    Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and
    Incomplete Data (Chapter Report, 03/15/2000, GAO/RCED-00-54).

    Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Water Quality
    Inventory, focusing on whether: (1) the information in EPA's National
    Water Quality Inventory is reliable and representative of water quality
    conditions nationwide; and (2) available data are sufficient to allow
    state officials to make key decisions about activities required by the
    Clean Water Act, such as identifying waters that do not meet water
    quality standards and developing strategies to address those waters.

    GAO noted that: (1) the National Water Quality Inventory does not
    accurately portray water quality conditions nationwide; (2) a major
    reason is that it would be cost-prohibitive to physically monitor all of
    the waters in the country, and, therefore, almost all states monitor a
    subset of their waters; (3) most monitoring is not done in a way that
    allows for statistically valid assessments of water quality conditions
    in unmonitored waters; (4) the Inventory is not reliable because wide
    variation exists in: (a) the way that individual states select their
    monitoring sites; (b) the kinds of tests they perform on their waters
    and how the results of these tests are interpreted; and (c) the methods
    they use to determine the causes and sources of pollution in waters that
    do not meet water quality standards; (5) as a result, the information in
    the Inventory cannot be meaningfully compared across states; (6) EPA
    used information from the Inventory as a basis for a number of important
    decisions and activities, such as deciding how to allocate federal funds
    for Clean Water Act programs to states and measuring and communicating
    EPA's and states' progress in implementing the act; (7) the dearth of
    the waters actually monitored, combined with the wide variation among
    states' monitoring and assessment approaches, make the national
    statistics unreliable and subject to misinterpretation and, therefore of
    limited usefulness for these purposes; (8) there is little doubt among
    experts that the remaining problems are considerable and that solutions
    will entail significant expenditures; (9) what is uncertain is the
    precise extent of water quality problems, where and what the most severe
    problems are, and the location of high-quality waters that need to be
    protected; (10) the limitations of the information in the Inventory
    extend well beyond the problems associated with the national uses of the
    report; (11) state-level activities, such as identifying water quality
    problems and setting priorities among them to obtain the most
    improvement in water quality for the dollar spent, are also affected by
    data limitations; (12) GAO's survey shows that data gaps limit states'
    abilities to carry out several key management and regulatory activities
    on water quality; (13) only six states reported that they have a
    majority of the data they need to assess whether their waters meet water
    quality standards; and (14) a vast majority of states reported that they
    have less than half the data they need to: (a) identify nonpoint sources
    that are causing waters not to meet standards; and (b) develop total
    maximum daily loads (TMDL) for those waters.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  RCED-00-54
         TITLE:  Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by
    	     Inconsistent and Incomplete Data
          DATE:  03/15/2000
       SUBJECT:  Water pollution control
    	     Environmental monitoring
    	     Water quality
    	     State-administered programs
    	     Interagency relations
    	     Data collection
    	     Reporting requirements
    	     Federal/state relations
    IDENTIFIER:  EPA National Water Quality Inventory
    	     USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program
    	     EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
    	     EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
    	     EPA Index of Watershed Indicators
    	     USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network
    	     NOS National Status and Trends Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO/RCED-00-54

    4

    16

    Represent Water Quality Conditions Nationwide

    24

    to Manage Water Quality

    43

    Appendix I: Copy of GAO Questionnaire

    58

    Appendix II: Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency

    69

    Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    73

    Table 1: Monitoring Designs Described in EPA's Water Quality
    Reporting Guidelines 28

    Figure 1: States With a Majority of the Data Needed for Activities
    to Manage Water Quality 7

    Figure 2: Percentage of Waters Monitored, Evaluated, and Not
    Assessed 9

    Figure 3: Examples of Point and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution 17

    Figure 4: Steps in Managing Water Quality 19

    Figure 5: Percentage of Waters Monitored, Evaluated, and Not
    Assessed in the 1996 305(b) Report 26

    Figure 6: Monitoring Types and Pollutants or Conditions That They Measure 31

    Figure 7: States With a Majority of the Data Needed for Activities
    to Manage Water Quality 44

    Figure 8: Number of States With a Rotating Basin Plan in Place or
    Under Development 48

    EPA Environmental Protection Agency

    GAO General Accounting Office

    IWI Index of Watershed Indicators

    TMDL Total maximum daily load

    Resources, Community, and
    Economic Development Division

    B-284241

    March 15, 2000

    The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert
    Chairman
    Subcommittee on Water Resources
    and Environment
    House of Representatives

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    As requested, we are reporting on the Environmental Protection Agency's
    (EPA) National Water Quality Inventory and the adequacy of water quality
    data for key water quality decisions required by the Clean Water Act.

    As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
    earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days from
    the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the
    appropriate congressional committees; the Honorable Carol M. Browner,
    Administrator, EPA; and the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of
    Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others upon request.

    Please call me at (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have any questions.
    Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

    Sincerely yours,
    Peter F. Guerrero
    Director, Environmental
    Protection Issues

    Executive Summary

    One of the states' key responsibilities under the Clean Water Act is to
    collect data to monitor the condition of the nation's waters. The act
    further requires states to submit reports on the condition of their waters
    to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which then compiles the
    states' submissions into a report called the National Water Quality
    Inventory. These data, and EPA's report, have become increasingly important
    as national attention has focused on the most effective and efficient way to
    target the nation's water pollution problems and, in particular, on the
    soundness of the regulatory decisions that will be required to deal with the
    nation's most heavily polluted waters.

    Concerned about the adequacy of the data to support water quality policy and
    key regulatory decisions, the Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
    Environment, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked GAO
    to examine several issues relating to EPA's report on water quality and
    water quality management. Specifically, GAO was asked to (1) determine
    whether the information in EPA's National Water Quality Inventory is
    reliable and representative of water quality conditions nationwide and (2)
    determine if available data are sufficient to allow state officials to make
    key decisions about activities required by the Clean Water Act, such as
    identifying waters that do not meet water quality standards and developing
    strategies to address those waters.

    The Clean Water Act makes states responsible for developing programs to
    manage water quality; the programs are intended to achieve the act's goals
    of supporting aquatic communities, protecting human health, and sustaining
    other uses and provides for funding to implement the act. The programs that
    manage water quality generally include functions such as developing water
    quality standards by which to assess whether waters are of acceptable
    quality; monitoring water quality; and issuing permits to, and conducting
    inspections of, facilities that discharge pollutants into bodies of water.
    The Clean Water Act requires states to report to EPA biennially on the
    quality of their waters and directs EPA to compile the states' reports and
    analyze them. EPA's compilation, called the National Water Quality
    Inventory, is the primary report for the public about the condition of the
    nation's waters and is often used to characterize the nation's progress in
    achieving the act's goals. The report's data are also used as a basis for
    making key management decisions regarding water quality, such as how certain
    Clean Water Act funds are to be allocated among the states.

    In addition to providing a basis for satisfying the act's national reporting
    requirements, the states need reliable and complete data to identify water
    quality problems and develop cost-effective strategies to address them. Of
    particular concern to EPA and the states are "nonpoint" sources of
    pollution--diffuse sources that include a variety of land-based activities,
    such as timber harvesting, agriculture, and urban development--which are
    widely regarded as contributing to the largest share of remaining water
    quality problems.

    Sound data on water quality are becoming increasingly important as numerous
    lawsuits are directing nationwide attention to the accelerated cleanup of
    water quality problems through the development of total maximum daily loads
    (TMDLs). TMDLs are used to restore water quality by identifying how much
    pollution a body of water can receive and still meet standards and then
    reducing the amount of pollution entering the water to that level. The Clean
    Water Act requires states to develop TMDLs when other mechanisms to restore
    water quality have not worked. The basis for many of the lawsuits is that
    EPA and the states have not implemented this requirement of the act and have
    not thoroughly identified all waters needing TMDLs. EPA proposed revisions
    to its regulations on the management of water quality in August 1999 to
    strengthen the TMDL program.

    To address this review's objectives, GAO conducted a data reliability
    evaluation of the National Water Quality Inventory by obtaining information
    from EPA and state water quality officials on the processes used to generate
    the report and by examining the controls in place to ensure that the
    information was reliable. GAO also interviewed EPA officials in headquarters
    and regions responsible for water quality issues to discuss the Clean Water
    Act's requirements for managing water quality and the guidance provided to
    states for implementing them. GAO conducted a mail survey of the 50 states
    and the District of Columbia and met with water quality officials in 4
    states to discuss their programs to manage water quality, the management and
    regulatory decisions that rely on water quality data, and the issues that
    states face in carrying out their programs.

    The National Water Quality Inventory does not accurately portray water
    quality conditions nationwide. A major reason is that states collectively
    assess only a small percentage of waters in the United States. Specifically,
    19 percent of the nation's rivers and streams were assessed for the 1996
    Inventory (the latest report), as were 6 percent of ocean and other
    shoreline waters--which have been the subject of an increasing number of
    beach advisories and closures in recent years. It would be cost-prohibitive
    to physically monitor all of the waters in the country, and, therefore,
    almost all states monitor a subset of their waters. However, most monitoring
    is not done in a way that allows for statistically valid assessments of
    water quality conditions in unmonitored waters. In addition, the Inventory
    is not reliable because wide variation exists in (1) the way that individual
    states select their monitoring sites, (2) the kinds of tests they perform on
    their waters and how the results of these tests are interpreted, and (3) the
    methods they use to determine the causes and sources of pollution in waters
    that do not meet water quality standards. As a result, the information in
    the Inventory cannot be meaningfully compared across states.

    EPA uses information from the Inventory as a basis for a number of important
    decisions and activities, such as deciding how to allocate federal funds for
    Clean Water Act programs to states and measuring and communicating EPA's and
    states' progress in implementing the act. However, the dearth of the waters
    actually monitored, combined with the wide variation among states'
    monitoring and assessment approaches, make the national statistics
    unreliable and subject to misinterpretation and, therefore, of limited
    usefulness for these purposes. While these limitations may call into
    question some of EPA's decisions that rely on these data, there is little
    doubt among experts that the remaining problems are considerable and that
    solutions will entail significant expenditures. What is uncertain, however,
    is the precise extent of water quality problems, where and what the most
    severe problems are, and the location of high-quality waters that need to be
    protected.

    The limitations of the information in the Inventory extend well beyond the
    problems associated with the national uses of the report. State-level
    activities, such as identifying water quality problems and setting
    priorities among them to obtain the most improvement in water quality for
    the dollar spent, are also affected by data limitations. GAO's survey shows
    that data gaps limit states' abilities to carry out several key management
    and regulatory activities on water quality. As figure 1 illustrates, these
    data gaps are particularly serious in the case of nonpoint sources, which
    are widely accepted as contributing to the majority of the nation's water
    quality problems. Only six states reported that they have a majority of the
    data they need to assess whether their waters meet water quality standards.
    Moreover, a vast majority of states reported that they have less than half
    the data they need to (1) identify nonpoint sources that are causing waters
    not to meet standards and (2) develop TMDLs for those waters.

    Figure 1: States With a Majority of the Data Needed for Activities to Manage
    Water Quality
    Among the recommendations GAO makes in this report are that EPA better
    convey the limitations of the Inventory and that the agency reexamine the
    implications of using the report for national decisions. GAO also recommends
    a number of actions that EPA should take to provide the tools, information,
    and assistance that states need to conduct critical water quality
    activities.

