Water Quality: Identification and Remediation of Polluted Waters Impeded
by Data Gaps (Testimony, 02/10/2000, GAO/T-RCED-00-88).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the adequacy of the
data that the Environmental Protection Agency and the states have for
making critical water quality decisions required by the Clean Water Act,
focusing on: (1) the adequacy of the data for identifying waters for
states' 303(d) lists; (2) the adequacy of data for developing total
maximum daily loads (TMDL) for those waters; and (3) key factors that
affect the states' abilities to develop TMDLs.

GAO noted that: (1) only 6 of the 50 states responding to GAO's
nationwide survey indicated that they have a majority of the data needed
to fully assess their waters, raising questions as to whether states'
303(d) lists accurately reflect the extent of pollution problems in the
nation's waters; (2) while the state officials GAO interviewed feel
confident that they have identified most of their serious water quality
problems, several acknowledged that they would find additional problems
with more monitoring; (3) states reported that they have much more of
the data they need to develop TMDLs for pollution problems caused by
point sources than by nonpoint sources; (4) states can more readily
identify and measure point sources of pollution because these sources
generally discharge pollutants through distinct points, such as pipes;
(5) conversely, nonpoint sources are difficult to identify and measure
because of their diffuse nature; (6) as a result, developing TMDLs for
pollution problems caused by nonpoint sources often requires additional
data collection and analysis; (7) only three states reported having a
majority of the data they need to develop TMDLs for these types of
problems; (8) states reported that they have been developing TMDLs for
waters polluted by point sources for many years and, therefore, have
expertise in analyzing these types of pollution problems; (9) in
contrast, however, states told GAO that their ability to develop TMDLs
for nonpoint sources is limited by a number of factors; (10) states
overwhelmingly cited shortages in funding and staff as the major
limitation to carrying out their responsibilities, including developing
TMDLs; and (11) in addition, states reported TMDLs for the more complex,
nonpoint sources of pollution.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-00-88
     TITLE:  Water Quality: Identification and Remediation of Polluted
	     Waters Impeded by Data Gaps
      DATE:  02/10/2000
   SUBJECT:  Water pollution
	     Environmental monitoring
	     Water quality
	     Water pollution control
	     Surveys
	     Reporting requirements
	     Data collection
	     State-administered programs
	     Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER:  EPA Total Maximum Daily Loads Program
	     EPA National Water Quality Inventory
	     EPA Nonpoint Source Pollution 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m. EST
Thursday
February 10, 2000

FILLIN \o \* MERGEFORMAT WATER QUALITY

Identification and Remediation of Polluted Waters Impeded by Data Gaps

Statement of Peter F. Guerrero, Director,
Environmental Protection Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-00-88

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here to discuss the adequacy of the data that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states have for making
critical water quality decisions required by the Clean Water Act. The act
has been credited with greatly improving the condition of the waters in the
United States. This success comes largely from the control of pollutant
discharges from industrial facilities and wastewater treatment plants-also
called "point" sources of pollution. Despite these strides, however, there
are still many waters that do not meet water quality standards. Of
particular concern in recent years 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. Nonpoint sources must be addressed in order to achieve the
nation's clean water goals.

The ability to deal with these problems cost-effectively depends heavily on
states' efforts to monitor their waters to identify where their most serious
problems are and to develop strategies to address those problems. States
submit a list (known as the "303(d) list") to EPA identifying waters that do
not meet applicable water quality standards and develop total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs) for waters on their lists. TMDLs are intended to help restore
water quality by reducing the amount of pollution entering a body of water
to a level that will enable it to meet standards. Comprehensive and reliable
monitoring data have become particularly important in recent years as
national attention has focused on the soundness of regulatory decisions
required to deal with the nation's most heavily polluted waters. Attention
to our remaining water quality problems has been amplified by numerous
lawsuits calling for accelerated cleanup of these waters through the 303(d)
and TMDL processes. The basis for many of the lawsuits is that EPA and the
states have not implemented these requirements of the Clean Water Act. EPA
proposed revisions to its regulations on the management of water quality in
August 1999 to strengthen the TMDL program.

