsible for the 
implementation and success of the program and its CCMPs.

               Hearings and Previous Legislative Activity

    On July 9, 1997, the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee held a hearing on ``Ocean and Coastal Issues.'' 
Testimony was given by, among others, Representative Carlos A. 
Romero-Barcelo (PR); Mr. Michael L. Davis, Corps of Engineers; 
Mr. Robert H. Wayland, III, Environmental Protection Agency; 
and Mr. Jeffrey Benoit, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration.
    Rep. Romero-Barcelo testified in support of his legislative 
proposal (subsequently introduced as H.R. 2207). The Puerto 
Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority submitted materials for the 
record in support of the legislative proposal. The Mayaguezanos 
por la Salud y el Ambiente submitted materials for the record 
in opposition to the legislative proposal.
    The Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee also held 
a hearing April 23, 1997 on ``Meeting Clean Water and Drinking 
Water Needs'' that addressed, in part, coastal pollution. John 
Atkin of Save the Sound, Inc., and as a member of the board of 
directors of Restore America's Estuaries, testified in support 
of the Clean Water Act's National Estuary Program and the need 
to help with the implementation of CCMPs.
    In the 104th Congress, the Committee included in H.R. 961, 
the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, similar provisions 
addressing section 301(h) waivers for Puerto Rico and the 
reauthorization of section 320's National Estuary Program.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 23, 1997, the Committee ordered the bill reported 
by voice vote. Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-NY), 
Chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
amendment made technical and clarifying changes to the 
introduced bill relating to Mayaguez, as well as additional 
changes based on the views of EPA, environmental interests, and 
others. The amendment also included the amendments to section 
320 of the Clean Water Act. The Committee, in compliance with 
Rule XI, clause 2(1) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, reports favorably the bill, H.R. 2207, as 
amended.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

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

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    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.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 29, 1997.
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 cost estimate for H.R. 2207, the Coastal 
Pollution Reduction Act of 1997.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kim Cawley 
(for federal costs) and Pepper Santalucia (for the state and 
local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2207--Coastal Pollution Reduction Act of 1997

    Summary: The bill would authorize the appropriation of $20 
million in 1998 for grants to states under the national estuary 
program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Assuming 
appropriation of the authorized amount, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 2207 would result in additional discretionary 
spending of $20 million over the 1998-1999 period. H.R. 2207 
also would amend the Clean Water Act to allow the waste water 
treatment plant in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, to apply to EPA for a 
waiver from the requirement for secondary treatment of waste 
water discharges.
    The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 2207 
contains in intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), and 
would not impose any costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated costs to the Federal Government: For the purposes 
of this estimate, CBO assumes that the $20 million authorized 
in section 3 of H.R. 2207 will be appropriated by the start of 
fiscal year 1998 and that outlays will follow the historical 
spending patterns for EPA's grants to states. Implementing 
section 2, relating to Puerto Rico, would not have a 
significant cost to the federal government. The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2207 is shown in the following table.

                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                       
                                                                                                                
Spending under current law:                                                                                     
    Budget authority\1\.............................        11         0         0         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................        11         6         0         0         0         0
Proposed changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization level.............................         0        20         0         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................         0        10        10         0         0         0
Spending under H.R. 2207:                                                                                       
    Authorization level \1\.........................        11        20         0         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................        11        16        10         0         0         0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1997 level is the amount appropriated for that year.                                                    

    The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 
300 (natural resources and environment).
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 2207 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA, and would not impose any costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments. The bill would allow the waste water treatment 
plant in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, to apply for a waiver from 
requirements for secondary treatment of waste water discharges. 
If EPA were to approve the waiver application, the plant would 
be allowed to use less costly treatment and discharge 
techniques.
    The bill would also authorize appropriations of $20 million 
in 1998 for grants to states under EPA's national estuary 
program. Under current law, these grants provide up to 75 
percent of the funds to develop conservation and management 
plans for estuaries. The bill would also modify the program to 
allow states to use grant funds to implement the plans.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would 
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimated prepare by: Federal Costs: Kim Cawley; Impact on 
State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Pepper Santalucia.
    Estimated approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy 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 operations of our 
national economy. The Committee has determined that H.R. 2207 
has no inflationary impact on the national economy.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause (2)(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint 
resolution of a public character shall include a statement 
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the 
Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

         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 III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

