LC 14.1% 2%»

;T_B“‘7q 1

 

CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH
  SERVICE

LIBRARY OF
CONGRESS

 

 

Issue Brief

1
1 B CARY’
wastanat@fl:U"W”“V

(7?
‘cf 5 I

5.0:):  .
Ptfidxiiz ..-u.-2' :.1J-.'-§u‘!‘I.n:‘u > H,’-"9.’-*:.. *‘

£9Y'‘31;:.§;a* ‘:  ‘3i¢'
fnrfil

:~'  2 = ir;“°  
4: M5 an» "-'3 23 E" 8‘ o

. my H W§g~.n("'*S ‘-7" 
 :. ‘‘<s1C»...'°i3 A
2: *2  ’"':‘."?."f:‘_‘fi*
L   ’L.;" 5.5.1;  ‘

NOV 17198?

~, _  ,
K)  r"~7x. --.7‘
K  3';:‘~t‘I 9.’--:3

 

  Humii‘HmmMfifittfifimiingfigflmmiinlxwIm   ’

WATER QUALITY: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN WATER ACT

ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB7909l

AUTHOR:
Copeland, Claudia

Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM

DATE ORIGINATED O8/2l/79
DATE UPDATED O5/12/82

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700

0513

CRS- 1 IB79091 UPDATE-O5/12/82

ISSUE DEFINITION

The principal law governing pollution in the Nation's waterways, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act, has entered the
implementation phase. Enacted in 1972 (P.L. 92-500) and refined with major
amendments in 1977 (P.L. 95-217), the Act spells out ambitious programs for
water quality improvement now being put in place by industries and
municipalities. The Council on Environmental Quality reports that the big
payoff in pollution control investment will be evident in a few years, while
results of a decade's worth of national effort in this area are only
beginning to be seen now. Congressional interest in the Act has been high
during the 97th Congress and has been focused so far on the construction
grants program. At the close of the 1st session, Congress approved
legislation reauthorizing the construction grants program for four years
(P.L. 97-117) but, since then, Congress has not yet acted on an appropriation
bill to provide funding for FY82. This grants program was also an early
target of the Reagan Administration's budget-cutters. In his FY82 budget the
President proposed eliminating all funding for FY82 -- unless Congress enacts
program reforms -- plus a series of rescissions of $1.7 billion in funds
appropriated in earlier years and major funding reductions in FY83-86.
Congress agreed to rescind that amount (P.L. 97-12) and to provide no funding
for FY82 until program changes are made in the law. (For discussion see CRS
mini brief MB8l208 -- Impact of Current Budget Cuts on EPA's Construction
Grants Program.)

The Act establishes as its objective the restoration and maintenance of
"the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waterways."
Two goals also are established: Zero discharge of pollutants by 1985 and, as
an interim goal and where possible, water quality that is both "fishable" and
"swimmable" by mid-1983.

The initial years of the Act's implementation emphasized control of
discrete and identifiable industrial and municipal sources of pollution, most
of which now are in compliance with the Act or on schedule to become so.
Emphasis now is shifting to more difficult control of nonpoint and toxic
pollution, as well as control of the remaining point sources which did not
meet the Act's original requirements.

However, there is considerable frustration with the pace and management of
programs to prevent and reduce nonpoint pollution (nonpoint pollution results
from stormwater runoff from urban areas and agricultural, construction and
mining activities). Similarly, many persons continue to be concerned about
the municipal construction grants program, questioning whether the massive
Federal involvement will ever end and suggesting that the water quality
benefits of such costly expenditures will be more than offset by continuing
problems of uncontrolled nonpoint pollution.

BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS

The Act has been termed a technology-forcing statute because of the
rigorous demands placed on those who are regulated by it to achieve higher
and higher levels of pollution abatement. Under the 1972 Act, industries
were given until July 1, 1977, to install "best practicable control
technology" (BPT) to clean up waste discharges. Municipal wastewater

CRS- 2 1379091 UPDATE-O5/l2/82

treatment plants were required to meet an equivalent goal, termed "secondary
treatment," by that date. (Due to inadequate funding and other delays,
nearly one-half of U.S. municipalities missed that deadline. The 1977
Amendments authorized EPA to grant case-by-case extensions up to mid-1983;
the l98l Amendments authorize extensions up to mid-1988.) Municipalities
discharging wastes into marine waters are eligible for case—by-case’ waivers
of the Act's secondary treatment requirement, where sufficient showing can be
made that natural factors provide significant elimination of traditional
forms of pollution. The mechanism for enforcing the requirements, discharge
permits, set forth effluent limitations of what may be discharged from a
plant.

The Clean Water Act requires greater cleanup by mid-1984, generally
demanding use by industry of "best available technology" (BAT) economically
achievable. Time extensions up to mid-1987 are available for industrial
sources utilizing innovative or alternative technology. No time extensions
are allowed for treatment of toxic pollutants, however.

Federal funds are authorized in the form of grants to States to aid
construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Under the 1977
Amendments, the Act authorized grants to States totaling $5 billion annually,
to be allocated among the States according to a formula that combines State
population and EPA's survey of municipal treatment plant funding needs. (For
additional information, see CRS mini brief MB8l203 —- The EPA Needs Survey of
Municipal wastewater Treatment Facilities.) The legislation recently
approved by Congress, H.R. 4503 (P.L. 97-117), reduces the Act's authorized
funding level to $2.4 billion annually. It retains the allotment formula
contained in the 1977 Amendments in FY82 and, for FY83-85, it provides for a
slightly revised allotment formula. The following table sets forth the
state-by-state allotment schedule under P.L. 97-117:

CRS- 3 1379091 UPDATE-O5/l2/82

TABLE I: ALLOTMENT OF SEWAGE GRANT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1982-85
UNDER MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION GRANT
AMENDMENTS OF 1981 (S in millions)