    Nationwide

    As figure 2 illustrates, only a small percentage of U.S. waters are assessed
    for the National Water Quality Inventory--19 percent in the case of rivers
    and streams. Importantly, however, only about half of these assessments are
    based on current, site-specific monitoring information. The states assess
    conditions in the other waters by using monitoring data more than 5 years
    old or by relying on other data, such as land use information or anecdotal
    evidence of water quality, that serve as subjective indicators of whether a
    body of water is meeting standards. (These assessments are referred to as
    evaluated assessments.) Both EPA and state officials indicated that they are
    less confident of some of these assessments' accuracy because they may not
    reflect changes in water conditions and are sometimes based on unconfirmed
    information. However, EPA did not distinguish between the two types of
    assessments when presenting information on the percentage of waters meeting
    standards in the 1996 Inventory.

    Figure 2: Percentage of Waters Monitored, Evaluated, and Not Assessed
    Source: 1996 National Water Quality Inventory.

    EPA encourages states to use statistical monitoring in order to capture a
    more comprehensive picture of water quality. GAO's survey of the 50 states
    and the District of Columbia, however, revealed that few states employ such
    a sampling design for a majority of their waters. Most states target their
    limited monitoring resources on areas with known problems and areas that are
    used by the public. The reliability of the data in the Inventory is limited
    because there is considerable variation in the analytical methods that
    states use to evaluate water quality. For example, states vary in the extent
    to which they rely on monitoring the chemical and physical properties of
    their waters (i.e., temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, or the presence of
    chlorine, mercury, and other chemicals) versus biological properties (i.e.,
    species diversity and habitat quality). In addition, as allowed by the Clean
    Water Act, states may evaluate water quality against different standards. As
    a result, the Inventory does not represent water quality conditions
    nationwide, and the data are not reliable for comparisons across states.

    EPA has attempted to address the inconsistencies among states primarily
    through a workgroup whose members include EPA and state water quality staff,
    and the agency has incorporated several of the workgroup's recommendations
    into reporting guidelines for the Inventory. These are steps in the right
    direction, but they will not guarantee improved consistency because states
    are not legally required to comply with the reporting guidelines. In
    addition, the Inventory does not integrate findings from other monitoring
    programs to supplement state-reported information and help portray water
    quality conditions nationwide.

    Among the key activities that rely on data from the Inventory is the formula
    that EPA uses to allocate funds to states to help them implement their water
    quality programs. In the past, such funds were allocated on the basis of
    several factors, such as the number of industrial dischargers and power
    plants in a state, which were intended as indirect measures of potential
    water quality problems. EPA recently revised this formula, in consultation
    with the states, and the new formula includes the amount of waters not
    meeting standards as reported in the Inventory by the states. Given the
    differences in the methods that states use to assess their waters, however,
    the resulting allocation may not reflect the relative magnitude of water
    quality problems in states but, instead, reflect assessment and reporting
    differences across them. While EPA acknowledged limitations with using the
    Inventory and therefore decided to phase in the increased weighting of
    waters not meeting standards beginning in fiscal year 1999, the agency does
    not have a plan to resolve the limitations.

    While the lack of reliable information may call into question some of EPA's
    decisions that rely on data from the Inventory, there is widespread
    agreement that many waters still do not meet standards and that addressing
    these problems will be difficult and will require a considerable commitment
    of resources. What is uncertain is the precise extent of the problems, where
    and what the most severe problems are, and the location of high-quality
    waters that need to be protected.

    Quality Activities

    The results of GAO's survey highlight the need for more comprehensive state
    monitoring and call into question the extent to which unknown and
    potentially serious problems are going undetected. Only six states reported
    having a majority of the data needed to fully assess all their waters, and
    less than half the states have a majority of the data needed to determine if
    their waters that have been assessed should be placed on their lists of
    waters that do not meet standards. While state officials believe they have
    identified their most serious pollution problems, many acknowledge that more
    comprehensive monitoring would reveal additional problems. A study of toxins
    in Maine's lakes, for example, unexpectedly showed widespread elevated
    levels of mercury. As a result of this more comprehensive monitoring effort,
    Maine and other New England states issued advisories against the consumption
    of fish for all their lakes.

    In terms of addressing known pollution problems, there is a sharp division
    between the adequacy of data for point sources and of that for nonpoint
    sources. By and large, states have adequate data for identifying point
    sources that cause waters not to meet standards and developing TMDLs for
    these sources. Much of the Clean Water Act's implementation over the last 27
    years has focused on addressing point sources. Additionally, it is
    relatively easy to determine the point sources that are contributing to
    water quality problems because they generally enter the water at a distinct
    point. Accordingly, 40 states responding to GAO's survey reported having a
    majority of the data they need to identify point sources that are causing
    waters not to meet standards, and more than half reported having a majority
    of the data needed to develop TMDLs for those waters.

    Yet, while water quality officials responding to GAO's survey reported
    having a majority of the data they need to deal with point sources of
    pollution, few respondents reported having a majority of the data needed to
    deal with nonpoint sources. Specifically, almost all states reported that
    they did not have a majority of the data they need to identify nonpoint
    sources of pollution and develop TMDLs for waters polluted primarily by
    nonpoint sources. The data on nonpoint sources of water quality problems are
    of particular importance because the nation's remaining water quality
    problems are widely viewed as being caused, at least in part, by nonpoint
    sources. In 1998, for example, Texas officials reported that nonpoint
    sources contributed to almost all of the state's water quality problems.

    States have always needed to obtain comprehensive and reliable water quality
    data, but such data have become more important in recent years. The
    increased emphasis on statutory and regulatory requirements for assessing
    waters and developing TMDLs has heightened the need for states to have sound
    information to make these decisions. Of particular concern are the thousands
    of TMDLs that states must develop for their most heavily polluted waters, as
    required by the Clean Water Act. GAO's survey indicated that states will
    need additional tools, resources, and assistance in developing TMDLs for
    their waters--a task that will significantly tax already limited resources
    over a sustained period of time.

    EPA has a number of initiatives under way that are designed to help states
    deal with specific problems, such as guides for developing TMDLs for
    specific pollutants that degrade waters and analytical methods for
    determining airborne sources of water pollution. However, states identified
    other areas in which they need assistance, such as additional tools for
    evaluating nonpoint sources of pollution and technical assistance on using
    analytical methods. EPA has initiated a strategy for supporting TMDL
    development, but this effort has been put on hold because of other workload
    demands. Until this strategy is finalized, it is not clear whether states'
    needs will be addressed.

    GAO makes a number of recommendations to the Administrator, EPA, to
    appropriately characterize and improve the usefulness of the National Water
    Quality Inventory. GAO also makes recommendations for EPA to work with the
    states to finalize its strategy to support TMDL development.

    GAO provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. EPA's
    comments and GAO's evaluation are discussed at the end of chapters 2 and 3.
    EPA's comments are reproduced in appendix II.

    EPA generally agreed with the report, noting that it underscores the need to
    improve water quality monitoring and assessment across the country. EPA also
    offered more specific comments dealing with the report's discussion of (1)
    the sufficiency of state data for key water quality management activities,
    (2) the National Water Quality Inventory, and (3) the Inventory's use in
    grant allocation decisions.

    First, EPA pointed out that states need not wait until "perfect data" are
    collected before taking actions to improve water quality. GAO agrees that
    perfect data are not needed before actions can be taken to improve water
    quality but continues to believe that data of better quality are needed to
    make more informed and defensible decisions. EPA also asked that GAO
    acknowledge the agency's efforts that could help improve water quality data,
    such as the modernization of its primary computer system that stores and
    retrieves water quality data. GAO recognizes that EPA has many efforts aimed
    at improving water quality data overall, but notes that some of these
    efforts are limited in their ability to address the types of problems with
    water quality data identified. EPA also recommended that GAO add language to
    the report on the implications of inadequate data for identifying waters
    that do not meet standards. GAO agrees with this suggestion and has added a
    discussion of this issue to chapter 3.

    Second, EPA made several points about the content and presentation of the
    information in the National Water Quality Inventory. The agency states that
    GAO's report should more strongly note that the Inventory is, by law, a
    summary of states' assessments of whether their waters are meeting standards
    and "is not intended to be a national water quality report on a selected,
    consistent set of water quality parameters." GAO acknowledges this point and
    has stated so in this report. However, the broader question that the
    Subcommittee posed to GAO asked how well the report characterizes water
    quality conditions nationwide. As such, this report discusses the utility of
    the Inventory for characterizing water quality nationwide.

    Moreover, because the Inventory is used to help make national policy and
    regulatory decisions, GAO believes it is prudent for EPA to take steps to
    ensure that the information presented is as reliable as possible. Where it
    is not, EPA should clearly explain the reasons why and assess the possible
    implications on national decision-making. EPA points out that past Inventory
    reports have clearly explained that its information does not consistently
    characterize nationwide water quality and that it has continued to highlight
    this point in its draft 1998 report. GAO acknowledges the caution noted by
    EPA in how the Inventory's data should be interpreted. However, by
    aggregating data across states, EPA is implicitly suggesting that these data
    can, in fact, be compared and in doing so is increasing the likelihood that
    the data will be misused or misinterpreted. GAO believes that aggregating
    data in different ways and adding language to characterize the potential
    implications of similarities and differences among state programs would
    present a clearer picture of how the state-reported information can be used.

    In response to GAO's recommendation that the agency supplement the current
    information in the Inventory by including findings from other programs
    (e.g., the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment
    Program), EPA pointed out that it already includes descriptions of this
    information in the Inventory. GAO believes, however, that EPA can improve
    the presentation and usefulness of the report if it takes this descriptive
    approach a step further by integrating the findings of these studies with
    the report's own presentation of state data, where appropriate.

    Third, EPA commented that it appears that GAO did not obtain a complete
    description of the process used to develop and evaluate the agency's new
    formula for allocating grant funds to states under section 106 of the Clean
    Water Act. The agency stated that it conducted extensive data searches and
    data source evaluations before selecting the Inventory as a source of
    information on the extent of water pollution in each state. In addition, EPA
    said that it evaluated numerous data scenarios to determine whether certain
    data components unduly influenced distributions of grant funds to states.
    GAO has incorporated a number of technical clarifications that EPA provided,
    as appropriate. However, according to an EPA official, the data scenarios
    referred to assessed the impact of using different data elements in the
    formula--not how differences among state monitoring and assessment methods
    may affect formula results, as GAO recommends.

    Introduction

    The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean
    Water Act, was enacted in 1972.1 One of its primary goals is to achieve and
    maintain water quality for the protection and propagation of fish,
    shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreation in and on the water. At the time
    the act was passed, water quality in the United States had deteriorated to
    the point where some rivers had severe pollution problems due to discharges
    of raw sewage and others were severely contaminated by industrial chemicals.

    The Clean Water Act has been credited with greatly improving the condition
    of waters in the United States. Much of this improvement has been attributed
    to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, a program that
    controls pollutant discharges from industrial facilities and wastewater
    treatment plants, which are often referred to as "point sources" of
    pollution. The program sets up a process for issuing permits to facilities
    that discharge pollutants and imposes requirements for the pollution control
    mechanisms they must use to reduce the amount and toxicity of the pollutants
    they discharge. The Congress added provisions to the act in 1987 that called
    attention to another source of pollution that was believed to be largely
    responsible for continued water quality problems--nonpoint source pollution.

