[House Report 118-929]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 118-929
======================================================================
OCEAN POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT II
_______
December 19, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Graves of Missouri, from the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1720]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 1720) 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 with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of Legislation........................................... 3
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 3
Hearings......................................................... 5
Legislative History and Consideration............................ 6
Committee Votes.................................................. 6
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations................. 7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 7
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 13
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 13
Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits....................................................... 13
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 13
Preemption Clarification......................................... 13
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 13
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 13
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 14
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 14
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II''.
SEC. 2. SAN DIEGO POINT LOMA PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Administrator may
issue a permit under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) for a discharge from the Point Loma Plant into
marine waters that requires compliance with the requirements described
in subsection (b).
(b) Conditions.--A permit issued under this section shall require--
(1) maintenance of the currently designed deep ocean outfall
from the Point Loma Plant with a discharge depth of not less
than 300 feet and distance from the shore of not less than 4
miles;
(2) as applicable to the term of the permit, discharge of not
more than 12,000 metric tons of total suspended solids per year
commencing on the date of enactment of this section, not more
than 11,500 metric tons of total suspended solids per year
commencing on December 31, 2028, and not more than 9,942 metric
tons of total suspended solids per year commencing on December
31, 2030;
(3) discharge of not more than 60 milligrams per liter of
total suspended solids, calculated as a 30-day average;
(4) removal of not less than 80 percent of total suspended
solids on a monthly average and not less than 58 percent of
biochemical oxygen demand on an annual average, taking into
account removal occurring at all treatment processes for
wastewater upstream from and at the Point Loma Plant;
(5) attainment of all other effluent limitations of secondary
treatment as determined by the Administrator pursuant to
section 304(d)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1314(d)(1)), other than any requirements otherwise
applicable to the discharge of biochemical oxygen demand and
total suspended solids;
(6) compliance with the requirements applicable to Federal
issuance of a permit under section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, including State concurrence consistent
with section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1341) and ocean discharge criteria evaluation pursuant
to section 403 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1343);
(7) implementation of the pretreatment program requirements
of paragraphs (5) and (6) of section 301(h) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311(h)) in addition to
the requirements of section 402(b)(8) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
1342(b)(8));
(8) that the applicant provide 10 consecutive years of ocean
monitoring data and analysis for the period immediately
preceding the date of each application for a permit under this
section sufficient to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the discharge of pollutants pursuant to a
permit issued under this section will meet the requirements of
section 301(h)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1311(h)(2)) and that the applicant has established
and will maintain throughout the permit term an ocean
monitoring program that meets or exceeds the requirements of
section 301(h)(3) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1311(h)(3)); and
(9) to the extent potable reuse is permitted by Federal and
State regulatory agencies, that the applicant demonstrate that
at least 83,000,000 gallons per day on an annual average of
water suitable for potable reuse will be produced by December
31, 2038, taking into account production of water suitable for
potable reuse occurring at all treatment processes for
wastewater upstream from and at the Point Loma Plant.
(c) Milestones.--The Administrator shall determine development
milestones necessary to ensure compliance with this section and include
such milestones as conditions in each permit issued under this section
before December 31, 2038.
(d) Secondary Treatment.--Nothing in this section prevents the
applicant from alternatively submitting an application for the Point
Loma Plant that complies with secondary treatment pursuant to section
301(b)(1)(B) and section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(B); 33 U.S.C. 1342).
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Biochemical oxygen demand.--The term ``biochemical oxygen
demand'' means biological oxygen demand, as such term is used
in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(3) Point loma plant.--The term ``Point Loma Plant'' means
the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant owned by the City of
San Diego on the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of California.
PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
The purpose of H.R. 1720 is 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.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H.R. 1720 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 (CWA), 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 CWA 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 United States 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 CWA.\4\
The State of California is currently approved to implement the
CWA NPDES program in the state.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1311(a).
\2\See 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1311(b)(1)(B).
\3\See U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Secondary Treatment Standards,
available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/secondary-treatment-standards.
Secondary treatment is defined in the regulation (40 C.F.R. Part 133)
in terms of effluent quality for total suspended solids (TSS),
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and pH; see also 33 U.S.C.
Sec. 1314(d)(1).
\4\See 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1342.
\5\See U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, NPDES State Program Authority,
available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-state-program-authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 301(h) of the CWA also includes a process for
certain publicly owned treatment works that discharge into
marine waters to continue to operate under a 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. Sec. 1451 et seq.); the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.); and Title III of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\City of San Diego, Digital Archives, Point Loma Wastewater
Treatment Plant (1963), available at https://www.sandiego.gov/digital-
archives-photos/point-loma-wastewater-treatment-plant-1963.