FY82 FY82 FY83-85 FY83-85
Percentage Allotment Percentage Allotment

Alabama 1.2842 30.4 1.1398 27.4
Alaska .4235 11.8 .6101 14.6
Arizona .7757 18.4 .6885 16.5
Arkansas .7513 17.8 .6668 16.0
California 7.9512 188.2 7.2901 175.0
Colorado .9187 21.7 .8154 19.6
Connecticut 1.1072 26.2 1.2487 30.0
Delaware .3996 11.8 .4965 11.9
District of Columbia .3193 11.8 .4965 11.9
Florida 3.8366 90.8 3.4407 82.6
Georgia 1.9418 46.0 1.7234 41.4
Hawaii .7928 18.8 .7895 18.9
Idaho .4952 11.8 .4965 11.9
Illinois 5.1943 112.9 4.6101 110.6
Indiana 2.7678 65.5 2.4566 59.0
Iowa 1.2953 30.7 1.3796 33.1
Kansas .8803 20.8 .9201 22.1
Kentucky 1.4618 34.6 1.2973 31.1
Louisiana 1.2625 29.9 1.1205 26.9
Maine .7495 17.7 .7788 18.7
Maryland 2.7770 65.7 2.4653 59.2
Massachusetts 2.9542 69.9 3.4608 83.1
Michigan 4.1306 97.8 4.3829 105.2
Minnesota 1.8691 44.2 1.3735 33.0
Mississippi .9660 22.9 .9184 22.0
Missouri 2.49571 59.1 2.8257 67.8
Montana .3472 11.8 .4965 11.9
Nebraska .5505 13.0 .5214 12.5
Nevada .4138 11.8 .4965 11.9
New Hampshire .8810 20.9 1.0186 24.4
New Jersey 3.5715 84.5 4.1634 99.9
New Mexico .3819 11.8 .4965 11.9
New York 10.6209i 251.4 11.3097 271.4
North Carolina 1.9808 46.9 1.8396 44.2
North Dakota .3107 11.8 .4965 11.9
Ohio 6.4655 153.0 5.7383 137.7
Oklahoma .9279 22.0 .8235 19.8
Oregon 1.2974 30.7 1.1513 27.6
Pennsylvania 4.3616 103.2 4.0377 96.9
Rhode Island .5252 12.4 .6750 16.2
South Carolina 1.1766 27.8 1.0442 25.1
South Dakato .3733 11.8 .4965 11.9
Tennessee 1.5486 36.7 1.4807 35.5
Texas 4.3634 103.3 3.8726 93.0
Utah .4457 11.8 .5371 12.9
Vermont .3845 11.8 .4965 11.9
Virginia 1.9602 46.4 2.0861 50.1
Washington 1.7688 41.9 1.7726 42.5
west Virginia 1.7903 42.4 1.3890 33.3
Wisconsin 1.9503 46.2 2.7557 66.1

CRS- 4 IB7909l UPDATE-05/l2/82

Wyoming .3003 11.8 .4965 11.9
American Samoa .0616 1.5 .0915 2.2
Guam .0744 1.8 .0662 1.6
Nor. Marianas .0125 .3 .0425 1.0
Puerto Rico 1.1734 27.8 1.3295 31.9
Trust Territories 0 .1530 3.3 .1305 3.1
Virgin Islands .0378 .9 .0531 1.3

TOTAL 100.0 2,400.0 99.9996 2,400.0

CRS- 5 IB7909l UPDATE-O5/12/82

Federal grants are available for up to 75% of total municipal project
costs (beginning in FY84, this will be reduced to 55%, under P.L. 97-ll7) or
up to 85% where innovative or alternative technology will be used, such as
reclaiming or recycling of water. Grants are made for types of projects
(secondary and more stringent treatment, correction of combined
sanitary/storm sewer system overflow, rehabilitation of existing sewer
systems, for example) according to a priority list established by the States.

Under this Act, Federal jurisdiction is broad, particularly regarding
establishment of national standards or effluent limitations, but certain
responsibilities are delegated to the States. These include authority for
qualified States to issue permits to point source dischargers and to certify
and administer portions of the construction grant program. (As of July 1981,
33 States had been delegated the permit program, and 41 States plus Puerto
Rico have obtained the authority to manage portions of the, municipal
construction grants program.) Similarly, the important task (of developing
areawide waste treatment management plans under Section 208, covering point
and nonpoint sources of pollution, rests with State and/or regional
government.

Regulation of dredge or fill materials in U.S. waterways also involves
Federal and State responsibilities. This regulatory process is aimed at
protecting water and adjacent wetland areas from adverse environmental
effects due to structural work or modifications of waterways, including flood
control measures. Until recently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had
exclusive jurisdiction, first under the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and then
under the 1972 water Act, over the discharge of dredged or fill materials in
navigable waters. That authority has been modified to allow qualified States
to regulate discharges of such materials into waters other than those which
are traditionally considered navigable. The Corps of Engineers retains
jurisdiction over navigable waters or when specifically requested to do so by
the Governor of a State. (However, the Corps continues to have full
responsibility for this program, since no State has been delegated
permit-issuance authority.) As with other types of discharges regulated
under this Act, permits must be obtained prior to undertaking dredge or fill
activities. However, certain types of activities are exempt from these
permit requirements, including normal farming, ranching, and silvicultural
(forestry) activities; certain construction and maintenance; and activities
already regulated by the States under other provisions of the Act. [See CRS
issue]Brief IB77026 -- Water Pollution Control: Disposal of Dredge and
Fill.

The Act, while imposing great technological demands, also recognizes the
need for comprehensive research on water quality problems. This is provided
throughout the statute, including research of pollution in the Great Lakes,
study of in-place toxic pollutants in harbors and navigable waterways, and
investigation of mine water pollution. The Act also provides support for
training personnel to operate and maintain wastewater treatment plants.

The Act contains several provisions to insure that taxpayers do not
subsidize the use of municipal waste treatment facilities. Regarding
industrial sources which discharge pollutants into publicly owned sewer
plants, Section 307 requires pre—treatment of wastes which would not be
susceptible to handling by the plant or would otherwise interfere with its
operation. Section 204 also permits municipalities to collect from all users
-- industrial, commercial, and residential -— charges for proportionate
payment of operation and maintenance of the plant, including local debt

CRS- 5   IB7909l UPDATE-O5/l2/82

service .

ISSUES

1. Construction grants program

The history of the grant program to aid construction of municipal sewage
treatment plants has been beset with criticism of management at all levels of

government, including duplication of effort, inadequate funding, and major
delays in Federal funding due to impoundments and a de facto moratorium
during consideration of the 1977 Amendments. Other problems have stemmed

from a lack of adequately trained manpower to administer the program and,
more recently, questions about the cost effectiveness of constructing certain
advanced wastewater treatment facilities (See CRS issue brief IBBOO49 --
Municipal Pollution Control).