    Nonpoint sources of pollution include many different types of activities
    such as agriculture, timber harvesting, and urban development. Nonpoint
    sources contribute pollution as rainwater, snowmelt, or irrigation water
    moves over or through land surfaces. This causes pollutants, either
    dissolved or solid, to be transported and eventually deposited into surface
    waters. Airborne pollutants, sometimes carried through the air over long
    distances and then deposited into bodies of water, are also considered
    nonpoint pollution. The types of pollutants vary with the activity involved
    and include sediment, nutrients, pesticides, pathogens (such as bacteria and
    viruses), salts, oil, grease, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals. Figure 3
    provides examples of point and nonpoint sources of pollutants.

    Figure 3: Examples of Point and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution
    Today, much attention is being focused on dealing with nonpoint sources of
    pollution. States and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are facing
    increased pressure to address pollution problems as a result of numerous
    lawsuits charging that they are violating the Clean Water Act by not doing
    so. In 1998, the administration introduced the Clean Water Action Plan,
    which is intended to strengthen federal and state actions to address
    pollution problems; addressing nonpoint source pollution is a major
    component. As part of this action plan, for example, funding for grants to
    states to deal with nonpoint source pollution almost doubled from $105
    million in fiscal year 1998 to $200 million in fiscal year 1999. This level
    of funding was maintained for fiscal year 2000. In addition, EPA and the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture jointly developed a national strategy for
    minimizing environmental and public health impacts from nonpoint source
    pollution coming from animal feeding operations. Furthermore, the plan
    includes actions to ensure beaches--which have been subject to an increasing
    number of advisories and closures in recent years--are safe for swimming.

    Water Quality

    While EPA is responsible for developing regulations and guidance for
    implementing the Clean Water Act and ensuring that it is properly
    implemented, states have primary responsibility for implementing programs to
    manage water quality. States are provided with federal funds through EPA to
    develop and implement these programs. In addition to the program that
    regulates point sources of pollution, other activities to manage water
    quality include developing water quality standards to protect public health
    and aquatic life, monitoring water quality to assess whether standards are
    attained, and implementing strategies to address pollution problems.

    The Clean Water Act requires states to establish water quality standards as
    a way to ensure that the goals of the act will be met. These goals include
    the achievement and maintenance of water quality for the protection and
    propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on
    the water. To develop water quality standards, states classify waters
    according to how they will be used and adopt water quality criteria to
    protect those uses. Criteria--which can be numeric or narrative--indicate
    the acceptable levels of chemicals allowed, or physical or biological
    characteristics required, in a water in order for it to meet its designated
    use. Waters that do not meet standards are often referred to as "impaired."
    Without standards, a state has no basis to assert whether waters are of
    acceptable quality. By law, states are allowed to set their own water
    quality standards; as a result, standards differ across states.

    Monitoring water quality is the linchpin for many management activities
    regarding water quality. Figure 4 depicts this relationship, showing that
    monitoring water quality is essential to identifying water quality problems
    and determining whether actions taken to restore water quality have been
    successful.

    Figure 4: Steps in Managing Water Quality
    States either monitor water quality, use data collected by other entities to
    assess water quality, or rely on a combination of the two. Monitoring data
    include information such as the presence of chemicals, physical
    characteristics such as temperature, and biological characteristics such as
    the health and abundance of fish and other aquatic species. As shown in
    figure 4, states compare monitoring data with water quality criteria to
    determine if waters meet standards. If a state's assessment of a body of
    water indicates that it does not meet the criteria--for example, if it has
    levels of chlorine that are too high to support aquatic life--then the water
    is considered not to be supporting its intended use of aquatic life. This
    indicates that the body of water needs pollution reduction strategies to
    correct the problem.

    The Clean Water Act sets forth a procedure for states to follow in
    addressing waters that do not meet standards. This requires states to submit
    to EPA a list of all of their waters that do not or are not expected to meet
    applicable water quality standards.2 For the lists developed in 1998, states
    identified about 21,000 waters that did not or were not expected to meet
    standards. The Clean Water Act further requires that states take steps to
    ensure that waters that do not meet standards are improved sufficiently to
    support their designated uses. This is done through developing total maximum
    daily loads (TMDLs), which refers to the maximum amount of a pollutant a
    body of water can receive on a periodic basis and still support its
    designated uses. Generally, TMDLs are developed by (1) analyzing the
    pollutants and sources of those pollutants causing a water quality problem
    and (2) determining how much the pollutants need to be reduced in order to
    enable the body of water to meet standards. A key part of the TMDL is
    assigning the pollutant reductions necessary among the various sources
    contributing to the water quality problem.

    Data used in the development of TMDLs are becoming increasingly important.
    For example, legal actions have been taken in more than 30 states asserting
    that the states and EPA have not adequately implemented water quality
    standards. Most of these lawsuits have been filed in the last 5 years and
    largely focus on the adequacy of states' lists identifying water quality
    problems or on the lack of state and EPA action in developing TMDLs. In
    August 1999, EPA proposed changes to water quality management regulations in
    order to strengthen the TMDL program.

    Another requirement of states under the Clean Water Act that relies on
    monitoring and assessment information is found in section 305(b), which
    requires states to report biennially to EPA on the quality of their waters
    and EPA to produce a report analyzing the states' information. A further
    requirement that the report be transmitted to Congress was recently
    repealed.3 The information that states submit to EPA for this report, called
    the National Water Quality Inventory but generally referred to as the 305(b)
    report, includes (1) the amount of waters the state assessed; (2) whether
    those waters meet water quality standards; (3) the pollutants, such as toxic
    chemicals or bacteria, that cause waters to not meet standards; (4) the
    sources, such as industrial facilities or wastewater treatment plants, that
    contribute those pollutants; and (5) a description of the state's water
    quality program.

    The 305(b) report is the primary report for informing the public about the
    conditions of the nation's waters. Therefore, it is often relied on to make
    statements regarding water quality conditions nationwide and to support
    national-level decisions. For example, the 1996 report's summary statistic
    that forty percent of the waters assessed by states are unsafe for swimming
    and fishing was a leading factor in the Administration's argument for the
    need for the Clean Water Action Plan and associated requests for budget
    increases. In addition, the report's summary information on causes and
    sources of water quality impairments contributed to EPA's decision to
    develop new regulations for animal feeding operations and criteria for
    evaluating a group of pollutants referred to as nutrients.

    As agreed with the Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
    Environment, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the
    objectives of this review were to (1) determine whether the information in
    EPA's National Water Quality Inventory is reliable and representative of
    water quality conditions nationwide and (2) determine if available data are
    sufficient to allow state officials to make key decisions about activities
    required by the Clean Water Act, such as identifying waters that do not meet
    water quality standards and developing strategies to address those waters.

    To determine the reliability and representativeness of EPA's National Water
    Quality Inventory (the 305(b) report), we followed generally accepted data
    reliability and information systems audit methodologies. We reviewed EPA's
    guidelines for preparing the 305(b) report and other EPA guidance documents
    regarding monitoring and assessment techniques. We reviewed the last two
    305(b) reports, issued for 1994 and 1996. We interviewed EPA headquarters
    staff and contractor personnel responsible for compiling state reports into
    a national summary. We also interviewed EPA regional officials involved in
    helping states to administer their monitoring programs and prepare their
    reports on water quality.

    We also conducted a mail survey of the agencies that administer water
    quality management programs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
    Our survey asked state officials to identify the primary monitoring design
    and analytical methods used, the sources of data relied on, and their
    opinions on the 305(b) assessment and reporting process and EPA's
    information systems. We pretested our questionnaire with officials in
    Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina and also obtained comments from
    officials in EPA's offices of Water and Inspector General. We received
    survey responses from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

    In addition, we met with water quality management officials in Illinois,
    Maine, North Carolina, and Texas to discuss the processes they use to assess
    water quality and provide EPA with information for reporting purposes. We
    judgmentally selected these states to represent diversity among (1) water
    quality monitoring designs, (2) the percentage of waters assessed, (3)
    geographical settings, (4) EPA regions, and (4) the type of information
    systems used to store data. We spoke with EPA regional officials in each of
    the regions responsible for the states we visited. We also obtained reports
    issued by EPA's Office of Inspector General pertaining to water quality
    management programs in five states and discussed their findings with staff
    involved with those reviews.

    We also used the survey and site visits to address our second objective. Our
    survey included questions regarding the adequacy of data to conduct various
    water quality management activities. We asked states to comment on issues
    that help or hinder them in carrying out their water quality management
    responsibilities. We used our site visits to the four states to obtain a
    more detailed understanding of the primary water quality management and
    regulatory decisions that rely on water quality data, the way in which
    states obtain the data needed to carry out these activities, and the data
    limitations that states face.

    We met with several officials representing the monitoring and TMDL programs
    in EPA's Office of Water to discuss guidance that states are provided with
    in these areas and the activities under way that may address states' needs.
    We also spoke with officials in the offices of Wastewater Management and
    General Counsel to discuss EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act
    regarding state programs for monitoring, assessing, and reporting on water
    quality.

    We conducted our work from April 1999 through February 2000 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    National Water Quality Inventory Does Not Accurately Represent Water Quality
    Conditions Nationwide

    The 305(b) report is not a reliable representation of nationwide water
    quality conditions.4 The assessments of water quality that states report
    generally do not represent conditions in all the waters in their state but,
    instead, represent only the subset of waters that the states assessed.5 An
    underlying reason for the differences among state programs is that the Clean
    Water Act allows states to have different standards by which to assess the
    level of quality of their waters. In addition, there is considerable
    variation among states in many aspects of monitoring and assessing water
    quality. EPA uses information from the 305(b) report for many important
    national decisions, such as deciding how to allocate federal funds for water
    quality activities to states, measuring the progress that states and EPA are
    making toward implementing the Clean Water Act, communicating water quality
    issues to the public, and making major regulatory decisions. Given the lack
    of the representativeness of the data in the report and their inconsistency,
    they are of limited usefulness for these purposes.

    EPA has taken steps to address problems with the 305(b) report, such as
    modifying reporting guidelines. However, because states are not required to
    follow the guidelines, their implementation is not guaranteed. In addition,
    integrating information from other sources with state-reported information
    in the 305(b) report may help provide a more accurate picture of water
    quality conditions nationwide.

    Across States

    Assessment data in the 305(b) report are not complete because they do not
    represent all of the states' waters, either through a census (i.e., the
    monitoring of all waters in a state) or through statistical sampling that
    would yield data that are projectable to all state waters. In addition,
    there is substantial variation among states in virtually every aspect of
    monitoring and assessment. Variations are found in (1) the standards states
    use to assess water quality, (2) the way that states select their monitoring
    sites, (3) the kinds of monitoring tests that states perform and how they
    interpret the results, and (4) the methods that states use to determine the
    causes and sources of pollution.

    Quality Conditions Nationwide

    A major reason why the 305(b) report does not accurately portray nationwide
    water quality conditions is that only a small percentage of waters are
    actually assessed. This small percentage would not necessarily be a problem
    for nationwide reporting if the waters were selected for monitoring in a
    statistically projectable manner. However, the waters that are monitored are
    not generally selected in a way that would allow for projecting water
    quality conditions in other waters. In addition, the conditions in many of
    the waters reported on in the 305(b) report are not based on current water
    quality monitoring but, instead, are assessed on the basis of dated
    information or subjective determinations.