\10\Id.
\11\Id.
\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), U.S. Envtl.
Prot. Agency, Order No. R9-2024-0004, NPDES Permit No. CA0107409, San
Diego EW Blom WWTP Pt. Loma (2024), available at https://www.epa.gov/
system/files/documents/2024-03/order-r9-2024-0004-npdes-ca0107409-san-
diego-ew-blom-wwtp-pt-loma-2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the city of San Diego, because it is
impracticable for the Point Loma Plant to meet the secondary
treatment requirements of the CWA, the Point Loma Plant must
obtain a section 301(h) variance for its continued
operation.\14\ The city of San Diego is also 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 nonpotable reuse in the area.\15\ 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 total suspended solids and
biochemical oxygen demand by the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\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,
preventing the construction of treatment facilities that would be
required to achieve full compliance with the secondary treatment
requirements of the CWA. 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.
\15\See `Application for Renewal of NPDES CA0107409 and 301(h)
Modified Secondary Treatment Requirements,' City of San Diego Public
Utilities, Water and Wastewater, available 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.\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Cal. Water Boards, San Diego Region, Board Decisions, Adopted
Orders (2020), available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/
board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders2020.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1720, the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II
The purpose of H.R. 1720 is to address the long-term CWA
permitting requirements for the city of San Diego and other
cities that feed into Point Loma Plant for wastewater
treatment. H.R. 1720 provides for an alternative process for
the Point Loma Plant to achieve compliance with 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
118th Congress--
No hearings were held to develop or consider H.R. 1720 in
the 118th 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.''\17\ Representative Scott Peters
testified before the Subcommittee on the issues addressed
within the legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2020:
Members' Day Hearing: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure, Subcomm. on Water Resources and Environment, 116th
Cong. (Feb. 27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONSIDERATION
H.R. 1720, the ``Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II'', was
introduced in the United States House of Representatives on
March 22, 2023, by Mr. Peters and referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. Within the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, H.R. 1720 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. 1720 on September 18, 2024.
H.R. 1720 is substantially similar to legislation (H.R.
587) introduced in the 117th Congress, which was approved by
the Committee (House Report 117-41) and the House of
Representatives by voice vote; however, no further action was
taken on H.R. 587.
The Committee considered H.R. 1720 on September 18, 2024,
and ordered the measure to be reported to the House with a
favorable recommendation, with amendment, by recorded vote of
57 yeas to 7 nays.
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.
The following recorded vote was requested:
Vote: 54.
Final passage: H.R. 1720, as amended.
Yea 57; Nay 7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Vote Member Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Graves of MO................................ Y Mr. Larsen of WA.................. Y
Mr. Crawford.................................... Y Ms. Norton ....................... Y
Mr. Webster of FL............................... Y Mrs. Napolitano................... Y
Mr. Massie...................................... Y Mr. Cohen......................... Y
Mr. Perry....................................... N Mr. Garamendi..................... Y
Mr. Babin....................................... Y Mr. Johnson of GA................. Y
Mr. Graves of LA................................ Y Mr. Carson........................ Y
Mr. Rouzer...................................... Y Ms. Titus......................... Y
Mr. Bost........................................ N Mr. Huffman....................... Y
Mr. LaMalfa..................................... Y Ms. Brownley...................... Y
Mr. Westerman................................... Y Ms. Wilson of FL.................. Y
Mr. Mast........................................ N Mr. DeSaulnier.................... Y
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon............................. Y Mr. Carbajal...................... Y
Mr. Stauber..................................... Y Mr. Stanton....................... Y
Mr. Burchett.................................... N Mr. Allred........................ Y
Mr. Johnson of SD............................... Y Ms. Davids of KS.................. Y
Mr. Van Drew.................................... Y Mr. Garcia of IL.................. Y
Mr. Nehls....................................... Y Mr. Pappas........................ Y
Mr. Mann........................................ Y Mr. Moulton....................... Y
Mr. Owens....................................... Y Mr. Auchincloss................... Y
Mr. Yakym....................................... Y Ms. Strickland.................... Y
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer............................. Y Mr. Carter of LA.................. Y
Mr. Kean of NJ.................................. Y Mr. Ryan.......................... Y
Mr. D'Esposito.................................. ............ Mrs. Peltola...................... Y
Mr. Burlison.................................... N Mr. Menendez...................... Y
Mr. Van Orden................................... Y Ms. Hoyle of OR................... Y
Mr. Williams of NY.............................. Y Mrs. Sykes........................ Y