Between 1972 and 1981, a total of $44 billion had been authorized, but
Congress has been critical. of large unobligated balances in the grants
program carrying over from one fiscal year to the next. For that reason -=
and because of general frustration over the pace of allotting grant funds --
for the last three years Congress has voted not to fund the program at the
level requested by the Administration. In the FY81 appropriations measure
(P.L. 96-526), Congress appropriated $3.3 billion for construction grants;
this was $400 million less than the requested amount. As of February 1981
the program had an unobligated balance of $5.3 billion -- that is, monies
appropriated but not yet committed to be spent for specific projects. Yet by
July 1981 the unobligated balance had been reduced to $2 billion, as a result
of actual obligations and particularly as a result of congressional
rescission of $1.7 billion in unspent monies in P.L. 97-12.

Early in 1981 the Reagan Administration examined the grants program and
offered legislative proposals intended to reduce the Federal Government's
long-term commitment to building municipal sewage treatment plants, as well
as to focus the program on solving the Nation's most serious existing water
quality problems. These and other proposals for revising the grants program
are discussed below.

Recent legislative concern has focused on particular aspects of the
program. one concern centered on the allotment process, which gives States
24 months to obligate construction money before reallotment of unspent funds
occurs automatically. It has been argued that some States, facing that
deadline pressure, probably would choose to fund low-priority projects to
avoid losing their allotment, a situation that would undercut the goals of
the Clean water Act, according to EPA. There is little evidence to
substantiate this concern firmly, however. By the end of FY79 all States
except Ohio were able to obligate their remaining funds; Ohio lost $39
million through reallotment at that time.

During the 96th Congress several bills were introduced to extend the
allotment period from 24 to 36 months. In December 1979 the House passed
such a bill (H.R. 4113), which also contained a two-tier approach to funding:
States that obligate their regular allotment quickly would be eligible for an
additional allotment, as well.

Industries and municipalities frequently have argued that the costs of
achieving more stringent levels of water pollution control, particularly the
requirements for using BAT, greatly exceed the water quality benefits that

CRS- 7 IB7909l UPDATE-O5/12/82

will be derived. Similar questions also have arisen about the costs
associated with the municipal construction grant program. EPA's most recent
survey of the nationwide cost of compliance with the Act identified $120
billion in funding "needs" to construct municipal treatment works in the U.S.
Because of the Federal funds going into those grants, some persons question
whether it is cost-effective to invest in sewage treatment facilities capable
of achieving treatment performance more stringent than secondary levels, or
what is termed advanced wastewater treatment (AWT). It is argued that in
many cases costly AWT plants are being built while small incremental water
quality benefits are realized, particularly in view of the larger nonpoint
source pollution problems which remain. The General Accounting Office has
issued reports criticizing AWT requirements and urging greater flexibility in
the law in order to match treatment and water quality needs.

Partly in response to congressional criticism, EPA now is performing a
two—level review for project applications in connection with the Act's 1983
municipal requirements: Those involving AWT, using high technology and
highly capital and energy-intensive processes, or those based on advanced
secondary treatment (AST), falling between secondary and AWT and thus having
smaller incremental costs than AWT. This represents an effort to identify
projects where protection of water quality truly justifies building more
costly plants. EPA's 1980 survey of wastewater treatment facility needs
estimated that 12% of projects will require AST, while 3% will require full
AWT to be in compliance with the Act. By the end of FY79, EPA headquarters
had completed review of 38 advanced treatment projects and estimated that $35
million in construction costs had been saved as a result. EPA regional
offices had reviewed 169 additional projects where construction cost savings
were estimated to be more than $28 million.

In 1979 the House Public Works Subcommittee on Oversight and Review held
three days of hearings on the Act's construction grant program. EPA
officials reported that more than $24 billion has been awarded in grants for
over 17,000 projects nationwide; 1,862 which are worth $2.1 billion and which
were initiated under the 1972 Act have been completed. (By June 30, 1981,
$29.8 billion had been obligated; while $20.3 had actually been spent, only
$4.5 billion of that, invested in 2,942 projects, represented fully completed
facilities.) However, witnesses reported that due in part to problems of
erratic funding which have plagued the program's history, more than one-half
of the Nation's 20,000 municipalities are not yet in compliance with the
Act's mid-1977 deadline for achievement of secondary treatment performance
levels. Several persons said that the program now requires "predictability
and stability."

A number of witnesses were critical of the fact that it takes from 4
l/2-ll years to complete a municipal waste treatment project, one reason
being a problem of changing and retroactively applied EPA rules. EPA
officials responded that, in addition to the Clean water Act, projects of
this type are also subject to over 50 Federal laws, Executive Orders, and
other requirements.

2. Toxic water pollutants

Enactment of the l977 Amendments and congressional interest since then

demonstrate new emphasis on controlling toxic substances. Particular
emphasis of the Act's post-1980 requirements is on the problems of ground and
surface water contamination by these pollutants -- heavy metals, pesticides,

and other organic compounds.

CRS- B IB7909l UPDATE-05/12/82

The Act contains two basic provisions for dealing with toxics. Section
307 provides authority for controlling toxics in regular effluent discharges;
section 311 provides authority for cleaning up spills of oil and hazardous
substances.

Section 307 of the 1972 water Act authorized EPA to issue effluent

standards or prohibitions, if necessary, for toxic pollutants. The Agency
moved slowly in implementing its authority, and in 1975 the Natural Resources
Defense Council brought suit to force EPA to regulate in this area. The

action resulted in a 1976 consent settlement (N.R.D.C. V. Train, 8 E.R.C.
2120 [D.D.C. 1976]), in which EPA agreed to issue water quality criteria and
effluent standards for 65 named classes or categories of toxics, or "priority
pollutants," actually representing 129 specific chemical substances (listed
in table 1 of House Public works Committee Print 95-30). The terms of the
agreement, called the "Flannery settlement" (for the U.S. District Court
judge who approved it), subsequently were endorsed in the 1977 Amendments.
The District Court continues to exercise some supervisory guidance over the
toxic pollutant program, because in March 1979, the 1976 consent decree was
modified so that both the decree and the Act as amended now govern EPA's
actions. (N.R.D.C. v. Costle, 12 E.R.C. 1833 [D.D.C. 1979].)