    A Small Percentage of U.S. Waters Are Assessed

    Given that there are over 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams and 42
    million acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs in the United States, it is
    cost prohibitive for states to assess all of their waters. As a practical
    matter, therefore, states almost always limit their assessments to a subset
    of total waters; the result is that a majority of U.S. waters remain
    unassessed. For example, the percentage of waters assessed in the 1996
    report was 6 percent for ocean shoreline waters; 19 percent for rivers and
    streams; 40 percent for lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; and 72 percent for
    estuaries.

    For many years, EPA has encouraged states, through 305(b) reporting
    guidelines, to improve the coverage of state waters in their monitoring
    efforts. The guidelines for the 1998 305(b) report suggest that states
    should develop a strategy for achieving the goal of comprehensively
    assessing all state waters. The monitoring techniques suggested by the
    guidance include a combination of monitoring known problem waters, as well
    as monitoring randomly selected sites, which would allow inferences to be
    made about entire categories of waters. The guidelines also suggest that
    states include information from federal agencies and other relevant
    organizations in their 305(b) reports to increase the breadth or extent of
    assessments. State responses to our survey indicate that many states
    currently consider information from various sources in their assessments of
    water quality. EPA requests that states describe their progress toward the
    goal of comprehensive coverage in their 305(b) reports.

    Of the waters that are assessed, only a portion are done so in a fashion
    that meets EPA's definition of a "monitored" assessment--that which is based
    on water quality monitoring data that are less than 5 years old. As figure 5
    illustrates, of the 19 percent of river and stream miles that were assessed
    for the 1996 report, half were assessed using these types of data.

    Figure 5: Percentage of Waters Monitored, Evaluated, and Not Assessed in the
    1996 305(b) Report
    Source: 1996 National Water Quality Inventory.

    The remaining assessments were based on data that are either older than data
    used for monitored assessments, data calculated using water quality models,
    or qualitative information, including sources such as land use data, the
    location of pollution sources, or evaluations made by fish and game
    biologists of water quality or wildlife conditions. This type of information
    is used as an indicator of potential water quality in waters that are not
    actually monitored. Assessments based on such information are called
    evaluated assessments and can vary in quality and reliability. EPA officials
    said that while some types of evaluated assessments can be used with a
    relatively high degree of confidence, others are more open to question
    because they may not reflect changes in water conditions or may be based on
    unconfirmed information. Thirty-nine states used evaluated data for their
    assessments of rivers and streams in the 1996 report, and 19 of them used
    such data for half or more of their assessments.6 In the 1996 report, EPA
    identified the percentage of evaluated and monitored assessments. However,
    it did not distinguish between the two types when presenting information on
    the percentage of waters not meeting water quality standards.

    In addition to using older and potentially subjective information as a basis
    for water quality assessments, some states also assess waters by
    "extrapolating" assessments from one monitoring site to other unmonitored
    waters. EPA's 305(b) report guidelines state that this practice is
    acceptable if the monitored site is representative of other parts of the
    body of water and specify conditions present in the water that might change
    water quality or habitat and therefore preclude extrapolation. Officials in
    several states we visited said they use extrapolated assessments in
    preparing their 305(b) report. Additionally, a few states make presumed
    assessments, which are assumptions that water quality is of a certain level
    in the absence of any quantitative data to make a determination of quality.
    EPA's guidelines for the 305(b) report advise against using such
    assessments.

    States' Selection of Monitoring Sites Does Not Yield Representative Data

    The methods that states use to select monitoring sites affect how the
    resulting data can be used. Monitoring sites that are chosen on the basis of
    a random or statistical sample will result in data that are representative
    of the condition of all waters in a population, such as all streams of a
    certain size or type. EPA encourages states to include this type of design
    in their monitoring programs in order to capture a more comprehensive
    picture of water quality. Conversely, monitoring sites that are targeted
    toward waters with specific characteristics, such as known pollution
    problems or high levels of public use, result in data that can provide
    information only on those particular waters that were monitored. Additional
    information on monitoring designs is provided in table 1.

    Table 1: Monitoring Designs Described in EPA's Water Quality Reporting
    Guidelines

     Design             EPA's description            GAO's comments
                        This method allows questions
                        to be addressed that are
                        focused on site-specific
                        problems. The aggregation of
                                                     This design is intended to
     Targeted           these site-specific results  represent only the site
     (problem-based)    to make comprehensive        itself--not other bodies
                        assessments is open to
                        question regarding the       of water.
                        representativeness of those
                        sites to the resource as a
                        whole.
                        This method is intended to
                        produce snapshots of the
                        condition of an entire
                        resource when that resource
                        cannot be subject to a       Randomization is the only
                        census. Sample surveys rely  method that allows
     Sample survey or   on the selection of          statistically valid
     probabilistic      monitoring sites that are    inferences to be drawn to
                        representative of the        a population as a whole.
                        resource. Randomization in
                        the site selection process
                        is one way to ensure that
                        the sites represent the
                        resource of interest.
                        This design is based on some
                        criterion other than
                        randomness. Judgmental       We put EPA's assertion in
                        selection of sites is based  italics because, in
                        on the judgment that the     general, using nonrandom
                        sites are representative of  judgmental samples to
                        the target resource. Such    project results beyond the
                        judgmentally based sample    actual sites surveyed is
                        surveys require strong       questionable. If strong,
                        defense regarding the        compelling evidence
                        representativeness of the    demonstrates that the
                                                     sites selected to sample
     Judgmental         sites selected, and it may   are like the non-selected
                        not be possible to estimate
                        the uncertainty with which   sites in the area,
                        inferences are made as it is perhaps--and with clearly
                        when using probability-based stated, strong
                        sample surveys. This method  caveats--limited
                        is a nonrandom selection of  inferences could be made
                        sampling sites with the      beyond just the sample
                        intent of using assessment   sites. No clear,
                        results for drawing          statistically defensible
                        inferences on a population   statement is possible
                        as a whole. [Emphasis        under this method.
                        added.]

    Source for EPA's description Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive
    State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates
    (Sept. 1997).

    By and large, states use a targeted approach to select monitoring sites and
    focus monitoring efforts in problem areas or publicly used waters; very few
    states use a statistical approach. According to our survey, only nine states
    reported using a statistical approach for a majority of their water quality
    monitoring of biological conditions, and five states reported doing so for
    the monitoring of chemical conditions. As a result of the limited use of
    statistical sampling by states, most of the data they gather are not
    suitable for representing statewide conditions. State officials told us that
    information on the condition of specific waters is more essential to state
    programs for managing water quality than the kind of general information
    provided by statistical designs. Because states have limited resources for
    monitoring and assessment activities, they tend to use statistical
    monitoring in limited cases or relegate it to a lower priority.

    States

    There are significant differences among states in virtually all aspects of
    the 305(b) assessment and reporting process. An underlying difference is
    that states can have different standards by which to assess the level of
    quality of their waters. In addition, states vary in how they select their
    monitoring sites, the kinds of monitoring tests they perform and how the
    results of these tests are interpreted, and the methods they use to
    determine the causes and sources of pollution.

    States Vary in the Standards They Use to Assess Water Quality

    The Clean Water Act allows states to set their own water quality standards.
    Specifically, states can designate waters to support multiple uses, such as
    for public water supplies, the propagation of fish and wildlife,
    recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and navigational
    purposes. States can also set their own criteria (i.e., acceptable levels of
    pollutants or conditions required in a water in order for it to support its
    intended uses) as long as they are at least as restrictive as EPA's. As a
    result, standards vary across the states. 7

    According to EPA, some differences in water quality standards are based on
    sound science. For example, criteria to protect aquatic life should reflect
    the different natural ranges of biological communities. Similarly,
    acceptable physical conditions can vary depending on geographic and other
    factors. For example, natural fluctuations in the temperature and clarity of
    lakes are different in states in the northeast from those in states such as
    Florida and therefore, state standards may vary to accommodate these
    differences. Even criteria set to prevent concentrations of metals from
    causing toxic effects can be different from state to state because the way
    that metals affect a body of water varies, depending on the water's natural
    mineral content and acidity. Because of differences such as these, EPA
    believes it is appropriate for water quality standards to vary from state to
    state.

    What is not appropriate, according to EPA, is the uneven development and
    implementation of standards among states. Some states assess water quality
    using a range of measures, such as physical, chemical, and biological
    measures, while other states may base their assessments on only one or two
    chemical measures. The rigor of state programs for water quality standards,
    both in terms of the types of different measures that are included and the
    monitoring programs used, should be consistent from state to state so that
    the findings of water quality assessments are comparable.

    Currently, however, most states' water quality standards and monitoring
    programs are not comparable, yet in the 305(b) report, EPA does not provide
    details on these differences, nor does it discuss their potential
    implications on resulting national information. While one state may appear
    to have many more water quality problems than another state, it could
    actually be the result of more restrictive or more thorough standards.
    Likewise, if one state monitors a high percentage of its waters, it may
    identify more problems than a state that monitors fewer waters.

    States Vary in the Types of Monitoring Tests That They Perform

    The Clean Water Act outlines goals for attaining water quality in terms of
    the biological, chemical, and physical conditions of waters. EPA's 305(b)
    reporting guidelines discuss the different types of monitoring tests in each
    of these areas--each of which yields data about particular aspects of bodies
    of water. Physical monitoring tests the physical characteristics of bodies
    of water such as temperature and the amount of suspended solids in the
    water. Chemical monitoring tests for chemicals that may be present, such as
    chlorine or ammonia, and metals, such as mercury. Biological monitoring
    measures the health of aquatic communities and includes a variety of
    techniques, such as assessing species' health and abundance. These
    monitoring types and the additional pollutants or conditions that they
    measure are described in figure 6.

    Figure 6: Monitoring Types and Pollutants or Conditions That They Measure
    States compare water quality monitoring data--chemical, physical,
    biological, or a combination--with water quality criteria in order to
    determine whether waters are meeting the standards. Officials in the states
    we visited said that they tend to rely more heavily on one type of
    monitoring test to make these assessments. For example, Illinois and Maine
    rely primarily on biological monitoring to determine if rivers and streams
    meet water quality standards, while Texas relies on chemical and physical
    monitoring. This may cause differences in reporting on water quality because
    as a study conducted by Ohio showed, different monitoring tests may yield
    different results as to whether waters are of acceptable quality. The
    study's assessment of 645 waters revealed that 50 percent of the waters met
    chemical but not biological criteria.

    Assessment results can also vary within a single type of monitoring. Many
    different pollutants or conditions can be monitored within a type of
    monitoring, but states generally do not monitor for all of them. Different
    assessments of water quality in a single body of water can result if
    different pollutants or conditions are monitored. An example given in EPA's
    305(b) guidelines shows that in one body of water, toxicity levels were
    within the standards, but the levels of certain metals exceeded the
    standards. This is also the case for biological monitoring. Officials in
    North Carolina told us that because the types of biological tests performed
    vary from state to state, the resulting assessments should be compared with
    caution. Maine and Illinois both use biological tests to assess rivers and
    streams, for example, but their methods measure different aspects of the
    biological health.

    States Do Not Use Consistent Data Analysis Methods

    States vary in how they use information on water quality to make use
    assessments for individual waters, particularly the extent to which they use
    monitored or evaluated data. For the 1996 305(b) report, 39 states used
    evaluated data for assessing their rivers and streams, and 19 of these used
    such data for half or more of their assessments. Seven states reported that
    they did not use any evaluated assessments. Texas officials, for example,
    told us they assess only those waters for which they have current,
    site-specific data. Even though a majority of states do use evaluated
    assessments when preparing their 305(b) reports, some of the same states do
    not use these assessments as a basis for other decisions, such as whether to
    place waters on their list of waters that do not meet standards, because
    they consider the soundness of evaluated assessments to be questionable. For
    example, officials in Illinois said that when evaluated assessments show
    that a body of water does not meet standards, they first carry out
    additional monitoring at that site to determine with greater certainty
    whether the body of water is, in fact, below standards.