Concerned about the adequacy of the data to support water quality policy and
key regulatory decisions, the Subcommittee asked us last year to report on
whether states have the data they need to carry out several key activities
for managing water quality. In addition, we were asked to determine if the
information in EPA's National Water Quality Inventory is reliable and
representative of water quality conditions nationwide. We expect to issue
our report to the Subcommittee next month. Today, we are discussing our
findings from this work as they relate to (1) the adequacy of the data for
identifying waters for states' 303(d) lists, (2) the adequacy of data for
developing TMDLs for those waters, and (3) key factors that affect the
states' abilities to develop TMDLs. A key part of our work was conducting a
survey of the officials responsible for these water quality management
activities in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and interviewing
water quality officials in 4 states.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we found the following:

   * Only 6 of the 50 states responding to our nationwide survey indicated
     that they have a majority of the data needed to fully assess their
     waters, raising questions as to whether states' 303(d) lists accurately
     reflect the extent of pollution problems in the nation's waters. While
     the state officials we interviewed feel confident that they have
     identified most of their serious water quality problems, several
     acknowledged that they would find additional problems with more
     monitoring.

   * States reported that they have much more of the data they need to
     develop TMDLs for pollution problems caused by point sources than by
     nonpoint sources. States can more readily identify and measure point
     sources of pollution because these sources generally discharge
     pollutants through distinct points, such as pipes. Conversely, nonpoint
     sources are difficult to identify and measure because of their diffuse
     nature. As a result, developing TMDLs for pollution problems caused by
     nonpoint sources often requires additional data collection and
     analysis. Only three states reported having a majority of the data they
     need to develop TMDLs for these types of problems.
   * States reported that they have been developing TMDLs for waters
     polluted by point sources for many years and, therefore, have expertise
     in analyzing these types of pollution problems. In contrast, however,
     states told us that their ability to develop TMDLs for nonpoint sources
     is limited by a number of factors. States overwhelmingly cited
     shortages in funding and staff as the major limitation to carrying out
     their responsibilities, including developing TMDLs. In addition, states
     reported that they need additional analytical methods and technical
     assistance to develop TMDLs for the more complex, nonpoint sources of
     pollution.

Background

Monitoring water quality is a key activity for implementing the Clean Water
Act. The act requires states to set standards for the levels of quality that
are needed for bodies of water so that they support their intended uses.
States compare monitoring data, or other information, with water quality
standards to determine if their waters are of acceptable quality. Figure 1
shows these and other activities for managing water quality.

Figure 1: Process of Managing Water Quality

States report to EPA on the condition of their waters via two primary
mechanisms. First, states report every 2 years on the quality of their
waters including information on the percentage of waters they assessed, the
number of waters meeting standards, and the primary causes and sources of
pollution in their waters. EPA compiles the states' reports, analyzes them,
and presents this information in the National Water Quality Inventory, which
is EPA's primary tool for communicating about water quality conditions to
the public. Second, states identify waters for which existing pollution
controls are not stringent enough to enable them to meet applicable
standards and place these waters on their 303(d) lists.

The Clean Water Act sets forth a procedure for states to follow in
addressing waters that do not meet standards. Specifically, the act requires
that states establish TMDLs for waters on their 303(d) lists. A TMDL refers
to the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive on a
periodic basis and still support its intended 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.

States Do Not Have the Data They Need for the 303(d) Listing Process

States' 303(d) lists may not accurately reflect the extent of pollution
problems in the nation's waters because many waters have not been assessed.
In our survey, only six states responded that they have a majority of the
data needed to fully assess all their waters. This response is consistent
with the relatively low percentage of waters that states reported assessing
for the National Water Quality Inventory. In 1996, for example, states
assessed 19 percent of the nation's rivers and streams and 40 percent of the
lakes and reservoirs. (See fig. 2.) Despite not having assessed all 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
in order to direct scarce resources to areas that could pose the greatest
risk.

Source: National Water Quality Inventory (1996).
Note: The figure for estuaries does not include estuarine waters in Alaska
because no estimate was available.

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 in lakes
showed widespread elevated levels of mercury in Maine lakes, despite Maine
officials' assumption that these waters were likely meeting standards
because they are in areas with little or no human activity. As a result of
these findings, the state issued advisories against consuming fish from all
the state's lakes. 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. The state
officials we interviewed acknowledged that they would likely find additional
problems if more thorough monitoring were conducted.