As a first step EPA has issued water quality criteria for 64 out of 65 of
the classes of pollutants named in the consent decree. These criteria will
form the basis for setting pollutant standards requiring use of best
available technology (BAT) economically achievable. Under the Act, industry
standards for the listed substances must be met by July 1, 1984. The Act

allows EPA to add to or subtract from the list as appropriate. For any
substances that are added, standards are to be set as soon as practicable and
must be met within three years after limitations are issued. EPA will

establish new source performance standards and pre—treatment standards for
the toxic pollutants. No waivers of standards for these chemicals are
permitted. The Administrator of EPA may, at his discretion, set a toxic
effluent limitation more stringent than BAT. The final toxics standards will
be written into the discharge permits for all dischargers.

In June 1980 the House Public works Subcommittee on Oversight and Review
held five days of hearings to examine the status of EPA's implementation of
section 307. witnesses from municipalities, industry,  and the scientific
community testified that sampling and analyses appear to indicate that
current wastewater treatment technology does a good, but variable job of
removing toxic organic chemicals but is less successful in removing toxic
heavy metals. Many witnesses recommended that a water qualityr standards
approach to regulating toxic chemicals be substituted for the current
pollutant-specific approach relying on national uniformity. EPA witnesses
stated that neither the scientific information base nor the administrative
resources are available at this time to move away from the pollutant-specific

approach entirely. Other witnesses also criticized the administrative
complexity of the program that requires industrial sources to pre-treat
wastes which they discharge to municipal sewer systems. EPA witnesses

responded that pre—treatment is necessary ‘CO remove tOXiC materials WhiCh
otherwise interfere With or pass through the municipal plant.

The Clean water Act now distinguishes all pollutants other than toxics as
either "conventional" or "nonconventional." For the class designated as
"conventional," which are naturally occurring, biodegradable materials, wit
control requirements falling between BPT and BAT, a test of reasonableness of
the cost of control is to be included in EPA's process of prescribing
effluent limitations for industry. EPA's list of pollutants and pollutant

/,4=.—.\

CRS- 9 IB7909l UPDATE-O5/l2/82
indicators subject to this status, published July 30, 1979, included oil and
grease, along with four required by the statute: biological oxygen demand,
total suspended solids, fecal coliform, and pH. Industrial compliance with
regulation of these pollutants is to be achieved by July 1, 1984, under the
Act's requirements. EPA's regulations for conventional pollutants, issued
for certain industry categories in August 1979, were invalidated by a Federal

Court of Appeals in July 1981. The agency was ordered to revise the rules to

incorporate a cost-reasonableness test, which the court said EPA had failed
to apply.
All pollutants other than conventional or toxics (exclusive of thermal

pollution) are termed "nonconventional" and dischargers of these substances
are to meet BAT effluent limitation requirements no later than July 1, 1987.

Regulation of oil and hazardous substance spills or accidental releases is
contained in Section 311, which establishes a National Contingency Plan for
responding to spills from vessels or onshore and offshore facilities and
calls for assessing civil and criminal penalities where appropriate. The
cleanup and liability provisions have worked fairly well for oil spills but
less so for hazardous substances. Various delays, including litigation and
difficulty in defining types and quantities of hazardous materials, prevented

EPA from issuing final hazardous spill rules until August 1979, rules which
had been under development since December 1975. The fund_ established under
Section 311 to pay for spill cleanups has been criticized as being

insufficient, particularly for problems of hazardous substances.) There is no
authority to compensate victims of such incidents. Since enactment of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act in 1980
("Superfund," P.L. 96-510), greater attention has been focused on problems of
hazardous substance contamination and on that newer legislation -- including
its provisions for cleanup of abandoned sites -- than on section 311 of the
Clean Water Act. In fact, in the Superfund statute Congress agreed to

transfer one-half of the remaining balance of the section 311 revolving fund
to the Superfund cleanup authority. [See CRS issue briefs IB78080 -- Oil
Spill Liability and Compensation; and IB770l9 -- Superfund.]

3. Nonpoint source pollution

Criticism has been directed at the key program established in the Act for
solving nonpoint source pollution problems. Section 208 of the Act
authorizes broad water quality planning activities and requires development
of programs to control both nonpoint and point source pollution. According
to testimony at four days of hearings held in July 1979 by the House Public
Works Subcommittee on Oversight and Review, the 208 program has suffered from
inadequate technical answers to questions about nonpoint pollution,
discontinuity in funding levels, late issuance of rules and guidance by EPA

(which resulted in loss of $137 million in appropriated funds) and numerous
conflicts between Federal-State and State-local governments. The Federal
share of this planning program is 75%, or, in some cases, 100%.

EPA Administrator Douglas Costle testified that, as of mid—July 1979, 75

Statewide and areawide plans, of a total of 225 planning agencies, had been
approved by EPA. These plans were initiated in fiscal years 1974-76.
Testimony at the hearings also suggested that nonpoint source pollution will,
in large part, prevent attaining the Act's 1983 goal of "fishable and
swimmable" waters in the U.S. However, the EPA Administrator disagreed with
the contention that investments in point source controls are rendered
worthless by the magnitude of the nonpoint source problem.

CRS-l0 IB7909l _UPDATE-05/12/82

0f the $900 million in planning monies authorized for this program, $469
million has been appropriated. Approximately two-thirds of that amount har
been obligated. For FY81 Congress appropriated $34 million for the 208
program. $100 million had been authorized for FY81. For FY82 the
Administration sought no funding for the 208 program.

LEGISLATION IN THE 96TH CONGRESS

1. Industrial cost recovery and reauthorization

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 included industrial) cost
recovery (ICR) provisions to assure that industries discharging effluents
into municipal treatment plants repaid their proportionate share of the
Federal construction cost of treating the industrial wastes. The ICR policy
was intended to prevent taxpayers from subsidizing industrial waste
treatment, and the charges were in addition to other sewer charges paid by
industry for operation and maintenance or local debt service on the municipal
plant.

Industrial users of municipal treatment works criticized the ICR program,
claiming that the additional cost was forcing shutdown and relocation of
plants. Municipalities complained about the administrative burden of the
program. As a result, the 1977 Amendments modified the ICR program to exempt
from inclusion industries discharging less than 25,000 gallons per day
equivalent of sanitary waste and imposed an 18-month moratorium on collecting
ICR charges, so that EPA could conduct a study of the efficiency and need for

the program. Congressional committees determined that the report
subsequently provided gave insufficient basis for legislation to modify or
eliminate the ICR program. Consequently, after several months of

consideration, Congress agreed to legislation (S. 901) to extend the
moratorium until June 30, 1980. President Carter signed S. 901 on Dec. 18,
1979 (P.L. 96-148).

