[House Report 117-41]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


117th Congress     }                                   {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session       }                                   {       117-41

======================================================================



 
                    OCEAN POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT II

                                _______
                                

  May 28, 2021.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 587]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 587) to modify permitting 
requirements with respect to the discharge of any pollutant 
from the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant in certain 
circumstances, and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose of Legislation...........................................     1
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     5
Legislative History and Consideration............................     5
Committee Votes..................................................     5
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     6
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     6
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     7
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     8
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff 
  Benefits.......................................................     8
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     8
Preemption Clarification.........................................     8
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     8
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     8
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................     8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9

                         PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION

    The purpose of H.R. 587, the ``Ocean Pollution Reduction 
Act II,'' introduced by Representative Scott Peters (D-CA), is 
to provide an alternative process for the City of San Diego to 
comply with the Clean Water Act's permitting requirements for 
the continued operation of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment 
Plant, while ensuring continued reductions of pollutant 
discharges and greater use of reclaimed wastewater associated 
with the plant.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    H.R. 587 seeks to clarify that the City of San Diego, 
California, can utilize the standard Clean Water Act National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal 
process and does not need a variance application to continue 
operating the E.W. Blom Point Loma Metropolitan Wastewater 
Treatment Plant (``Point Loma Plant'') and the Point Loma Ocean 
Outfall, subject to the implementation of the permitting 
requirements specified in the bill.

The Clean Water Act

    The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly 
known as the Clean Water Act, prohibits the discharge of 
pollutants into navigable waters unless such discharges are 
covered by a federal permit as well as establishes national 
minimum standards for certain discharges, including discharges 
from publicly owned treatment works.\1\ Section 301(b)(1)(B)\2\ 
of the Clean Water Act requires that all publicly owned 
treatment works in existence as of July 1, 1977, achieve 
effluent limitations based on secondary treatment standards, 
established by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), and defined pursuant to section 
304(d)(1) of the Act.\3\ These limitations and standards are 
implemented through an NPDES permit, issued either by the EPA 
Administrator or an approved state program, pursuant to section 
402 of the Clean Water Act.\4\ The state of California is 
currently approved to implement the Clean Water Act NPDES 
program in the state.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See 33 U.S.C. 1311(a).
    \2\See 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(B).
    \3\See https://www.epa.gov/npdes/secondary-treatment-standards. 
Secondary treatment is defined in the regulation (40 CFR Part 133) in 
terms of effluent quality for total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical 
oxygen demand (BOD), and pH; see also 33 U.S.C. 1314(d)(1).
    \4\See 33 U.S.C. 1342.
    \5\See https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-state-program-authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act also includes a 
process for certain publicly owned treatment works that 
discharge into marine waters to continue to operate under a 
Clean Water Act NPDES permit with a limited variance from the 
secondary treatment standards. Section 301(h) authorizes the 
EPA Administrator, with state concurrence, to issue such an 
NPDES variance for discharges that meet the requirements of 
that subsection.\6\ EPA regulations implementing section 301(h) 
require that NPDES variances under section 301(h) must also 
comply with applicable provisions of state, local, or other 
federal laws or Executive Orders, including the Coastal Zone 
Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.); the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and Title III of 
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 
1431 et seq.).\7\ NPDES permits, including those issued with a 
301(h) variance, have a duration of five years and must be 
renewed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\33 U.S.C. 1311(h); the statutory requirements for a 301(h) 
variance are that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        (1) there is an applicable water quality standard 
      specific to the pollutant for which the modification is 
      requested;
        (2) the discharge of pollutants in accordance with such 
      modified requirements will not interfere, alone or in 
      combination with pollutants from other sources, with the 
      attainment or maintenance of that water quality which 
      assures protection of public water supplies and the 
      protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous 
      population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allows 
      recreational activities, in and on the water;
        (3) the applicant has established a system for monitoring 
      the impact of such discharge on a representative sample of 
      aquatic biota, to the extent practicable, and the scope of 
      such monitoring is limited to include only those scientific 
      investigations which are necessary to study the effects of 
      the proposed discharge;
        (4) such modified requirements will not result in any 
      additional requirements on any other point or nonpoint 
      source;
        (5) all applicable pretreatment requirements for sources 
      introducing waste into such treatment works will be 
      enforced;
        (6) in the case of any treatment works serving a 
      population of 50,000 or more, with respect to any toxic 
      pollutant introduced into such works by an industrial 
      discharger for which pollutant there is no applicable 
      pretreatment requirement in effect, sources introducing 
      waste into such works are in compliance with all applicable 
      pretreatment requirements, the applicant will enforce such 
      requirements, and the applicant has in effect a 
      pretreatment program which, in combination with the 
      treatment of discharges from such works, removes the same 
      amount of such pollutant as would be removed if such works 
      were to apply secondary treatment to discharges and if such 
      works had no pretreatment program with respect to such 
      pollutant;
        (7) to the extent practicable, the applicant has 
      established a schedule of activities designed to eliminate 
      the entrance of toxic pollutants from nonindustrial sources 
      into such treatment works;
        (8) here will be no new or substantially increased 
      discharges from the point source of the pollutant to which 
      the modification applies above that volume of discharge 
      specified in the permit; and
        (9) the applicant at the time such modification becomes 
      effective will be discharging effluent which has received 
      at least primary or equivalent treatment and which meets 
      the criteria established under section 304(a)(1) of the Act 
      after initial mixing in the waters surrounding or adjacent 
      to the point at which such effluent is discharged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\See 40 CFR 125, Subpart G.
    \8\See 33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant

    The Point Loma Plant, located in San Diego, California, 
began operations in 1963.\9\ The Plant treats approximately 175 
million gallons of wastewater per day, generated in a 450-
square-mile area by more than 2.2 million residents.\10\ The 
Point Loma Plant operates as a chemically-assisted primary 
treatment plant, and is the terminal treatment facility 
discharging to the Point Loma Ocean Outfall--a 4.5 mile pipe 
that extends outward from the Point Loma Plant and discharges 
treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean at a depth of more 
than 300 feet.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\https://www.sandiego.gov/public-utilities/customer-service/
water-wastewater-facilities/point-loma.
    \10\See id.
    \11\See infra at 15. The ocean outfall consists of an original 
11,226-foot-long outfall section that was constructed in 1963 and a 
12,246-foot-long extension that was added in 1993. The total length of 
the outfall system is 23,472 feet, or approximately 4.5 miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1979, the City of San Diego applied for a 301(h) 
variance, which was approved by EPA and the state.\12\ Since 
that time, the Point Loma Plant has generally operated, and is 
currently operating, under a section 301(h) permit variance\13\ 
to discharge their wastewater with less than full secondary 
treatment through the Ocean Outfall to the nearby coastal 
waters. The current 301(h) variance was issued on October 1, 
2017 and expires September 30, 2022.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\See United States of America v. City of San Diego, U.S. 
District Court for the Southern District of California, March 31, 1994; 
1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19501 *; 38 ERC (BNA) 1718.
    \13\See Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System Permit for the City of San Diego E.W. Blom 
Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge for the Pacific Ocean 
Through the Point Loma Ocean Outfall (NPDES No. CA0107409), found at 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/ca0107409-
point_loma_301h_
decision_and_tdd_2017-08-04.pdf.
    \14\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the city of San Diego, because it is 
impracticable for the Point Loma Plant to meet the secondary 
treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Point Loma 
Plant must obtain a section 301(h) variance for its continued 
operation.\15\ The current 301(h) variance provides the Point 
Loma Plant with a modification related to its discharge levels 
for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Biochemical Oxygen Demand 
(BOD).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\The City has expressed concern that local geographic 
limitations, including the adjacency of the Point Loma Wastewater 
Treatment Plant to the Cabrillo National Monument, the Point Loma 
Ecological Reserve, and the U.S. Naval Base at Point Loma, California, 
prevent the construction of treatment facilities that would be required 
to achieve full compliance with the secondary treatment requirements of 
the Clean Water Act. The City has also expressed the view that 
establishing a standard that allows for greater use of reclaimed 
wastewater to address the long-term water supply needs of the region 
makes more practical sense than requiring the treatment of wastewater 
that would ultimately be discharged into the Pacific Ocean.
    \16\See supra note 15. According to information provided by EPA, 
the Point Loma Plant currently removes approximately 80% of TSS, and 
BOD removal is approximately 55-60%. Existing secondary treatment 
standards require publicly owned treatment works to meet TSS and BOD 
removal at 85% minimum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the city of San Diego is engaged in a long-
term effort to reduce discharges from the Point Loma Plant to 
coastal waters while reclaiming treated wastewater for eventual 
potable and non-potable reuse in the area.\17\ For example, in 
connection with enactment of the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act 
(Pub. L. 103-431), the city has constructed treatment 
facilities with the capacity for 45,000,000 gallons of 
reclaimed wastewater per day, which has also resulted in a 
reduction in the discharge of TSS and BOD by the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\See ``Application for Renewal of NPDES CA0107409 and 301(h) 
Modified Secondary Treatment Requirements,'' City of San Diego Public 
Utilities, Water and Wastewater. January 2015. Accessed at https://
www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/ploovol2_15.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In May 2020, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control 
Board issued a new NPDES permit for the North City Water 
Reclamation and Pure Water Facility (part of San Diego's Pure 
Water program) to combine tertiary treated recycled water and 
additional highly advanced treatment (reverse osmosis, 
oxidation, ultrafiltration, etc.), and then discharge to the 
Miramar reservoir for eventual drinking water use.\18\ Once 
fully operating, this will re-direct a portion of the Point 
Loma discharge to the North City/Pure Water facility. However, 
while the ocean discharges from the Point Loma Plant will be 
reduced, such discharges will not be eliminated in the 
foreseeable future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/board_decisions/
adopted_orders/orders2020
.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R. 587, the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II