    Further differences among states may arise as a result of whether and how
    they use assessments from one section of a body of water to represent
    conditions in other unassessed waters--a practice called extrapolation.
    EPA's 305(b) reporting guidelines state that this practice is acceptable as
    long as certain, similar conditions exist in the affected waters. Among the
    states we visited, we found variations in how states extrapolate water
    quality assessments. Officials in Texas do not use this practice at all,
    while officials in Illinois, Maine, and North Carolina do. However, North
    Carolina extrapolates only when assessments indicate that waters meet
    standards, while Illinois extrapolates all assessments, whether they
    indicate that waters meet standards or not.

    States Use Inconsistent Methods to Determine Causes and Sources of Pollution

    EPA's 305(b) reporting guidelines ask states to identify the
    causes--pollutants or stressors, such as sediment, nutrients, and chemical
    contaminants--that prevent a body of water from meeting standards. They also
    are to identify the sources--specific activities or entities such as
    agriculture, wastewater treatment plants, and industrial facilities--that
    contribute pollutants to waters. EPA's guidelines provide general
    definitions and list some of the types of information useful in determining
    the sources of water quality impairment, including categories of pollution
    sources, such as agriculture, storm sewers, and industrial point sources.
    However, the guidelines lack specific instructions on the methods for
    determining causes and sources.

    The identification of causes and sources is an area in which officials in
    several of the states we visited said there is considerable subjectivity. An
    official in one state, for example, said that determining causes and sources
    for lakes is generally based on the best professional judgment of the
    monitoring staff members, and that while it may be a "reasonable guess," it
    is nonetheless a subjective process. Officials in another state told us they
    identify sources only if there are sufficient data to provide reasonable
    assurance that the source identification is accurate. One state official
    said that the reason for subjectivity in the identification of causes and
    sources is because EPA has provided little guidance in this area.

    In the 1996 305(b) report, EPA acknowledged that states do not assign
    sources to all water quality problems identified. Despite this, EPA also
    states in the report that it rates the significance of sources of pollution
    by the amount of waters that states report is affected by each source. As a
    result, when comparing one state with another, or when aggregating
    state-reported causes and sources, some sources may appear to be less
    significant than others, when these differences might actually be a result
    of inconsistent or incomplete reporting.

    Weaknesses

    The flaws in the 305(b) report--incomplete data and differences in how
    states monitor and assess their waters--greatly limit its utility for
    national decisions and activities. Nevertheless, EPA uses the 305(b) report
    for several national-level activities because it is the only source of
    national information on whether waters are meeting water quality standards.
    There is widespread agreement that many waters are still not meeting
    standards and that addressing these problems will be challenging. What is
    not clear is the full extent of these problems, where and what the most
    severe problems are, and the location of high-quality waters that need to be
    protected.

    The Clean Water Act authorizes funds for grants to states to assist them in
    administering programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of
    pollution. These grants are the chief source of federal funding to states
    for water quality management activities and are used to support the
    monitoring and assessment of water quality and the regulation of pollution
    dischargers, among other things.

    The Clean Water Act indicates that these funds should be allocated to the
    states on the basis of the extent of water pollution in each state. Prior to
    1999, EPA used a formula that included point source factors, such as the
    number of industrial dischargers and power plants in a state, as well as
    other factors, such as population and land area. EPA revised this formula,
    effective fiscal year 1999, to be more in line with the act's intent to
    allocate grant funds on the basis of the extent of pollution and to improve
    the quality and consistency of the data used for the allocation of funds.

    One of the components in the new formula is the number of waters identified
    in the 305(b) report as not meeting standards.8 To account for the fact that
    not all of the formula components contribute equally to the extent of the
    pollution problem within the states and to address concerns regarding the
    current consistency of the 305(b) information, each component is weighted
    individually. Component weights are being phased in over the course of 5
    years, and final component weights are to be phased in by fiscal year 2004.
    The 305(b) information was given a weight of 13 percent in fiscal year 1999
    and will reach its maximum weight of 35 percent in fiscal year 2004. Also,
    as a part of the new formula, EPA instituted mechanisms to routinely update
    the data used.

    Yet given the differences in the methods that states use to assess their
    waters, the information from the 305(b) report may not reflect the relative
    magnitude of water quality problems in states but, rather, assessment and
    reporting differences across them. Moreover, EPA has no plans to ensure that
    there will be greater consistency in the 305(b) reporting process by the
    time that the formula component reaches its maximum weighting in 2004,
    beyond encouraging states to adopt practices that would lead to more
    comparable data. In response to our survey, half of the states reported that
    they oppose using 305(b) data as a factor in allocating Clean Water Act
    funds. A few states wrote specific comments stating that they oppose EPA's
    use of 305(b) data in the formula because states' monitoring and assessment
    methods are not comparable.

    The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires EPA and other
    agencies to clearly define their missions, establish long-term strategic
    goals (and annual goals linked to them) against which to measure their
    performance, and report this information to the Congress. Importantly, the
    statute emphasizes the need for agencies to focus on and achieve measurable
    program results.

    Some of EPA's performance measures are tied to the percentage of waters
    meeting standards as identified in the 305(b) report. In EPA's fiscal year
    2000 annual performance plan, a key strategic objective is for 75 percent of
    the nation's waters to support healthy aquatic communities by 2005.9
    However, the problems with the completeness and consistency of the data in
    the 305(b) report undermine its usefulness in tracking progress toward this
    goal. In fact, the agency acknowledged the problem in its fiscal year 2000
    budget proposal, stating that "differing processes and methods among states
    can result in varying depictions of the nation's water quality" and
    concluding that "due to the manner by which data are currently collected,
    305(b) data cannot be used to establish trends."

    Information from the 305(b) report is often used to characterize conditions
    in the nation's waters in statements asserting, for example, that a specific
    percentage of the nation's waters do not meet standards. Given the problems
    with the underlying data, however, the report does not provide a complete or
    reliable estimate of the extent of water quality problems, the types of
    these problems, and the identification of the primary causes and sources
    nationwide. An EPA official acknowledged that EPA and other users of the
    report do not always communicate that the 305(b) report is based on
    assessments of a subset of the nation's waters.

    Many states question EPA's use of the 305(b) report to represent water
    quality conditions nationwide. Fourteen states responded that they oppose
    the use of the report in this manner. While 30 states responded that they
    support the use of 305(b), nearly half of these qualified their support,
    commenting that consistency in state reporting needs to be improved and that
    data should be held to higher standards.

    EPA also uses information from the 305(b) report, among other information,
    in its Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI), as presented through EPA's "Surf
    Your Watershed" application, a map-based tool available on the Internet. EPA
    designed the IWI to be used by individuals interested in learning about the
    overall quality of the watersheds in which they live. The IWI is also
    intended to provide a national baseline of the condition and vulnerability
    of aquatic resources that, over time, could be used to measure progress
    toward the goal that all watersheds be healthy and productive places.

    The 305(b) water quality assessment information is 1 of 15 different
    "layers" of information in the IWI, but it is weighted more heavily than
    other layers in calculating an overall indicator of water quality for each
    watershed. An indicator of water quality (such as good water quality and low
    potential for problems) is provided for watersheds, which gives the
    impression that conditions can be compared across watersheds. However, given
    the considerable differences in the methods used to generate the underlying
    data, such comparisons are not well founded. The IWI could be particularly
    misleading, considering that most users are likely to be unaware that these
    inconsistencies exist.

    Nineteen states reported that they do not support EPA's use of 305(b) data
    in the IWI. Several of them noted in particular that the IWI extrapolates
    water quality assessments far beyond a level for which they were ever
    intended. Officials in one state told us that when they reviewed the IWI
    data for their watersheds, they found many errors, such as dams that were
    located in the wrong watershed. In addition, several of the other 14 layers
    in the IWI are also data sources for states' assessments of whether waters
    meet standards. For example, physical-chemical data and fish consumption
    advisories are often used by states to make their 305(b) assessments of
    water quality. These data sources are also separate layers within the IWI,
    so they are essentially double counted, as some states observed.

    to Address Them

    EPA recognizes that inconsistencies exist in how states monitor and assess
    their waters and that these inconsistencies impair the 305(b) report's
    utility for making comparisons across states. The agency has been working
    toward a long-term goal of improving the accuracy and consistency of the
    report. A key activity in this area is EPA's 305(b) consistency workgroup,
    whose members include representatives from states, tribes, federal agencies,
    and EPA regions and headquarters. EPA has incorporated several of the
    workgroup's recommendations for improving the accuracy and consistency of
    reporting into its guidelines for the 1998 report.10 The guidelines include
    the goals of documenting and improving the quality of states' assessments
    and the states achieving comprehensive assessment coverage of their waters.
    However, because states are not legally required to adhere to EPA's
    guidelines, there is no assurance that the states will carry out the tasks
    necessary to meet these long-term goals.

    To encourage consistency in states' 305(b) reporting, EPA developed an
    information system called the Assessment Database for states to store and
    transmit their water quality assessment data. This database is a relatively
    new system that replaced EPA's prior data storage system. Although EPA
    encourages states to use this database, it is not mandatory, and states are
    free to use another system. One of EPA's goals for using an automated system
    to store 305(b) data was for the agency to improve the quality and
    consistency of 305(b) reporting. While there appear to be adequate controls
    over the entry of data into the system, the considerable differences in the
    methods that states use to generate the data going into the database
    severely constrain the system's utility in improving the quality and
    consistency of the data presented in the 305(b) report.

    Water Quality Information in the National 305(b) Report

    Providing information that is representative of water quality conditions
    nationwide would require the use of statistical monitoring designs and
    consistent assessment and reporting methods. Such an approach would require
    changes to state and federal monitoring programs, and additional resources
    would be needed to preserve states' water quality management programs while
    also conducting more comprehensive monitoring.

    Although the availability of additional funding is uncertain, other sources
    of water quality information could be useful to EPA in compiling the 305(b)
    report. According to EPA, 18 federal agencies--including the U.S. Geological
    Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and EPA
    itself--conduct 141 monitoring programs on regional or national scales. None
    of these programs provide information that is representative of water
    quality conditions across the nation. Instead, they focus on a particular
    geographic area, a certain type of body of water, or specific pollutants;
    studies may also have other discrete purposes. They differ from states'
    assessments of water quality in that the states focus on water quality in
    relation to state-specific water quality standards, whereas these programs
    focus on broader program objectives. The individual programs generally have
    monitoring and assessment standards and procedures to ensure that consistent
    and comparable data are collected within a particular program.

    EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, for example, is a
    research program that develops the tools necessary to monitor and assess the
    status and trends of national ecological resources. This program has
    undertaken statistically based monitoring projects to report on ecological
    conditions in several regions around the country. The Geological Survey's
    National Stream Quality Accounting Network currently focuses on water
    quality in four of the nation's largest river basins. The National Water
    Quality Assessment Program, also administered by the Survey, is a more
    comprehensive program, investigating water quality in major river basins
    that cover about one-half of the land area of the conterminous United
    States. This program seeks not only to determine water quality status and
    trends but also to identify and explain the major causes of observed
    conditions and changes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration's National Status and Trends Program is an effort to
    determine the extent and impact of contaminants on coastal and estuarine
    areas throughout the nation through monitoring conducted jointly by federal
    and state partners.