However, on Oct. 1, 1980, Congress passed legislation repealing the
industrial cost recovery provision (P.L. 96-483). The bill also terminates
Federal grant assistance for treatment of industrial discharges after Nov.
15, 1981. This particular restriction, which was an amendment by Senator
Stafford, has been termed the Industrial Cost Exclusion (ICE) provision.
President Carter signed this measure Oct. 23, 1980.

P.L. 96-483 contains other major provisions: reauthorization through FY82
of several sections of the law that expired in FY80, including grants to
States to administer water pollution programs and to conduct areawide waste
management planning; and authorization of $20 million in construction grant
monies to clean up PCBs in the Hudson River. P.L. 96-483 originated as a
Senate bill (S. 2725). The Senate passed this bill June 25, 1980, after it
was reported by the Committee on Environment and Public Works (S.Rept.
96-744). A similar bill, H.R. 6667, was reported by the House Public works
and Transportation Committee on May 15, 1980 (H.Rept. 96-983).

2. Superfund

The 96th Congress passed legislation to create a comprehensive program for
cleanup, liability, and compensation for damages from releases of hazardous
substances to the environment (P.L. 96-510), including such sources as
abandoned waste sites. Also considered by previous congresses, the numerous
proposals have come to be known as Superfund legislation. The measure

CRS-ll IB7909l UPDATE-O5/12/82

enacted by the 96th Congress contained certain amendments to the Clean Water
Act, while it focused on creating an assured mechanism for cleanup and
removal of hazardous substances. (See CRS issue brief IB770l9 -- Superfund.)

Prior to enactment of P.L. 96-510, section 311 of the Clean Water Act was
the principal statutory means for responding to spills of oil and hazardous
substances, through a $35 million revolving fund supported by Federal
appropriations. P.L. 96-510 drew in part upon the section 311 scheme by
directing that the National Contingency Plan for spill response be revised to
reflect both section 311 and the new legislation.

The new law directly amends the Clean water Act by repealing subsection
504(b), an emergency response provision adopted in 1977, and transferring any
funds appropriated under that subsection and one-half of the remaining
balance of the section 311 fund to the new Hazardous Substance Response Fund
created by P.L. 96-510.

This new law was a compromise measure adopted at the end of the 96th
Congress. It deleted several issues that had been much debated during
consideration of the various Superfund proposals: (1) coverage of the law
did not extend to a comprehensive program for oil spill liability and
cleanup; (2) compensation for damages from hazardous substances did not
extend to third-party damages suffered by individuals, although it did
include compensation for damages to natural resources; and (3) while adopting
the strict standard of liability associated with section 311 of the Clean
water Act, it did not include a broader standard of joint, several, and
proportional liability.

Sponsors of the measure, including Senator Stafford and Rep. Florio,
indicated during final debate that an early priority of the 97th Congress
would be a comprehensive proposal dealing with oil spills. The House has

passed such an oil spill-only bill in each of the last two congresses,
including H.R. 85, passed by the 96th Congress.

LEGISLATION IN THE 97TH CONGRESS

Legislation introduced in the 97th Congress concerns a number of issues
relating to reauthorization of the Clean Water Act and the Stafford
amendment/ICE provision enacted as part of P.L. 96-483. At the end of 1981,
Congress enacted amendments to the construction grants provisions of the law.
Further congressional consideration is likely in 1982, since certain other
provisions -- such as Federal grants to States for pollution control programs
-- expire at the end of FY82. Other issues that may receive attention
include the industrial pretreatment program and section 404/dredge and fill
permitting. Most persons agree, however, that the structure of the Clean

water Act is sound and does not require wholesale revision. If additional
amendments are enacted in 1982, they are expected to be fine-tuning in
nature. (For discussion see CRS mini brief 82205 -- Clean Water Act Issues:

97th Congress, 2d Session.)

1. Construction grants legislation Congress has been considering
proposed legislative reforms for the construction grants program since early
in 1981. On Dec. 16, 1981, the House and Senate agreed to legislation to
reauthorize the program through FY85 and put a number of program changes in
place (H.R. 4503). President Reagan signed the measure into law Dec. 29
(P.L. 97-117). Throughout the congressional review process, Administration
spokesmen insisted that no appropriation for FY82 would be sought until

CRS-l2 IB7909l UPDATE-O5/l2/82

certain legislative changes are enacted. However, even though Congress
approved H.R. 4503, there can be no allotment of FY82 grant funds to the
States until Congress acts on FY82 funding in the form of a supplemental
appropriation. (The FY82 funding bill for EPA's activities, P.L. 97-101,
contained no construction grant monies.)

A package of legislative reforms was introduced on behalf of the
Administration in the spring (S. 975 and H.R. 3703). Senator Chafee
introduced other legislation containing amendments to the program (S. 1274).
In September the Environment and Public works Committee reported a clean
bill, S. 1716, to the Senate. The House Public Works and Transportation
Committee approved a clean bill, H.R. 4503, also in September.

On October 27 the House and Senate passed their separate bills, S. 1716
and H.R. 4503. The two bills differed considerably in approach and detail:
the Senate bill came closer to changes sought by the Administration, while
the House bill proposed gradual transition from current policies of Federal
involvement to a more limited program necessitated by fiscal constraints
throughout the government. The final legislation approved by Congress in
December endorsed many of the program changes sought by the Administration
but deferred putting most changes into effect until FY85.

The major issues debated in connection with the House and Senate bills, as
well as the Administration proposal, included: (1) whether to limit the
Federal Government's funding commitment to the program by reducing the annual
authorization level and restricting types of projects eligible for Federal
assistance; (2) whether to provide Federal funds only for cleaning up the
Nation's backlog of water quality problems or to continue providing funds to
construct reserve capacity that would serve future population growth in an
area; (3) how much of a transition period, if any, should be allowed before
statutory program changes are instituted; and (4) whether to revise the
allotment formula for distribution of grant monies and, if so, how.