Mr. Molinaro.................................... Y Ms. Scholten...................... Y
Mr. Collins..................................... N Mrs. Foushee...................... Y
Mr. Ezell....................................... Y Mr. Deluzio....................... Y
Mr. Duarte...................................... Y
Mr. Bean of FL.................................. N
Ms. Maloy....................................... Y
Mr. Kiley....................................... Y
Mr. Fong........................................ Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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. 1720 from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the
Congressional Budget Office, to the extent practicable, to
prepare estimates of the budgetary effects of legislation
ordered reported by Congressional authorizing committees. In
order to provide the Congress with as much information as
possible, the attached table summarizes information about the
estimated direct spending and revenue effects of some of the
legislation that has been ordered reported by the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure during the 118th
Congress. The legislation listed in this table generally would
have small effects, if any, on direct spending or revenues, CBO
estimates. Where possible, the table also provides information
about the legislation's estimated effects on spending subject
to appropriation and on intergovernmental and private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS AND MANDATES INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending
Last Budget Direct Revenues, Subject to Pay-As-You-Go Budgetary
Bill Number Title Status Action Function Spending, 2025-2034 Appropriation, Procedures Effects After Mandates Contact
2025-2034 2025-2029 Apply? 2034
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1586................... Forest Ordered 11/15/23 300 0 0 Not estimated.. No No Yes Lilia Ledezma
Protection and reported.
Wildland
Firefighter
Safety Act of
2023.
H.R. 1586 would authorize federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies to use approved fire retardants to prevent and suppress wildfires without first
obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The bill also would prohibit state courts from issuing injunctions against state or tribal
entities' dispersal of aerial fire retardants as part of wildfire suppression or control. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1586 would not affect direct spending
or revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects on spending subject to appropriation. The bill would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) that would not exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA ($100 million in 2024, adjusted annually for inflation). The
bill contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
H.R. 1720................... Ocean Pollution Ordered 09/18/24 300 0 0 Not estimated.. No No No Aurora Swanson
Reduction Act reported.
II.
H.R. 1720 would allow the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant in San Diego, California, to discharge water without applying for an exemption from the secondary
treatment standards of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System if plant meets certain conditions specified in the bill. CBO estimates that enacting
H.R. 1720 would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects on spending subject to appropriation. The bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 2892................... WARN Act....... Ordered 09/18/24 800 0 0 Between zero No No No Matthew
reported. and $500,000. Pickford
H.R. 2892 would require the Government Accountability Office within 18 months of enactment to study and report on the effectiveness of the nation's weather
emergency alert systems. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2892 would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would
increase spending subject to appropriation by less than $500,000 over the 2025-2029 period. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 3149................... A bill to Ordered 09/18/24 400 0 0 Between zero No No No Kelly Durand
designate reported. and $500,000.
United States
Route 20 in
the States of
Oregon, Idaho,
Montana, Wyomi
ng, Nebraska,
Iowa, Illinois
, Indiana,
Ohio, Pennsylv
ania, New
York, and
Massachusetts
as the
``National
Medal of Honor
Highway,'' and
for other
purposes.
H.R. 3149 would designate U.S. Route 20 as the National Medal of Honor Highway. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3149 would not affect direct spending or
revenues. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase spending subject to appropriation by less than $500,000 over the 2025-2029 period. The bill
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 3988................... ARTICLE ONE Act Ordered 09/18/24 800 Between - 0 Not estimated.. Yes No No Kelly Durand
reported. $500,000 and
zero
H.R. 3988 would amend the National Emergencies Act to limit to 30 days the duration of any national emergency declared by the President unless the Congress
subsequently approves or extends the declaration. The bill also would require the President to report to the Congress periodically on the need for and status of
declared emergencies. CBO cannot predict the number or timing of future declarations but expects that most would be approved by the Congress. Under H.R. 3988
emergency declarations could have a shorter duration than under current law. If that happens direct spending related to such emergencies would decline; CBO
estimates any reduction in direct spending would be insignificant. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would not affect revenues. CBO has not estimated the
bill's effects on spending subject to appropriation. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
H.R. 4043................... H.R. 4043, a Ordered 09/18/24 300 0 0 Not estimated.. No No No Aurora Swanson
bill to amend reported.
the Save Our
Seas 2.0 Act
to expand
eligibility
for certain
wastewater
infrastructure
grants, and
for other
purposes.