    EPA included information on some of these programs in the 1996 305(b)
    report, such as responsible agency, program objectives, scope of coverage,
    and, in some cases, program findings. However, it did not aggregate the
    findings into a national assessment of water quality because of
    inconsistencies in the methods used across the programs, nor did it
    integrate the findings into the 305(b) report to support or explain
    state-reported information. If this information were assembled and
    comprehensively analyzed, however, it could provide useful insights into
    water quality conditions across the country and complement individual state
    reports.

    EPA considers the 305(b) report to be an essential tool for reporting on the
    condition of the nation's waters and on the states' progress in meeting the
    goals of the Clean Water Act. The agency also uses information from the
    report to support certain national-level decisions. However, for a variety
    of reasons, the report does not portray nationwide water quality conditions.
    Of particular concern is that the report's results are based on more limited
    monitoring data than is implied by its presentation, and the report
    aggregates data from states that have different water quality standards and
    use widely different monitoring and assessment methods. We believe these
    weaknesses seriously limit the report's utility for the activities and
    decisions for which it is presently used.

    EPA has acknowledged some of the report's flaws and has taken steps to
    improve it, including the establishment of a working group to promote
    greater consistency of states' reporting and the issuing of revised
    reporting guidelines. However, the prospects for significantly improving the
    report are limited in the near term by a number of practical barriers,
    including the limited resources among states to monitor a greater percentage
    of their waters. In the long run, it will be up to the Congress and the
    administration to determine whether the public's interest is better served
    by devoting higher priority to monitoring activities. In the meantime,
    however, we believe EPA should undertake a more holistic approach in
    addressing the report's current deficiencies.

    We recommend that the Administrator of EPA take actions to more
    appropriately characterize state-reported information and more effectively
    use other available water quality data in the National Water Quality
    Inventory. Specifically, the Administrator should do the following:

    � Identify other ways of aggregating state-reported information that take
    into consideration the inconsistencies between states' programs in order to
    minimize the potential for misuse and misinterpretation.

    � Better convey the report's limitations in characterizing the nation's
    water quality by more clearly identifying (1) the percentage of waters that
    are actually monitored and the resulting assessments of quality and (2) the
    similarities and differences among states' water quality standards and
    monitoring and assessment methods, and the implications of these differences
    on nationally aggregated information.

    � Supplement the current information in the Inventory by integrating, where
    appropriate, the findings from other programs to support or explain
    state-reported information. These programs include EPA's Environmental
    Monitoring and Assessment Program, the U.S. Geological Survey's National
    Water Quality Assessment Program, and others.

    � Reexamine the implications of relying on the report's data for use in
    national decisions and communications to the public. Specifically, the
    Administrator should do the following:

    � Evaluate the potential impacts of inconsistent data on the extent of
    pollution in states on the allocation of the Clean Water Act's section 106
    grant funds to states, determine what data are needed to reliably support
    allocations, and develop a plan for ensuring that such data will be
    developed and used.

    � Identify the information that EPA will use for establishing a baseline of
    water quality conditions and measuring progress toward the goal of having 75
    percent of U.S. waters supporting healthy aquatic communities and develop a
    plan to ensure that reliable information will be obtained and used.

    � Evaluate the implications of using these data to generate an indicator of
    the quality of watersheds in the Index of Watershed Indicators and take any
    corrective actions needed to reliably represent water quality conditions.

    EPA shares our concern that a majority of the nation's waters have not been
    monitored. The agency notes, however, that states can be taking actions
    stemming from the data they have and that it would be inappropriate to wait
    until "perfect data" are collected on all waters before initiating actions
    on waters with known problems. We do not intend for the report to convey the
    message that actions cannot be taken to address known pollution problems in
    the absence of complete data. In fact, we address this issue by discussing
    states' opinions that they can take steps to improve water quality without
    complete data, for example, by implementing pollution control strategies for
    nonpoint sources. While states needn't be inactive with the data they have,
    we continue to believe that it is important to pursue the collection of more
    complete data in order to make more informed and defensible decisions.

    EPA recognizes the need for more complete and reliable data to ensure that
    decision-making and resource allocations are better supported and states
    that it is working hard to achieve that goal. EPA suggested that we
    acknowledge additional activities that the agency feels will help improve
    water quality data--the modernization of its primary system for storing
    water data and work done through the National Water Quality Monitoring
    Council. In addition, EPA states that although we presented concerns
    regarding the Index of Watershed Indicators, the agency believes it is a
    very useful tool because, for the first time, multiple data layers are
    integrated to characterize water quality. We recognize that EPA has many
    efforts under way to improve water quality monitoring and associated
    activities. Some of these efforts, however, do not specifically address the
    problems we identified regarding the completeness and consistency of state
    data but instead are focused on broader issues. For example, while
    modernization of EPA's primary system for storing water data should help
    states store, access, and maintain water data, only one state commented that
    data storage and retrieval is a limiting factor in its ability to conduct
    more comprehensive assessments or carry out other related activities. In
    addition, while we agree that the Index of Watershed Indicators provides a
    powerful presentation of water quality information, given the many concerns
    with the underlying data, we believe it is important for EPA to investigate
    the potential implications of data limitations on the information presented.
    Simply providing information in an easy-to-use format is just half the game;
    the information should be reliable as well.

    EPA states that our report should more strongly note that the national
    305(b) report is, by law, a summary of states' assessments of whether their
    waters are meeting standards and "is not intended to be a national water
    quality report on a selected, consistent set of water quality parameters."
    We recognize that section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act specifically
    provides that the 305(b) report include states' assessments of water quality
    in terms of state standards and EPA's analysis of them, as well as other
    information, and have stated this in our report. However, the broader
    question that the Subcommittee posed to us asked how well the 305(b) report
    characterizes water quality conditions nationwide. As such, our report
    discusses the utility of the Inventory for characterizing water quality
    nationwide.

    Moreover, because the 305(b) report is used to help make national policy and
    regulatory decisions, we believe it is prudent for EPA to take steps to
    ensure that the information presented is as reliable as possible. Where it
    is not, EPA should clearly explain the reasons why and assess the possible
    implications on national decision-making. For example, as EPA points out in
    its letter, a major use of the 305(b) report is the allocation of grant
    funds to states, which is to be based on the extent of pollution in states.
    However, given the lack of complete information on water quality conditions
    and differences among state programs, EPA cannot be certain that the extent
    of pollution across states is accurately reflected in the report.

    EPA points out that past 305(b) reports have clearly explained that its
    information does not consistently characterize nationwide water quality, and
    that it has continued to highlight this point in its draft 1998 305(b)
    report. We recognize that EPA has included statements in past reports to
    advise readers that the data should be used with caution because of
    differences in state water quality standards and monitoring and assessment
    methods. However, by aggregating the data across states, EPA is implicitly
    suggesting that these data can, in fact, be compared and in doing so is
    increasing the likelihood that the data will be misused or misinterpreted.
    For example, the statistic in the 1996 305(b) report that agriculture
    contributes pollution to 25 percent of the assessed river miles that do not
    meet standards represents an aggregation of data from states using different
    assessment methods. While EPA states that this information should be used
    with caution because of differences across states' programs, users have no
    context from which to interpret the information because the common baseline
    is river miles−not states, where the differences occur.

    Regarding our recommendation that EPA make greater use of water quality
    information from other sources, EPA states that it has included information
    from other studies in past 305(b) reports and plans to do so for the 1998
    report. We acknowledge that EPA has included information from other programs
    in past reports. However, for the most part, this has been limited to a
    discussion about a specific program and its findings. We intended our
    recommendation to take this a step a further and correlate findings, where
    appropriate, with state data. Including other sources of information in the
    305(b) report to support and/or explain state-reported information may be
    helpful because the report is often criticized for being of questionable
    quality. We have clarified our recommendation to indicate that EPA should
    integrate findings from other studies, where appropriate, to supplement
    state-reported information. EPA also pointed out that it has encouraged
    states to use data from other sources for their assessments for the 305(b)
    report. We recognize this and have added information from our survey on
    states' use of data from other sources.

    Finally, EPA commented that apparently, we did not obtain a complete
    description of the process used to develop and evaluate the agency's new
    formula for allocating grant funds to states under section 106 of the Clean
    Water Act. The agency stated that it conducted extensive data searches and
    data source evaluations before selecting the Inventory as a source of
    information on the extent of water pollution in each state. In addition, EPA
    said that it evaluated numerous data scenarios to determine whether certain
    data components unduly influenced the distributions of grant funds to
    states. We incorporated a number of technical clarifications that EPA
    provided, as appropriate. However, according to an EPA program official,
    these scenarios only assessed the impact of using different data elements in
    the formula and did not assess how differences among state monitoring and
    assessment methods may affect formula results, as we recommend.

    States Have Insufficient Data for Several Key Activities to Manage Water
    Quality

    Data limitations extend well beyond the problems associated with the
    National Water Quality Inventory and that report's ability to characterize
    water quality on a nationwide basis. States need water quality data to make
    critical regulatory decisions, as well as decisions on where to focus
    limited resources to obtain the most water quality improvement for the
    dollar. States' responses to our survey show that data gaps limit states'
    abilities to carry out several key activities to manage water quality.

    As figure 7 illustrates, few states have sufficient data to assess all their
    waters for pollution problems. Even for the waters that have been assessed,
    most states reported that they did not have the data they need to determine
    if the waters meet standards. Where water quality problems have been
    identified, many states reported that they have a majority of the data they
    need to deal with those caused by point sources because much of the last 27
    years of the Clean Water Act's implementation has focused on such sources.
    The picture is bleaker, however, for states' abilities to deal with nonpoint
    sources. Very few states have sufficient data to identify nonpoint sources
    of pollution and to develop total maximum daily loads for waters that do not
    meet standards due to such sources.

    Figure 7: States With a Majority of the Data Needed for Activities to Manage
    Water Quality
    Standards

    States report that they lack the data needed for two activities essential to
    the process of managing water quality: comprehensively assessing all state
    waters and compiling a list of waters that do not meet standards. EPA
    recognizes that these data limitations may prevent states from fully
    addressing their polluted waters and is encouraging states to take steps
    toward more comprehensive monitoring.

    Only six states responded to our survey that they have a majority of the
    data they need to fully assess all their waters. This response is consistent
    with the relatively low percentage of waters that states reported assessing
    for the 1996 305(b) report. For that report, for example, states assessed 19
    percent of the nation's rivers and streams and 40 percent of the lakes and
    reservoirs. The thorough assessment of state waters is essential because it
    enables states to identify polluted waters and prioritize them for
    remediation through the development of TMDLs or other means.

    Despite not having assessed some of their waters, the state officials we
    interviewed said they feel confident that they have identified most of their
    serious water quality problems. States tend to focus their monitoring on
    waters with suspected pollution problems and areas used by the public in
    order to direct scarce resources to areas that could pose the greatest risk.
    However, studies that have more thoroughly monitored water quality
    conditions--either through monitoring previously untested waters or
    conducting different types of monitoring tests--have identified additional
    pollution problems. For example, a 1993 EPA-funded study of toxins showed
    widespread elevated levels of mercury in Maine's lakes. This finding ran
    counter to the expectations of Maine's water quality officials, who had
    assumed that these waters were likely meeting standards because they are in
    areas with little or no human activity. As a result of these findings, Maine
    issued advisories against the consumption of fish for all the state's lakes.
    Several New England states with presumably clean lakes considered their
    waters' vulnerability to mercury and also posted fish consumption warnings.
    In addition, a study conducted by Ohio's environmental protection agency
    found that using additional types of monitoring tests identified a
    significant number of pollution problems in waters that had been shown by
    other monitoring efforts to be meeting standards.