Major provisions of P.L. 97-117, the Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grant Amendments of 1981, include:

-- reauthorizing the program for a maximum of $2.4 billion annually for
FY82-85;

-- reducing the Federal share of project costs from the current 75% to 55%
beginning in FY84, except for projects that have received grants for actual
construction of part or all of a facility as of Oct. 1, 1984;

-- authorizing a demonstration program for correcting combined sewer
overflows into marine bays and estuaries, beginning in FY83, in the amount of
$200 million each year;

-- grandfathering for grant eligibility most projects currently being
funded under the program, regardless of project type, until Oct. 1, 1984;

-- beginning in FY85, limiting Federal funding to construction of sewage
treatment plants and interceptors or correction of infiltration and inflow
problems, b3£_giving governors the discretion to use up to 20% of a State's
annual allotment on other types of projects, such as new collector sewers or
rehabilitation of existing sewer lines;

-- beginning in FY84, limiting Federal funding of treatment plant reserve
capacity to facilities needed to serve population expected in the year 1990

CRS-13 IB7909l UPDATE-O5/12/82

(current policy allows Federal funds for constructing 20 years‘ worth of
reserve capacity; under P.L. 97-117, this policy would continue after FY84
for projects that have received grants for actual facility construction as of
that time);

—— repealing Industrial Cost Exclusion (see discussion of H.R. 2957
below); and

-— permitting ocean-discharging municipalities to apply for waiver of the
Act's secondary treatment requirement for a one-year period following
enactment of H.R. 4503, except that EPA may grant no waivers during that
year.

Regarding allotment of Federal grants, P.L. 97-117 extends the current
statutory formula for distributing grants to the States through FY82. That
formula combines factors of population and funding needs. For FY83-85 the
bill modifies the current formula somewhat (see Table I above). The effect
of continuing the current allotment formula, followed by limited changes
beginning in FY83, will be to minimize program disruption and conflict among
the States during the transition period until the Federal program focuses on
priority projects needed for solving the backlog of existing water quality
problems in the U.S. It is also likely to result in a scramble to begin
construction in fast-growing areas, such as the Sunbelt, before program rules
and Federal funding levels are changed.

The Senate bill, S. 1716, was approved by the Environment and Public Works
Committee on September 23 (S.Rept. 97-204), following seven days of hearings
by the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee and markups by the subcommittee
and full committee.

H.R. 4503 was approved by the Public works and Transportation Committee on
September 30 (H.Rept. 97-270), following five days of hearings in July by the
Water Resources Subcommittee and markups by the subcommittee and full
committee. In addition, the Public Works Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight held six days of hearings on the grants program in July.

Proponents of the multi-year reauthorization contained in H.R. 4503, as
approved by Congress, suggest that it will provide needed predictability to
States and municipalities. (The House bill and Administration proposals were
one-year bills.) At the same time, even by enacting a multi-year bill for
Title II programs, Congress would not be precluded from examining the Act as
a whole during 1982.

2. Industrial Cost Exclusion Several bills have been introduced in
response to the Industrial Cost Exclusion (ICE) amendment adopted in 1980
which prohibits Federal funding for the portion of a municipal wastewater
plant that would treat industrial wastes after Nov. 15, 1981. Some of the
legislative proposals would repeal the ICE limitation (H.R. 1198, H.R. 2360,
H.R. 2957, S. 1328). The House passed H.R. 2957 on May 28. Other bills
would extend the effective date of the amendment until Nov. 15, 1984 (H.R.
1743, S. 789).

The 1980 amendments to the Clean water Act also required EPA to prepare a
report for Congress on the impact of the ICE provision. The report included
case studies of several communities potentially affected by the provision and
concluded that short-term Federal savings resulting from the provision could
be more than $1 billion, through a shift from Federal to other funding
sources. However, these savings could be negated, due to delays associated

CRS-14 IB7909l UPDATE-O5/12/82

with seeking new financing arrangements, plus inflation, increased finance
charges on sums borrowed, and added administrative costs. The break-even
point, according to EPA, is about 2 years of delay, after which any savings
from the ICE provision may be eliminated. The longer—range impact of ICE,
the report stated, would generally increase pressures on the financial
viability of local communities, as larger needs for sewerage expenditures
compete for scarce fiscal resources.

The House Public Works Subcommittee on water Resources held hearings on
H.R. 2957 on Apr. 28 and 29. witnesses favoring repeal of ICE, as provided
in H.R. 2957, argued that ICE would create financial, environmental, and
social problems, such as discouraging joint industrial-municipal sewage
treatment. Others said that project delays resulting from ICE would also
delay achieving water quality goals. Acting EPA Administrator Walter Barber
told the Subcommittee that the Administration does not support repeal of the
Stafford amendment. Nevertheless, the Subcommittee approved H.R. 2957 on May
6, and the full Committee approved it on May 12 (H.Rept. 97-90). The House
passed this bill May 28. I

3. Oil pollution liability Legislation concerning comprehensive oil
pollution liability and compensation has been introduced in the 97th Congress
(H.R. 85, S. 681), and many persons expected rapid consideration of the
issues remaining from action on Superfund by the 96th Congress. However, in
March the Reagan Administration reversed the policy of previous
Administrations and announced its opposition to this legislation.
Administration representatives argued that existing mechanisms and common law
are adequate to deal with oil spills and that a new comprehensive program
would unnecessarily burden Federal resources. The House Merchant Marine and

Fisheries Committee, which held a hearing on H.R. 85 on Mar. 11, 1981,.

reported this bill on May 21 (H.Rept. 97-120, pt. 1). The Senate Environment
and Public works Committee held a hearing on S. 681 on Mar. 26.

LEGISLATION

P.L. 97-12 (H.R. 3512)

Makes supplemental and further continuing appropriations for fiscal year
1981. Rescinds certain budget authority, including $1.7 billion in EPA
construction grant funds. Signed into law (P.L. 97-12) June 8, 1981.

P.L. 97-117 (H.R. 4503)

Amends the Clean Water Act to authorize.funds for FY82-85 for construction
of municipal wastewater treatment works. Signed into law (P.L. 97-117) Dec.
29, 1981.

H.R. 85 (Biaggi et al.)

Provides a system of liability and compensation for oil spill damage and
removal costs. Introduced Jan. 5, 1981; referred to Committees on Ways and
Means, on Public Works and Transportation, and on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. Hearing held by Merchant Marine Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Navigation on Mar. 11, 1981. Approved by Subcommittee Apr. 1, 1981.
Reported by Committee May 21 (H.Rept. 97-120, part 1). [See also S. 681.]