    The purpose of H.R. 587 is to address the long-term Clean 
Water Act permitting requirements for the city of San Diego and 
other cities that feed into Point Loma Plant for wastewater 
treatment.
    H.R. 587 provides for an alternative process for the Point 
Loma Plant to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act's 
NPDES permitting requirements, other than the existing 301(h) 
variance conditions, while ensuring continued reductions of 
pollutant discharges and greater use of reclaimed wastewater 
associated with the plant. The legislation also eliminates the 
need to reapply for the variance specifically for the Point 
Loma Plant, and provides direction to EPA for including minimum 
treatment levels for the NPDES permit to be issued to Point 
Loma Plant.

                                HEARINGS

    For the purposes of rule XIII, clause 3(c)6(A) of the 117th 
Congress, no hearings were held to develop or consider H.R. 587 
in the 117th Congress, however the Committee held the following 
hearing in the 116th Congress:
    On February 27, 2020, the Subcommittee on Water Resources 
and Environment held a hearing titled ``Proposals for a Water 
Resources Development Act of 2020: Members' Day Hearing.'' 
Representative Scott Peters testified before the Subcommittee 
on the issues addressed within the legislation.

                 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONSIDERATION

    H.R. 587 was introduced in the House on January 28, 2021, 
by Mr. Peters, Mr. Issa, Ms. Jacobs of California, Mr. Levin of 
California, and Mr. Vargas and referred to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the Committee, H.R. 
587 was referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment.
    The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment was 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 587 on March 24, 
2021.
    The Full Committee considered H.R. 587 on March 24, 2021, 
and ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a 
favorable recommendation, by a record vote of 54 yeas and 2 
nays (Roll Call Vote No. 17).

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report to include the 
total number of votes cast for and against on each record 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.
    H.R. 587, was ordered to be favorably reported to the House 
of Representatives, by a record vote of 54 yeas and 2 nays 
(Roll Call Vote No. 17). The vote was as follows:

Vote: 17                            Measure: H.R. 587
    On: agreeing to H.R. 587 and ordering to be reported to the 
House, favorably

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Member                           Vote                    Member                    Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DeFazio.....................................          Yea   Mr. Graves of MO..................          Yea
Ms. Norton......................................          Yea   Mr. Young.........................  ............
Ms. Johnson of TX...............................          Yea   Mr. Crawford......................  ............
Mr. Larsen of WA................................          Yea   Mr. Gibbs.........................          Nay
Mrs. Napolitano.................................          Yea   Mr. Webster.......................          Yea
Mr. Cohen.......................................          Yea   Mr. Massie........................          Yea
Mr. Sires.......................................          Yea   Mr. Perry.........................          Nay
Mr. Garamendi...................................          Yea   Mr. Rodney Davis of IL............          Yea
Mr. Johnson of GA...............................          Yea   Mr. Katko.........................          Yea
Mr. Carson......................................          Yea   Mr. Babin.........................          Yea
Ms. Titus.......................................          Yea   Mr. Graves of LA..................          Yea
Mr. Maloney of NY...............................          Yea   Mr. Rouzer........................          Yea
Mr. Huffman.....................................          Yea   Mr. Bost..........................          Yea
Ms. Brownley....................................          Yea   Mr. Weber of TX...................          Yea
Ms. Wilson of FL................................  ............  Mr. LaMalfa.......................          Yea
Mr. Payne.......................................          Yea   Mr. Westerman.....................          Yea
Mr. Lowenthal...................................          Yea   Mr. Mast..........................          Yea
Mr. DeSaulnier..................................          Yea   Mr. Gallagher.....................  ............
Mr. Lynch.......................................          Yea   Mr. Fitzpatrick...................          Yea
Mr. Carbajal....................................  ............  Miss Gonzalez-Colon...............          Yea
Mr. Brown.......................................          Yea   Mr. Balderson.....................          Yea
Mr. Malinowski..................................  ............  Mr. Stauber.......................  ............
Mr. Stanton.....................................          Yea   Mr. Burchett......................          Yea
Mr. Allred......................................          Yea   Mr. Johnson of SD.................          Yea
Ms. Davids of KS................................          Yea   Mr. Van Drew......................          Yea
Mr. Garcia of IL................................          Yea   Mr. Guest.........................  ............
Mr. Delgado.....................................          Yea   Mr. Nehls.........................          Yea
Mr. Pappas......................................          Yea   Ms. Mace..........................  ............
Mr. Lamb........................................          Yea   Ms. Malliotakis...................          Yea
Mr. Moulton.....................................  ............  Ms. Van Duyne.....................  ............
Mr. Auchincloss.................................          Yea   Mr. Gimenez.......................  ............
Ms. Bourdeaux...................................          Yea   Mrs. Steel........................          Yea
Mr. Kahele......................................          Yea
Ms. Strickland..................................          Yea
Ms. Williams of GA..............................          Yea
Ms. Newman......................................          Yea
Vacancy.........................................  ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

               NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 587 from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 13, 2021.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
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. 587, the Ocean 
Pollution Reduction Act II.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Stephen 
Rabent.
            Sincerely,
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

    
    
    	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    	
    	
    

    The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
program controls water pollution by regulating point sources of 
discharge into the waters of the United States. Under that 
program, publicly owned wastewater treatment works must meet 
secondary treatment standards specified by law. The 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) generally delegates the 
authority to administer the NPDES program to individual states.
    Under current law, the Point Loma Plant in San Diego, 
California, can apply to be exempted from secondary treatment 
standards if it meets certain conditions. H.R. 587 would 
eliminate the need for an application and would allow that 
exemption under the plant's normal NPDES permit if it meets 
additional conditions that include implementing pretreatment 
and water reuse programs and providing ocean monitoring data 
and analysis to EPA.
    Using information from EPA, CBO estimates that implementing 
the bill would have an insignificant effect on EPA's costs to 
administer the NPDES program over the 2021-2026 period. CBO 
expects that the agency's costs to administer the Point Loma 
Plant secondary treatment standard waiver would shift to 
administering and evaluating its performance under the NPDES 
permit.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Stephen Rabent. 
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Director of Budget Analysis.

                    PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goal and objective of this legislation is to 
provide an alternative process for the city of San Diego to 
achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act's permitting 
requirements for the continued operation of the Point Loma 
Wastewater Treatment Plan, while ensuring continued reductions 
of pollutant discharges and greater use of reclaimed wastewater 
associated with the plant.

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that no provision 
of H.R. 587 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program, a program that was included in any report from the 
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a 
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance.

   CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF 
                                BENEFITS

    In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of the rule 
XXI.

                       FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (Public Law 104-4).

                        PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, 
or tribal law. The Committee finds that H.R. 587 does not 
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

                      ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 
104-1).

             SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title

    This section provides that this bill may be cited as the 
``Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II''.

Sec. 2. San Diego Point Loma permitting requirements

    Subsection (a) authorizes the EPA Administrator, in 
coordination with the State, to issue an NPDES permit (under 
section 402 of the Clean Water Act) for a discharge from the 
Point Loma Plant that complies with the requirements of 
subsection (b).
    Subsection (b) directs that a permit issued pursuant to 
this legislation for the Point Loma Plant require the permittee 
to--
    (1) Maintain the current Point Loma Ocean Outfall;
    (2) Attain explicit annual limits for the discharge of TSS, 
which decrease from a level of 12,000 metric tons on the date 
of enactment to not more than 9,942 tons by December 31, 2027;
    (3) Comply with designated discharge limits of TSS on a 30-
day average;
    (4) Require the removal of not less than 80 percent of TSS 
from the discharge on a monthly average, and not less than 58 
percent of BOD on an annual average;
    (5) Attain all other effluent limitations of secondary 
treatment, as determined by the Administrator;
    (6) Comply with other applicable requirements of sections 
401 (state certification requirements), 402 (NPDES permit 
requirements), and 403 (ocean outfall requirements) of the 
Clean Water Act;
    (7) Comply with pretreatment requirements of the Clean 
Water Act;
    (8) Provide the Administrator with 10 consecutive years of 
ocean monitoring data to assist in determining compliance with 
this Act and the Clean Water Act; and
    (9) Demonstrate that at least 83,000,000 gallons per day on 
an annual average of water suitable for potable reuse will be 
provided by December 31, 2035.
    Subsection (c) requires the Administrator, in coordination 
with the State, to develop and incorporate into the NPDES 
permit milestones for compliance with the requirements of this 
Act.
    Subsection (d) allows the permittee to pursue the 
construction of facilities to comply with the normal secondary 
treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act.
    Subsection (e) defines the terms ``Administrator'', 
``biochemical oxygen demand'', ``City'', ``Point Loma Plant'', 
and ``State''.

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    As reported by the Committee, H.R. 587 makes no changes in 
existing law.

                                  
                                  
                                  [all]