H.R. 4043 would expand eligibility for certain wastewater infrastructure grants administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. CBO estimates that enacting
H.R. 4043 would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects on spending subject to appropriation. The bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 6241................... FULL Act....... Ordered 11/15/23 800 Between zero 0 Not estimated.. No No No Matthew
reported. and $500,000 Pickford
H.R. 6241 would require federal agencies that have lease agreements with the General Services Administration (GSA) to annually report to GSA on their monthly use
and occupancy rates. Under the bill, agencies would be required to return space to GSA if occupancy falls below 60 percent for six months over any one-year
period. Enacting H.R. 6241 could increase direct spending by some agencies that are allowed to use fees, receipts from the sale of goods, and other collections
to cover operating costs. CBO estimates that any net changes in direct spending by those agencies would be negligible because most of them can adjust amounts
collected to reflect changes in operating costs. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6241 would have no effect on revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects
on spending subject to appropriation. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 6984................... A bill to Ordered 09/18/24 800 0 0 Between zero No No No Matthew
designate the reported. and $500,000. Pickford
Federal
building
located at 300
E. 3rd Street
in North
Platte, Nebras
ka, as the
``Virginia
Smith Federal
Building,''
and for other
purposes.
H.R. 6984 would designate the federal building located at 300 E. 3rd Street in North Platte, Nebraska, as the Virginia Smith Federal Building. CBO estimates that
enacting H.R. 6984 would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase spending subject to appropriation by
less than $500,000 over the 2025-2029 period. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 7671................... Disaster Ordered 09/25/24 450 0 0 Not estimated.. No No No Jon Sperl
Management reported.
Costs
Modernization
Act.
H.R. 7671 would allow state and local governments that receive disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to repurpose unused funds that
originally were allocated for management costs. State and local governments could use the funds to increase their administrative capacity to prepare for, recover
from, or mitigate the effects of disasters. Under current law, unused funds are returned to the Disaster Relief Fund. Under the bill, those governments could
retain unused funds for up to five years for disasters that are declared on or after the bill's enactment date. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 7671 would not
affect direct spending or revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects on spending subject to appropriation. The bill contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 7779................... Good Samaritan Ordered 09/18/24 300 Between zero 0 Not estimated.. Yes Insignificant No Aurora Swanson
Remediation of reported. and $500,000
Abandoned
Hardrock Mines
Act of 2024.
H.R. 7779 would establish a Good Samaritan pilot program and authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to issue permits for projects to remediate mine residue
at abandoned hardrock mine sites. The bill would establish a remediation fund for federal agencies to administer projects carried out by Good Samaritans
(entities that are not current owners or operators of an abandoned site; had no role in the creation of the mine residue; and are not potentially liable under
any law for the remediation, treatment, or control of the mine residue). The spending would be funded by appropriations and by deposits from nonfederal sources,
such as donations, agreements for long-term operations and maintenance costs, and insurance proceeds if a Good Samaritan fails to complete a project. The bill
also would waive the applicability of all other laws with respect to the use of the fund, including the Antideficiency Act, which could allow amounts to be
obligated before expected deposits into the fund are received. However, CBO expects that spending of any such advance obligations would be constrained by amounts
ultimately deposited into the fund. On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 7779 would increase net direct spending by less than $500,000 over the 2025-
2034 period and have no effect on revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects on spending subject to appropriation. The bill contains no intergovernmental
or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 8505................... Household Goods Ordered 09/18/24 400 0 Between Not estimated.. Yes No No Zunara Naeem
Shipping Consu reported. zero and
mer Protection $500,000
Act.
H.R. 8505 would allow the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to assess penalties for entities that illegally ship household goods. The bill also would
allow states to enforce and collect fines on such entities. As a result, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 8505 could increase revenues because those penalties
are recorded in the budget as revenues. Because the number of entities affected is likely to be small, CBO estimates that the increase in revenues would be less
than $500,000 over the 2025-2034 period. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would have no effect on direct spending. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects
on spending subject to appropriation. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 8530................... Improving Ordered 09/18/24 800 Between zero 0 Not estimated.. Yes No No Matthew
Federal reported. and $500,000 Pickford
BuildingPSecur
ity Act of
2024.
H.R. 8530 would require federal agencies to respond within 90 days to recommendations by the Federal Protective Service, within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), concerning building security. Agencies could adopt or reject those recommendations but would need to explain their rejections. The bill would
require DHS to track recommendations and responses and to report annually to the Congress concerning all recommendations. Enacting H.R. 8530 could increase
direct spending by some agencies that are allowed to use fees, receipts from the sale of goods, and other collections to cover operating costs. CBO estimates
that any net changes in direct spending by those agencies would be negligible because most of them can adjust amounts collected to reflect changes in operating
costs. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 8530 would have no effect on revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects on spending subject to appropriation. The
bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 8692................... The Amtrak Ordered 09/18/24 400 0 0 0.............. No No Yes Zunara Naeem
Transparency reported.
and
Accountability
for Passengers
and Taxpayer
Act.