H.R. 393 (Paul)

CRS-l5 IB79091 UPDATE-O5/12/82

Amends the Federal water Pollution Control Act to restrict the
jurisdiction of the United States over discharge of dredge or fill material
%to discharges into waters which are navigable. Introduced Jan. 5, 1981;
referred to Committee on Public works and Transportation. [See also H.R.

3083, H.R. 3962, H.R. 5766, s. 777.]
H.R. 804 (Chappell)

Amends the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
provide that compliance orders shall ' include cost-benefit analyses.
Introduced Jan. 9, 1981; referred to Committees on Public Works and
Transportation and on Energy and Commerce.

H.R. 904 (Nowak)

Amends the Federal water Pollution Control Act to provide grants for the
costs of operation and maintenance of waste treatment works. Introduced Jan.
19, 1981; referred to Committee on Public Works and Transportation.

H.R. 906 (Nowak)

Amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to allow the deduction of the
portion of certain charges which is allocable to the construction and
maintenance of waste treatment works. Introduced Jan. 19, 1981; referred to
Committee on Ways and Means.

H.R. 1008 (Bouquard et a1.)

Amends the Federal water Pollution Control Act concerning local
pretreatment programs for introduction of pollutants into publicly owned
treatment works. Introduced Jan. 22, 1981; referred to Committee on Public
Works and Transportation.

H.R. 1198 (Solomon et al.)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to delete the limitation on
the use of public treatment works grants for treating, storing, or conveying
the flow from industrial users into municipal treatment works. Introduced
Jan. 22, 1981; referred to Committee on Public works and Transportation.
[See also H.R. 1743, H.R. 2350, H.R. 2957, s. 789, s. 1328.]

H.R. 1743 (Mitchell, D.)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide that the
limitation on the use of grants for publicly owned treatment works for
treatment, storage, or conveyance of flows of industrial users shall not take
effect until Nov. 15, 1984. Introduced Feb. 5, 1981; referred to Committee
on Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee on water Resources. [See
also H.R. 1198, H.R. 2360, H.R. 2957, s. 789, s. 1328.]

H.R. 2360 (Young, R., et al.)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to repeal the limitation on
the use of grants for publicly owned treatment works for treatment, storage,
or conveyance of industrial wastes. Introduced Mar. 9, 1981; referred to
Committee on Public Works and Transportation. [See also H.R. 1198, H.R.
1743, H.R. 2957, s. 789, s. 328.]

CRS-l6 IB7909l UPDATE-O5/l2/82
H.R. 2957 (Howard et al.)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to delete the limitation on
the use of public treatment works grants for treating, storing, or conveying
the flow of industrial users into treatment works. [See also H.R. 1198, H.R.
1743, H.R. 2360, S. 789, S. 1328.] Introduced Apr. 1, 1981; referred to
Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Hearings held by Subcommittee
on Water Resources Apr. 28, 29. Amended and approved by Subcommittee May 6.
Approved, as amended, by full Committee May 12 (H.Rept. 97-90). Passed by
House, as amended, May 28.

H.R. 3083 (Hall, S.)

Amends the Federal water Pollution Control Act to restrict the
jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill
material to those discharges which are into navigable waters, and has other
purposes. [See also H.R. 393, H.R. 3952, H.R. 5766, s. 777.] Introduced Apr.
7, 1981; referred to Committee on Public Works and Transportation.

H.R. 3320 (Downey)

Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to issue guarantees with respect to
the payment of the principal and interest of bonds to be issued by the
Suffolk County Sewer Authority, in Suffolk County, New York; has other
purposes. Introduced Apr. 30, 1981; referred to Committee on Banking,
Finance, and Urban Affairs.

H.R. 3321 (Downey)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide Federal funding
for the costs of operation and maintenance of waste treatment works.
Introduced Apr. 30, 1981; referred to Committee on Public Works and
Transportation.

H.R. 3322 (Downey)

Amends the Federal water Pollution Act to require the United States to pay
for certain lateral sewer connections for low-income elderly persons.
Introduced Apr. 30, 1981; referred to Committee on Public Works and
Transportation.

H.R. 3323 (Downey)
Amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to allow an income tax deduction
to individual taxpayers for costs incurred in connecting a residential sewer

line to a public sewage system. Introduced Apr. 30, 1981; referred to
Committee on ways and Means.

H.R. 3703 (Howard, by req., et al.)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to revise and extend
certain provisions for one year. Introduced May 27, 1981; referred to
Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Referred to Subcommittee on
water Resources June 8. (See also S. 975.)

H.R. 3858 (LaFalce, et al.)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to the

CRS-l7 IB7909l UPDATE-O5/l2/82

construction and operation of certain treatment works which are subject to
regulation under international treaties. Introduced June 9, 1981; referred
to Committee on Public works and Transportation.

H.R. 3962 (Hightower et al.)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the
jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill
material to those discharges which are into navigable waters, and for other
purposes. Introduced June 18, 1981; referred to Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, and Committee on Public works and Transportation. [See also
H.R. 393, H.R. 3083, H.R. 5766, s. 777.]

H.R. 4345 (Watkins)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide that not less
than 30% of funds appropriated for grants for construction of treatment works
shall be made available for obligation in nonmetropolitan areas. Introduced
July 30, 1981; referred to Committee on Public works and Transportation.
Referred to Subcommittee on water Resources Aug. 13, 1981.

H.R. 4466 (Goldwater)

Amends the Clean Water Act pertaining to permits which modify the
requirements for discharging pollutants from publicly owned treatment works
into the oceans, and has other purposes. Introduced Sept. 11, 1981; referred
to Committee on Public Works and Transportation.

H.R. 4503 (Roe et al.)

Amends the Clean water Act to authorize funds for Title II programs for
FY82, and has other purposes. Introduced Sept. 16, 1981; referred to
Committee on Public works and Transportation. Approved by Subcommittee on
Water Resources Sept. 17, 1981. Reported,( amended, by committee Oct. 9
(H.Rept. 97-270). Passed by House Oct. 27, 1981, by vote of 382-18. House
and Senate agreed to conference report (H.Rept. 97-408) Dec. 16, 1981.
Signed by President (P.L. 97-117) Dec. 29, 1981.