          * * * * * * *

                          effluent limitations

      Sec. 301. (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (q) Application for Waiver.--
          (1) Study.--In order to be eligible to apply for a 
        waiver under this section, the owner or operator of the 
        Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, publicly owned treatment works 
        shall transmit to the Administrator a report on the 
        results of a study of the marine environment of coastal 
        areas in the Mayaguez area to determine the feasibility 
        of constructing a deep ocean outfall for the Mayaguez 
        treatment works. In conducting the study, the owner or 
        operator shall consider variations in the currents, 
        tidal movement, and other hydrological and geological 
        characteristics at any proposed outfall location. Such 
        study may recommend one or more technically feasible 
        and environmentally acceptable locations for a deep 
        ocean outfall intended to meet the requirements of 
        subsection (h). Such study may be initiated, expanded, 
        or continued not later than 3 months after the date of 
        the enactment of this subsection.
          (2) Section 301(h) application for mayaguez, puerto 
        rico.--Notwithstanding subsection (j)(1)(A), not later 
        than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this 
        subsection, an application may be submitted for a 
        modification pursuant to subsection (h) of the 
        requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) by the owner or 
        operator of the Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, publicly owned 
        treatment works at a location recommended in a study 
        conducted pursuant to paragraph (1). Such application 
        shall not be subject to the application revision 
        procedures of section 125.59(d) of title 40, Code of 
        Federal Regulations. No such application may be filed 
        unless and until the applicant has entered into a 
        binding consent decree with the United States that 
        includes, at a minimum, the following:
                  (A) A schedule and milestones to ensure 
                expeditious compliance with the requirements of 
                subsection (b)(1)(B) in the event the requested 
                modification is denied, including interim 
                effluent limits and design activities to be 
                undertaken while the application is pending.
                  (B) A schedule and interim milestones to 
                ensure expeditious compliance with the 
                requirements of any modification of subsection 
                (b)(1)(B) in the event the requested 
                modification is approved.
                  (C) A commitment by the applicant to 
                contribute not less than $400,000 to the 
                Mayaguez Watershed Initiative in accordance 
                with such schedules as may be specified in the 
                consent decree.
          (3) Initial determination.--On or before the 270th 
        day after the date of submittal of an application under 
        paragraph (2) that has been deemed complete by the 
        Administrator, the Administrator shall issue to the 
        applicant a tentative determination regarding the 
        requested modification.
          (4) Final determination.--On or before the 270th day 
        after the date of issuance of the tentative 
        determination under paragraph (3), the Administrator 
        shall issue a final determination regarding the 
        modification.
          (5) Additional condition.--The Administrator may not 
        grant a modification pursuant to an application 
        submitted under this subsection unless the 
        Administrator determines that the new deep water ocean 
        outfall will use a well-designed and operated diffuser 
        that discharges into unstressed ocean waters and is 
        situated so as to avoid discharge (or transport of 
        discharged pollutants) to coral reefs, other sensitive 
        marine resources or recreational areas, and shorelines.
          (6) Effectiveness.--If a modification is granted 
        pursuant to an application submitted under this 
        subsection, such modification shall be effective only 
        if the new deepwater ocean outfall is operational on or 
        before the date that is 4\1/2\ years after the date of 
        the Administrator's initial tentative determination on 
        the application.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

      (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
      (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 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 1997, and 
$20,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 for--
          (1) expenses related to the administration of 
        management conferences under this section, not to 
        exceed 10 percent of the amount appropriated under this 
        subsection;
          (2) making grants under subsection (g); and
          (3) monitoring the implementation of a conservation 
        and management plan by the management conference or by 
        the Administrator, in any case in which the conference 
        has been terminated.
The Administrator shall provide up to $5,000,000 per fiscal 
year of the sums authorized to be appropriated under this 
subsection to the Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out subsection (j).
          * * * * * * *
                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                    Washington, DC, August 1, 1997.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to review H.R. 
2207 as reported from the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure on July 23, 1997. Section 3 of that bill amends 
the authorizing legislation for the National Estuary Program 
by: (1) reauthorizing the program through fiscal year 1998, and 
authorizing an $8 million increase in funding for fiscal year 
1998; and (2) allowing Federal funds to be used to implement 
comprehensive management plans developed for the National 
Estuaries.
    I appreciate your consultation on this provision and am by 
this letter waiving the Committee on Resources' jurisdiction 
over Section 3 of the bill. However, I am still concerned about 
the effect that Federal funding of implementation of these 
management plans will have on private property and would like 
to engage in a colloquy on this subject when H.R. 2207 is 
brought to the Floor. In addition, this waiver should not be 
considered as waiving the Committee on Resources jurisdiction 
over any similar provision in the future and I reserve the 
right to request conferees from the Committee on Resources on 
this portion of H.R. 2207 should a conference become necessary.
            Sincerely,
                                               Don Young, Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                    Washington, DC, August 1, 1997.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of August 1, 
1997 regarding H.R. 2207, as ordered reported by the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure on July 23, 1997.
    I appreciate your support of this legislation and 
cooperation with regard to Section 3. I would be happy to 
engage in a colloquy with you regarding these provisions when 
the legislation is brought to the House floor.
    With kind personal regards, I am
            Sincerely,
                                             Bud Shuster, Chairman.