    Even though the state officials we interviewed are confident that they have
    identified their most serious pollution problems, they nonetheless
    acknowledge that more thorough monitoring would likely reveal additional
    waters that do not meet standards. Likewise, 41 states reported in our
    survey that increasing the percentage of state waters that are monitored
    would be very helpful in carrying out their responsibilities for managing
    water quality.

    Data limitations also affect states' abilities to accurately compile for
    submission to EPA a list of the waters that do not or are not expected to
    meet standards. States must develop TMDLs for waters on this list. Less than
    half the states reported that they have a majority of the data they need to
    determine whether they should list waters they have assessed. State
    officials said that their inability to make a listing decision stems, in
    part, from the fact that they are less confident of the accuracy of some of
    their assessments because they are based on evaluated data. Evaluated data
    include site-specific monitoring data more than 5 years old and information
    that serves as an indicator of potential water quality conditions, such as
    land use or reports on wildlife or habitat conditions. EPA and state
    officials acknowledge that some of these data sources are less reliable than
    current, site-specific monitoring data. Several state officials told us that
    while they may use this information to make an assessment of water quality
    conditions for the 305(b) report, they prefer not to use it for making
    decisions about whether to list these waters because of the requirement to
    develop a TMDL once a water is listed. State officials said that they prefer
    to conduct additional monitoring of these waters to determine whether they
    are meeting standards.

    While state officials allow that they may not have identified some waters
    that need TMDLs, they also told us that some waters that have been listed do
    not need TMDLs. The reasons for this varied widely among states. For
    example, officials in one state said that they mistakenly assessed some
    waters against higher standards than necessary; consequently, these waters
    were placed on their list of polluted waters. In another state, officials
    told us that about half of the waters on their list were placed there on the
    basis of evaluated data. Upon additional monitoring of these waters, the
    state found that many meet standards and, therefore, do not need TMDLs.

    EPA officials are also concerned by the states' lack of comprehensive
    monitoring. Officials told us that data limitations may cause some water
    quality problems to go undetected and existing high-quality waters to be
    degraded because actions were not taken to protect them (the Clean Water Act
    requires states to protect existing good water quality). One regional
    official believes that states would identify many more waters that do not
    meet standards if more comprehensive monitoring were done.

    EPA has been encouraging states in its guidelines for developing the 305(b)
    report to move toward more comprehensive assessments of their waters. EPA
    discusses the use of targeted monitoring as well as statistically based
    monitoring, which would allow inferences to be made about entire categories
    of waters, to achieve this goal. The guidelines also suggest that states use
    a rotating basin approach to help achieve more comprehensive assessments. A
    rotating basin approach essentially divides a state into major river basins
    and provides for data collection in selected basins each year. The
    monitoring rotates among the basins so that waters in all basins will be
    monitored on a periodic basis, such as every 5 years.

    While many states are incorporating a rotating basin approach into their
    water quality management programs (see fig. 8), simply using this approach
    does not ensure that comprehensive data for statewide water quality
    conditions will result. The comprehensiveness of the data depends on the
    type of monitoring conducted within the rotating plan. An EPA regional
    official said, for example, that many states focus on the same monitoring
    locations within their rotating basin plans because of resource constraints
    and, therefore, do not significantly increase their monitoring coverage.
    Several states are, however, incorporating some statistical monitoring in
    order to capture a picture of water quality for waters that have not
    typically been monitored in the past.

    Figure 8: Number of States With a Rotating Basin Plan in Place or Under
    Development
    Source-Related Activities

    In the waters that states have identified as not meeting standards, many
    states reported that they have a majority of the data they need to carry out
    management activities for problems that are caused primarily by point
    sources. States generally have better data for point source problems because
    much of the last 27 years of Clean Water Act implementation has focused on
    addressing point sources of pollution through pollution control programs. In
    addition, much of EPA's guidance on developing TMDLs, which dates back to
    the 1980s, has focused on point sources.

    Forty states reported having a majority of the data they need to identify
    point sources of pollution. Point sources are easy to identify because they
    generally discharge pollutants into bodies of water from some discrete
    conveyance, such as a pipe. Accordingly, it is relatively easy to determine
    the point sources that are contributing to water quality impairments.

    In order to develop a TMDL for a pollution problem caused by point sources,
    states must identify how much of a particular pollutant the sources
    contribute to a body of water. This information is either already collected
    as a condition of a discharge permit or is directly measurable at the
    facilities' discharge point(s). Therefore, it is also relatively easy to
    identify how much pollution the individual sources are contributing.

    Twenty-nine states reported having a majority of the data they need to
    develop TMDLs for water quality problems caused primarily by point sources.
    In fact, officials in the states we visited told us that they have been
    following the TMDL process for point sources for many years as a way of
    achieving water quality standards and developing appropriate discharge
    limits. These officials said, however, that EPA's review and approval of
    TMDLs was not a priority until the recent onset of TMDL lawsuits.

    Nonpoint Source- Related Activities

    While water quality officials responding to our survey reported having a
    majority of the data they need to deal with point sources of pollution, few
    respondents reported having a majority of the data needed to deal with
    nonpoint sources. Specifically, almost all states reported that they did not
    have a majority of the data they needed to identify nonpoint sources of
    pollution and develop TMDLs for waters polluted primarily by nonpoint
    sources.

    Forty-seven states reported that they have half or less of the data they
    need to identify nonpoint sources of water quality problems, and 29 of those
    states reported having much less than half or almost none of the data
    needed. Information on nonpoint sources is particularly important because
    there is general agreement that most remaining water quality problems are
    caused, at least in part, by nonpoint sources. For example, 35 percent of
    the waters that Texas officials identified as not meeting standards in 1998
    were polluted solely by nonpoint sources, as compared with 5 percent that
    were polluted solely by point sources. Slightly more than half of Texas's
    reported water quality problems were caused by a combination of point and
    nonpoint sources. Similarly, in Maine, nonpoint sources contributed
    pollution to about half of the state's rivers and streams that were
    identified as not meeting standards.

    Because of the diffuse nature of nonpoint sources, it is difficult to
    identify specific sources contributing to a particular water quality
    problem. Unlike point sources, where pollutant contributions can be directly
    measured as they come out of a pipe, nonpoint source pollution may come from
    many disparate sources. For example, rainwater may carry fertilizer, manure,
    pesticides, and soil with it as it runs off of farm fields into bodies of
    water. Urban sources may contribute oil and grease, animal waste,
    fertilizer, and pesticides as rainwater runs off of literally thousands of
    individual residences, businesses, and roads into nearby streams, or storm
    drains that discharge into streams or rivers.

    Beyond the problems with simply identifying the nonpoint sources causing
    waters not to meet standards, it is difficult to directly measure pollutant
    contributions from individual nonpoint sources and, therefore, assign
    specific loadings to sources in order to develop TMDLs. Accordingly, only
    three states reported having a majority of the data they need to develop
    TMDLs for water quality problems that are caused primarily by nonpoint
    sources. Dealing with water quality problems that are caused by a
    combination of point and nonpoint sources is difficult because progress can
    be impeded by the weakest link--the inability to identify and quantify
    nonpoint source contributions.

    Developing TMDLs generally involves data collection and analysis beyond what
    is done by routine water quality monitoring, especially for nonpoint source
    problems. An EPA study of 14 TMDL development efforts--all but one of which
    included nonpoint sources of pollution--found that each entailed additional
    data collection that averaged about 40 percent of the total cost of
    developing the TMDL.11 Officials in one state said that it takes about 3 to
    4 years to do the data collection, analysis, and other activities needed to
    prepare a TMDL for EPA's review. Officials in another state told us that
    because they lack the data for certain TMDL projects and they are uncertain
    of what level of data EPA will accept for a TMDL, they are focusing on TMDLs
    that are relatively easy to develop rather than those that are the highest
    priority. These officials said this is due to the pressure they feel to show
    that they are making progress on TMDL development.

    Several state officials told us that because most of the TMDLs they must
    develop are for pollution caused by nonpoint sources, they prefer to use
    methods that require less initial data collection prior to the
    implementation of pollution control strategies. Two-thirds of the state
    officials responded in our survey that using a phased TMDL approach--a
    process recognized in EPA's current guidance--is very helpful for addressing
    pollution problems. The state officials whom we spoke with said that a
    phased approach enables them to apply best management practices to nonpoint
    source activities identified as contributing to a problem, while at the same
    time, gathering additional monitoring data to better understand the relative
    contributions of sources.12 Several state officials said they see this as a
    way to more quickly address water quality problems, rather than studying the
    problem extensively before taking any remediation actions.

    As states develop more TMDLs, the need for additional water quality
    monitoring will increase accordingly. Current EPA guidance and proposed TMDL
    regulations require that states conduct monitoring after pollutant controls
    or other activities are implemented to determine if the TMDL is working and
    the body of water is attaining water quality standards. This means that
    significant new monitoring efforts will be needed, particularly for TMDLs
    addressing nonpoint sources of pollution. Nonpoint sources are largely
    addressed through the use of best management practices, which are generally
    changes in the behaviors of how individuals use land. The effectiveness of
    best management practices on improving water quality varies on the basis of
    site-specific conditions, such as soil type and climate. Therefore,
    additional monitoring is needed to see if the practices are having the
    desired effect of improving water quality.

    Carry Out Key Activities

    Several factors were repeatedly identified by states as limitations to their
    ability to conduct monitoring and analyses to fully address their water
    quality management needs. Almost all states identified a need for additional
    resources, such as funding and staff, to carry out their duties. There was
    also strong evidence of the need for additional analytical methods and
    technical assistance to help states analyze complex pollution problems and
    develop TMDLs.

    The limitation most often cited by states was that the amount of
    resources--in terms of funding and staff--devoted to monitoring, assessment,
    and TMDL development is far short of the task at hand. Forty-five states
    reported that the lack of resources was a key limitation to making more
    progress on water quality issues. In addition, several states pointed out
    that they are operating under a state-imposed staffing level ceiling, and
    other states said they are limited in how many samples they can analyze
    because of shortages in lab funding.

    EPA water officials told us that overall, less resources are being devoted
    to monitoring and assessment at the state level than ever before. In
    addition, EPA and state officials told us that more requirements have been
    placed on state programs for managing water quality, such as issuing permits
    to implement new storm-water and sludge regulations. Of particular note,
    officials in two states said that the increased focus on addressing waters
    that do not meet standards is constraining their abilities to carry out
    monitoring and assessment activities.

    EPA is conducting a study of funding shortfalls in states' water quality
    management programs and plans to identify alternative approaches for
    addressing the anticipated gap. The agency plans to finalize its methodology
    for estimating these shortfalls in the spring of 2000. On the basis of a
    preliminary analysis of 10 state programs, EPA found that states have
    shortfalls in most areas of water quality management, including water
    quality monitoring and TMDL development programs.