H.R. 8692 would require Amtrak to hold open meetings in accordance with current requirements for most federal agencies. Because Amtrak is considered a nonfederal
entity, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 8692 would have no effect on the federal budget. The bill would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) that would not exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA ($200 million in 2024, adjusted annually for inflation). The
bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA.
H.R. 8995................... Baby Changing Ordered 09/18/24 400 0 0 0.............. No No Yes Kelly Durand
on Board Act. reported.
H.R. 8995 would require Amtrak trains purchased after the bill's enactment to include baby-changing tables in all train restrooms that are subject to the
requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Because Amtrak is considered a nonfederal entity, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 8995 would have
no effect on the federal budget. The bill would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) that would not exceed the
threshold established in UMRA ($200 million in 2024, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA.
H.R. 9024................... Extreme Weather Ordered 09/18/24 450 0 0 Not estimated.. No No No Jon Sperl
and reported.
HeatPResponse
Modernization
Act.
H.R. 9024 would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to issue guidance for disaster relief programs concerning extreme-temperature events and to
consider innovative preparedness and mitigation projects for such disasters in its grantmaking. The bill also would require FEMA to convene an advisory panel to
review the definition of incident periods for extreme-temperature events and to issue regulations revising those periods. Finally, the bill would require FEMA to
study the effects of extreme-temperature disasters, develop guidance and best practices for responding to such events, and report to the Congress. CBO estimates
that enacting H.R. 9024 would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects on spending subject to appropriation. The bill
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 9313................... Think Ordered 09/18/24 800 0 0 Between zero No No No Matthew
Differently reported. and $500,000. Pickford
About Building
Accessibility
Act.
H.R. 9313 would direct the Government Accountability Office to report to the Congress concerning accessibility for people with disabilities in all office
buildings controlled by the General Services Administration. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 9313 would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO estimates
that implementing the bill would increase spending subject to appropriation by less than $500,000 over the 2025-2029 period. The bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 9541................... POWER Act of Ordered 09/18/24 450 0 0 Not estimated.. No No No Jon Sperl
2024. reported.
H.R. 9541 would authorize electric utilities that receive disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for emergency power restoration to
implement mitigation activities as part of power restoration. Those actions would not disqualify utilities from receiving mitigation assistance under the Public
Assistance Program. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 9541 would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects on spending
subject to appropriation. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 9591................... A bill to Ordered 09/18/24 800 Between - 0 Not estimated.. No No No Emma Uebelhor
require reported. $500,000 and
thePAdministra zero
tor of
GeneralPServic
es to sell
certainPproper
ty related to
United States
Penitentiary,P
Leavenworth,
and for other
purposes.
H.R. 9591 would require the General Services Administration (GSA) to sell any property in the State of Missouri associated with the Federal Correctional
Institution, Leavenworth, which is located in Kansas. Net proceeds from the sale would be deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund and recorded in the budget as
offsetting receipts (that is, as reductions in direct spending). Using information from GSA, CBO estimates that the property could be sold for about $500,000;
therefore, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 9591 would decrease direct spending by an insignificant amount. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would not affect
revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects on spending subject to appropriation. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
H.R. 9750................... Natural Ordered 09/25/24 450 0 0 Not estimated.. No No No Jon Sperl
Disaster reported.
RecoveryPProgr
am Act of 2024.
H.R. 9750 would create a Natural Disaster Recovery Fund, to be administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, from which the agency would make grants to
state and tribal governments to cover unmet needs following major disasters. Those governments would determine how funds are spent. The bill also would expand
the availability of disaster assistance for housing repairs and require several reports related to disaster recovery programs. CBO estimates that enacting H.R.
9750 would not affect direct spending or revenues. CBO has not estimated the bill's effects on spending subject to appropriation. The bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 1720 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. 1720 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''.
Section 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 CWA) 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, 2030;
(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 CWA;
(7) Comply with pretreatment requirements of the CWA;
(8) Provide the Administrator with 10 consecutive
years of ocean monitoring data to assist in determining
compliance with this Act and the CWA; 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, 2038.
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 CWA.
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. 1720 makes no changes in
existing law.
[all]