Data limitations also affect states' abilities to make decisions regarding
which waters should be placed on their 303(d) lists. Most states reported
that they do not have all the data they need to place waters that they have
assessed on their 303(d) lists. State officials said that their inability to
make a listing decision stems from the fact that some of their assessments
are based on what is called "evaluated data." Evaluated data include
site-specific monitoring data more than 5 years old and information that
serves as an indicator to potential water quality conditions, such as
anecdotal evidence or reports on wildlife or habitat conditions. EPA and
state officials acknowledge that these data sources are less reliable than
current, site-specific monitoring data. Some state officials told us that
while they may use this information to make an assessment of water quality
conditions for the National Water Quality Inventory report, they prefer not
to use it for making decisions about whether to place these waters on their
303(d) lists because of the requirement to develop a TMDL for those waters.
State officials said that they prefer to conduct additional monitoring in
these waters to determine whether they are meeting standards.

While state officials acknowledged that they may not have identified all
waters that need TMDLs, they also told us that there are some waters on
their 303(d) lists that do not need TMDLs. The reasons for this varied
widely. For example, officials in one state said that they mistakenly
assessed some waters against higher standards than necessary, which resulted
in these waters being placed on their 303(d) list. In another state,
officials told us that about half of the waters on their 303(d) list were
listed on the basis of evaluated data. Upon additional monitoring of these
waters, the state has found that many meet standards and, therefore, do not
need TMDLs.

States Lack Data for TMDL Development

Our survey showed that states are much better positioned to develop TMDLs
for pollution caused by point sources than nonpoint sources. (See fig. 3.)
States generally have better data and capabilities for analyzing point
sources of pollution because much of the last 27 years of the Clean Water
Act's implementation has focused on addressing this type of pollution. In
fact, the state officials we spoke with said they have been following the
TMDL process for point sources for many years as a way of achieving water
quality standards and developing appropriate pollutant discharge limits. In
addition, much of EPA's guidance on developing TMDLs, which dates from the
1980s, has focused on point sources of pollution. Responses to our survey
indicate that most states have much of the data needed to address point
source pollution. Specifically, 40 states responded that they have a
majority of the data they need to identify point sources of pollution, and
29 states reported having a majority of the data needed to develop TMDLs for
these problems.

Figure 3: Number of States That Reported Having More Than Half of the Data
Needed to Address Waters That Do Not Meet Standards

In contrast, a vast majority of states reported that they do not have much
of the data they need to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Addressing
nonpoint source pollution is essential to meet the nation's clean water
goals because there is wide agreement that most remaining water quality
problems are caused, at least in part, by nonpoint sources. Unlike point
sources, whose 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.
Measuring how much pollution comes from these various sources can be
extremely difficult and frequently requires the use of analytical methods,
such as mathematical models.

Developing TMDLs for nonpoint source pollution often involves data
collection and analysis beyond what is done by routine water quality
monitoring. 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. This additional data collection accounted for an average of
about 40 percent of the total cost of developing the TMDL. Responses to our
survey show that most states lack the data they need to address pollution
caused primarily by nonpoint sources. For example, only three states
reported that they have a majority of the data they need to identify
nonpoint sources causing pollution, and 29 states reported having much less
than half or almost none of the data needed. In addition, only three states
reported having a majority of the data needed to develop nonpoint source
TMDLs. Officials in some states told us that because they lack the data
needed for certain TMDL projects, they are focusing on TMDLs that are
relatively easy to develop, rather than those that are of higher priority.
These officials said this is due to the pressure they feel from EPA to show
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 and analysis before
implementing pollution control strategies. Two-thirds of the state officials
responded in our survey, for example, that using a phased TMDL approach-a
process described in EPA's current guidance-is very helpful for addressing
pollution problems. The state officials said that such a phased approach
enables them to apply best management practices to nonpoint sources
identified as contributing to a problem while, at the same time, gathering
additional monitoring data to better understand the relative contributions
of sources. Several officials said they see this as a way to address water
quality problems sooner, rather than to study problems extensively before
taking any remediation actions.

While data collection is often required to develop a TMDL, additional data
are also needed after a TMDL is established. Current EPA guidance and
proposed TMDL regulations discuss the need for 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, because the
effectiveness of controls to reduce such pollution can be affected by
site-specific conditions.