    Assistance to Help Develop TMDLs

    To assist with the development of TMDLs, EPA has issued multiple guidance
    documents since 1984. These, however, have largely focused on point source
    TMDLs. EPA has also been developing a watershed model and analysis tool
    called BASINS, which is intended for use in the development of TMDLs,
    particularly for the analysis of nonpoint sources.13 The model was released
    about 3 years ago, although its capabilities have been evolving over that
    time. EPA is working on simplifying the model in order to make it easier to
    use. EPA has also provided a compendium of models--including those developed
    by other agencies and organizations--that are available for states to use in
    analyzing pollution problems.

    In response to our survey, however, a majority of states indicated that they
    need additional assistance for TMDL development. Specifically, 31 states
    reported that additional technical tools, such as models and analytical
    methods, would be very or extremely helpful for TMDL development; 28 states
    reported that additional technical assistance in these areas would also be
    helpful. According to our survey, states are most concerned about their
    abilities to develop TMDLs for nonpoint sources. Analyzing these sources is
    much more complex than the analysis of point source impairments and often
    relies on watershed models. However, several states pointed out that they
    are on the front end of the learning curve when it comes to using watershed
    models such as BASINS and developing TMDLs for nonpoint sources of
    pollution. While state officials told us they have in-house expertise with
    models used for analyzing point sources, they need assistance in selecting
    and using appropriate watershed models for nonpoint sources.

    Some state officials told us that they are unsure of where to go for
    technical assistance or that experts they called on in the past were no
    longer available. For example, officials in two states told us that they
    previously obtained model development, troubleshooting, and refinement
    assistance from experts in EPA's modeling lab in Athens, Georgia. This
    assistance, however, is no longer available because of reductions in
    funding, according to an official in EPA's TMDL office. Moreover, this
    official told us that there is no systematic process for providing
    assistance to states on the development of TMDLs. He said that assistance is
    provided largely in an ad-hoc fashion by EPA staff in headquarters, regions,
    and labs. EPA regional officials identified several areas where they have
    provided states with assistance on TMDL issues. However, EPA does not keep a
    national inventory of state requests for assistance and what is done to
    address those requests.

    Some states suggested that EPA should develop sample or standardized
    approaches, such as templates that states could use to guide them through
    certain types of TMDLs. In addition, several states pointed out the need for
    efficiency in developing TMDLs. For example, one state noted that states
    should be benefiting from others' experiences in developing TMDLs, rather
    than "reinventing the wheel."

    Activities currently under way at EPA could help states in some of the areas
    identified above. Perhaps most directly relevant to states' needs are EPA's
    efforts to develop protocols for some of the more common pollutants causing
    waters not to meet standards--sediment, nutrients, and pathogens. (According
    to EPA, these pollutants were selected because the states report that they
    are the leading causes of water quality impairments.) The protocols are
    intended to provide states with an organizational framework for completing
    the technical and programmatic steps in the development of TMDLs for
    specific pollutants. EPA issued the sediment and nutrient protocols in
    October and November 1999, respectively. These documents appear to provide
    some of the information and specific guidance that states identified as
    needed, such as the suggestions for the kinds of data and analyses necessary
    to develop specific TMDLs. How helpful the protocols are will become clearer
    after they have been used in several TMDL development efforts.

    In addition, EPA is conducting two pilot studies to investigate the
    relationship between air emissions of mercury and water quality impacts. The
    goal of the pilots is to examine the methods for taking air sources into
    account when determining TMDLs. In each of the two study areas--one is in a
    small lake in Wisconsin and the other covers a 700-square-mile area of the
    Florida Everglades--techniques will be evaluated for determining (1) the
    amount of mercury reductions needed to meet water quality standards, (2) the
    relative contributions of mercury from various sources, and (3) the
    geographic extent of sources contributing mercury. A legal analysis of
    federal and state programs to address airborne sources of mercury deposited
    in bodies of water is also being conducted. EPA plans to issue a "lessons
    learned" report on the findings of the pilots in the spring of 2000 to
    assist states in the development of TMDLs involving mercury from air
    sources.

    EPA officials told us that they have also started a library of approved
    TMDLs to help facilitate information sharing among states. Currently, the
    library consists of a manual file of approved TMDLs and is maintained in
    headquarters. EPA regions receive a list of the TMDLs in the library and are
    to use it for referring states to specific TMDLs when they are working on
    similar water quality problems. In addition, EPA regions are in the process
    of assessing states' TMDL programs to help develop regional strategies for
    deciding how best to allocate available resources to support them. These
    assessments will include examining states' programs for water quality
    monitoring, prioritizing water quality problems, and developing and
    implementing TMDLs to identify areas needing additional resources.

    EPA recognizes, however, that overall, its research and tools are not as
    fully developed as they need to be to support TMDL development. Therefore,
    the agency initiated the development of a strategy in the summer of 1999 to
    identify the critical needs for developing scientifically credible TMDLs and
    the actions necessary to address these needs. According to EPA, states and
    other stakeholder groups have provided input into the strategy. EPA has
    tentatively identified three broad areas in which it will address needs--the
    capacity to develop TMDLs, tools to support TMDL decisions, and the
    management of TMDL-related information. However, EPA staff working on the
    strategy have been diverted to work on other issues. The official in charge
    of developing the strategy told us that he hopes work can resume on the
    strategy in order to release a draft for public comment in the summer of
    2000.

    While it is encouraging that EPA has initiated the development of an overall
    strategy to support TMDL development, until complete, it is uncertain
    whether states' needs for additional assistance will be addressed. The
    regional assessments of states' programs, as well as states' requests for
    assistance from EPA headquarters, regions, and labs, could both provide
    valuable insight into the states' needs as EPA finalizes its strategy.

    While states have always needed to obtain comprehensive and reliable water
    quality data, such data have become more important in recent years. An
    increased emphasis on regulatory requirements for assessing waters and
    developing TMDLs has heightened the need for states to have sound
    information to make these decisions. Of particular concern, states will be
    required to develop thousands of TMDLs for their most heavily polluted
    waters.

    Our survey results show that states are missing much of the information they
    need to comprehensively assess their waters and develop TMDLs for some of
    the waters they have already identified as not meeting standards. They have
    said they need additional resources, tools and assistance in developing
    TMDLs for thousands of their waters--a task that will significantly tax
    already limited resources over a sustained period of time. EPA's analysis of
    funding gaps in states' programs should shed light on the resources needed
    to conduct these and other activities. It will then be up to the
    administration and the Congress to determine whether and how these needs
    will be met.

    EPA has a number of targeted initiatives under way that are designed to help
    states deal with specific problems, such as providing protocols for
    pollutants that frequently cause water quality problems and developing
    information on airborne pollutants. In addition, EPA has initiated work on a
    strategy for supporting TMDL development, although it is not certain when
    this strategy will be finalized and what kind of support will be provided.
    As states face long-term challenges in carrying out important regulatory
    decisions, it is critical that EPA finalize its strategy and take actions to
    provide the support necessary to develop scientifically defensible TMDLs as
    efficiently as possible.

    We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, finalize the agency's strategy for
    supporting TMDL development. As a part of this process, EPA should continue
    working with states and other stakeholder groups, as well as gather
    information on states' requests for technical assistance from headquarters,
    regions, and labs to obtain the most complete picture of states' needs as
    possible. We also recommend that as a part of its overall strategy, EPA
    establish a process for systematically tracking states' requests for
    technical tools and assistance and how these requests are addressed, on a
    routine basis, to ensure that it is addressing needs efficiently and to stay
    abreast of changing needs.

    To facilitate more efficient information sharing regarding TMDL development,
    we recommend that the Administrator, EPA, expand the dissemination of its
    TMDL library. A first step should be for EPA to routinely send the list of
    TMDLs in the library to states, as well as to regions and to consider
    automating the library to facilitate more efficient access to the
    information.

    EPA commented that our draft report did not discuss states' lists of waters
    that do not meet standards, which serves as the link between the 305(b)
    report and the TMDL program, and the adequacy of state data for the list
    development process. We agree that this is an important issue and have added
    a discussion of this to our report. EPA also provided several clarifications
    on the TMDL program that we have incorporated, as appropriate.

    Copy of GAO Questionnaire

    Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency

    GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    Steve Elstein, Assistant Director, (202) 512-6111

    Gillian Friedrichs, Heather Halliwell, Barbara Johnson, Karen Keegan, Trish
    McClure, Luann Moy, Dena Owens, and Judy Pagano made significant
    contributions to this report.

    (160480)

    Table 1: Monitoring Designs Described in EPA's Water Quality
    Reporting Guidelines 28

    Figure 1: States With a Majority of the Data Needed for Activities
    to Manage Water Quality 7

    Figure 2: Percentage of Waters Monitored, Evaluated, and Not
    Assessed 9

    Figure 3: Examples of Point and Nonpoint Sources of Pollution 17

    Figure 4: Steps in Managing Water Quality 19

    Figure 5: Percentage of Waters Monitored, Evaluated, and Not
    Assessed in the 1996 305(b) Report 26

    Figure 6: Monitoring Types and Pollutants or Conditions That They Measure 31

    Figure 7: States With a Majority of the Data Needed for Activities
    to Manage Water Quality 44

    Figure 8: Number of States With a Rotating Basin Plan in Place or
    Under Development 48

    1. 33 U.S.C. sections 1251-1387.

    2. This list is commonly referred to as the 303(d) list.

    3. The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.
    104-66, 109 Stat. 707 (Dec. 21, 1995), provides that most statutory
    requirements for annual reports by federal agencies to the Congress are
    eliminated as of December 21, 1999. However, according to EPA, the states
    are still required to submit reports on their waters every 2 years.
    Accordingly, EPA officials told us they intend to continue to produce, in
    some form, an analysis of the state reports and to use it to measure states'
    progress and communicate to the public.

    4. As defined in GAO's Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data,
    data reliability exists when data are sufficiently complete and error free
    to be convincing for their purpose and context.

    5. For the purpose of this report, "states" refers to the 50 states and the
    District of Columbia.

    6. Two states did not specify whether their assessments were evaluated or
    monitored, and three states did not report any assessments at all.

    7. In 1998 and 1999, EPA's Office of Inspector General issued reports on
    five states' water quality programs that, among other things, identified
    weaknesses in state water quality standards and the regional review of state
    standards. For example, some states had less restrictive criteria than EPA's
    and some did not adopt all applicable uses. In addition, EPA regions were
    not always reviewing state standards in the required time frames. In 1998,
    EPA issued a plan to strengthen water quality standards programs for both
    EPA and the states.

    8. The other components are surface water area, ground water use, point
    sources, nonpoint sources, and the population of urbanized areas.

    9. In this context, "waters" refers to rivers and streams, lakes, wetlands,
    estuaries, coastal areas, oceans, and ground waters.

    10. According to EPA officials, the 1998 305(b) report is scheduled to be
    issued in early 2000.

    11. See TMDL Development Cost Estimates: Case Studies of 14 TMDLs, USEPA
    (1996). One of the TMDL projects did not provide separate cost data on
    additional data collection.

    12. Examples of best management practices are (1) leaving strips of farmland
    next to bodies of water uncultivated to minimize erosion and (2) using
    manmade ponds or basins to detain storm-water runoff from roads to minimize
    the velocity of water reaching bodies of water during storms and to allow
    sediment and other pollutants to settle.

    13. Watershed models are often used to analyze nonpoint source pollution
    impairments because they can take into account many of the factors that
    influence such pollution, such as land use, climate, and geographic
    features.
    *** End of document. ***