Other Factors Limit States' Abilities to Address Polluted Waters

In addition to the data gaps that states face in developing TMDLs, states
also identified several factors that limit their ability to conduct
monitoring and analyses to fully address the listing of polluted waters,
TMDL development, and other key water quality management activities. Almost
all states identified a need for additional funding and staff to carry out
their duties. Most states also cited the need for additional analytical
methods and technical assistance to analyze complex pollution problems and
develop TMDLs.

Resource Shortages

Forty-five states reported that the lack of resources was a key limitation
to making more progress on improving water quality. In addition, several
states pointed out that they are operating under state-imposed staffing
level ceilings, and other states said they are limited in how many samples
they can analyze because of shortages in lab funding. EPA officials told us
that overall, less resources are being devoted to monitoring and assessment
at the state level than ever before. EPA is conducting a study of funding
shortfalls in states' water quality programs and plans to identify
alternative approaches for addressing the anticipated gap. 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. The agency plans to finalize its
methodology for estimating these shortfalls in spring 2000.

Analytical Methods and Technical Assistance

EPA has taken steps toward providing assistance in TMDL development, but the
agency's current level of assistance falls short of states' needs. EPA's
efforts have included issuing multiple guidance documents over the past 15
years on developing point source TMDLs, and, more recently, producing a
watershed model and analysis tool to be used in developing TMDLs for more
complex pollution problems, such as nonpoint source and combination
point-nonpoint source pollution. EPA has also provided a compendium of
models that are available for states to use in analyzing pollution problems.

Yet a majority of the states responded in our survey that they need
additional technical tools and assistance to help them with TMDL
development. States are particularly concerned about their ability to
develop TMDLs for nonpoint sources because they have little experience in
using the advanced methods required for addressing nonpoint source problems.
In addition, officials told us that they need assistance from EPA personnel
in selecting appropriate watershed models for specific problems and in model
troubleshooting and refinement.

Officials in two states told us that they previously had obtained such
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 branch. Moreover, t -->
[Author:G] his official told us that there is no formal mechanism for
providing assistance to states for developing TMDLs. He said that assistance
is provided largely in an ad-hoc fashion by EPA staff in headquarters,
regions, and labs.

Some states suggested that EPA should develop sample approaches or templates
that states could use to guide them through certain types of TMDLs, such as
templates that indicate what type of data and analyses are needed for
particular pollutants. In addition, several states pointed out the need for
states to share information on TMDL projects in order to learn from the
experiences of others, rather than "reinventing the wheel."

EPA Activities Under Way Could Address Some State Needs

Several activities currently under way at EPA could help states in some of
these areas. Perhaps most directly relevant to states' needs are EPA's
efforts to provide guidance, or templates, for developing TMDLs for some of
the more common pollutants causing waters to not meet standards-sediment,
nutrients, and pathogens. The guidance is 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 a guidance
document for sediment in October 1999 and one for nutrients in November
1999. 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 a TMDL. How useful these
documents are will become clearer after they have been used in several TMDL
development efforts.

In addition, EPA is conducting two pilot studies to examine methods for
taking airborne sources of pollution into account when developing TMDLs by
looking at mercury contamination. The studies will examine techniques 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 will also be conducted. EPA plans to
issue a "lessons learned" report on the findings of the pilots in spring
2000. EPA is also working on guidance to assist states in developing
criteria for nutrients (i.e., measures for determining if waters containing
nutrients are of an acceptable quality) that are appropriate to different
geographic regions. The need for these criteria was highlighted in 1998 in
the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan because assessments of the
seriousness and extent of pollution problems caused by nutrients are often
based on subjective criteria.

While EPA has several activities under way in areas that states cited as
problems, the agency does not have an overall strategy for identifying and
addressing states' needs for developing TMDLs. EPA officials told us that
EPA regions are in the process of assessing states' TMDL programs in order
to identify areas in which assistance is needed and to develop regional
strategies to support states' programs. Without an overall strategy,
however, EPA cannot be certain that it is addressing these needs in the most
cost-effective manner.

Additionally, EPA is not addressing one of the key needs the states
identified-technical assistance in using watershed models and other
analytical methods. EPA officials responded that each state can obtain such
assistance from contractors. However, a more coordinated approach could be
more efficient, given the fact that many states will need to develop TMDLs
for similar pollutants and will likely go through similar analytical
processes. Such an approach may be a more cost-effective alternative for
both EPA and the states as they address this challenging problem.

This concludes our prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to
address any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have.

(160516)
  
*** End of document. ***