H.R. 5766 (Hansen, J., et al.)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to direct the Secretary of
the Army to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
navigable waters at sites specified by the applicant, under specified
conditions. Limits the definition of "navigable waters" for such purpose and

for purposes of all other Federal restrictions on such discharges. Repeals
provisions relating to State permit programs. Introduced Mar. 9, 1982;
referred to Committee on Public Works and Transportations. (See also H.R.

393, H.R. 3083, H.R. 3962, S.777.)

H.R. 6238 (Mottl)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to increase by 10% the
Federal share of projects for applicants providing discounts on sewage rates
for senior citizens. Introduced Apr. 29, 1982; referred to Committee on

Public Works and Transportations.

S. 681 (Stafford et al.)

CRS-18 IB7909l UPDATE-O5/12/82

Provides a comprehensive system of liability and compensation for oil
spill damage and removal costs, and has other purposes. Introduced Mar. 10,
1981. Referred jointly to Committees on Commerce, on Environment and Public

Works, and on Finance. Hearing held by Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution on Mar. 26, 1981. [See also H.R.
85.]

S. 777 (Tower et al.)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to restrict the
jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill
material to those discharges which are into navigable waters, and for other
purposes. [See also H.R. 393, H.R. 3083.] Introduced Mar. 24, 1981;
referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 789 (D'Amato)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide that the
limitation on the use of grants for publicly owned treatment works for
treatment, storage, or conveyance of flows of industrial users shall not take
effect until Nov. 15, 1984. [See also H.R. 1198, H.R. 1743, H.R. 2360, H.R.
2957, S. 1328.] Introduced Mar. 24, 1981; referred to Committee on
Environment and Public Works.

S. 975 (Chafee, by request, et al.)

Revises and extends certain provisions of the Federal Water Pollution

COI'1tI'Ol ACt, as amended, for one year, and has other purposes. Introduced’

Apr. 9, 1981; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works. [See
also H.R. 3703.]

S. 1274 (Chafee et al.)

Revises and extends certadn provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (Title II). Introduced May 21, 1981; referred to Committee on
Environment and Public Works.

S. 1328 (Moynihan)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to delete the limitation of
the use of public treatment works grants for treating, storing, or conveying
the flow of industrial users into treatment works. Introduced June 4, 1981;
referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works. [See also H.R. 1198,
H.R. 1743, H.R. 2360, H.R. 2957, s. 789.]

s. 1381 (D'Amato)

Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to permit the discharge of
alum and alum sludge under such Act. Introduced June 17, 1981; referred to
Committee on Environment and Public Works.

S. 1716 (Chafee)

Amends the Clean Water Act to revise provisions for grants for
construction of treatment works. Authorizes appropriations for such grants.
Reported to Senate from Committee on Environment and Public Works Oct. 7,
1981 (S.Rept. 97-204). Measure passed Senate, amended, by voice vote Oct.
27.

Measure

S. 22
Amend
pollutan
the impo
of such
Environm

HEARINGS

UOSO

CRS-19 IB7909l

indefinitely postponed in Senate; H.R. 4503 passed in lieu, Oct. 29.
80 (Murkowski et al.)

s the Clean Water Act to declare that "discharge of a pollutant
ts" does not include effects upon water quality resulting solely from
undment of waters or the release of impounded waters or the methods

release. Introduced Mar. 24, 1982; referred to Committee

ent and Public Works.

Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Review. Implementation of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (nonpoint pollution and
the areawide waste treatment management program). Hearings,
96th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.

Off., 1979. 1049 p.
Hearings held July 11-18, 1979.

Implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(the municipal construction grants program and the state
management assistance program). Hearings, 96th Congress,
session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980.

Hearings held Oct. 30, 31, and Nov. 1, 1979.
"Serial no. 96-41"

lst

Implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(regulation and monitoring of toxic and hazardous chemicals).
Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1980. 2200 p.

Hearings held June 18-26,
"Serial no. 96-59"

1980.

Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Implementation of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (performance of
federally assisted wastewater treatment systems). Hearing,

97th Congress, lst session. Mar. 19, 1981. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 128 p.
Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and

Transportation. Subcommittee on Water Resources. To

extend the moratorium on industrial cost recovery; aspects

of funding for construction grant program. Hearings,

96th Congress, lst session, on H.R. 4023, H.R. 4113,

and H.R. 4020. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 327 p.

Industrial cost recovery. Hearing, 96th Congress, 2d session,

on H.R. 6667. Mar. 12, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1980. 447 p.

LRSBO-11993

To repeal the industrial cost exclusion provision from the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Hearings, 97th Congress,
lst session. Apr. 28 and 29, 1981. Washington,

UPDATE-O5/12/82

Hearings

Washingt

REPORTS

U.S.

CRS-2O IB79091 UPDATE-O5/12/82

U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 370 p.

The need for legislative changes in the construction grants program

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Hearings, 97th
Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1982. 1776 p.

Hearings held July 21-23, 28, 29, 1981.

"Serial no. 97-25"

Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public
Works. Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution. Industrial
cost recovery. Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d session. Mar. 18,
30, and 31, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980.
342 p.

"Serial no. 96-H42"

Implementation Of certain sections Of the Clean Water ACt.

Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d session. June 23, 24 and July 1,
1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 376 p.
"Serial no. 96-H55"
Municipal wastewater treatment construction grants program.
I
97th Congress, lst session, on S. 975 and S. 1274. Part 1.
on,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 1211 p.
Hearings held June 8-24, 1981.

"Serial no.
LRS81-10573

97-H17"

Municipal wastewater treatment construction grants program.
Hearings, 97th Congress, lst session, on S. 975 and S. 1274.
Part 2. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 269 p.

"Serial no. 97-H17"
Hearings held in Warwick,
N.M., Aug. 10, 1981.

R.I., June 29, 1981; Santa Fe,

AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS

Congress. Conference Committee, 1981. Municpal wastewater
treatment construction grant amendments of 1981; conference report
to accompany H.R. 4503. 27 p. (97th Congress, lst session.
House. Report no. 97-408)

Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
Compensation for victims of water pollution. Washington,

U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 372 p. (96th Congress,
lst session.)
"Serial no. 96-4"

Industrial cost recovery moratorium; report to accompany

H.R. 4023, including cost estimate of the Congressional
Budget Office. 6 p. (96th Congress, lst session. House. Report
no. 96-305)

A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
provide an additional allotment of funds to certain States

CRS-21 1379091 UPDATE-O5/12/82
for the construction of publicly owned waste treatment works;
report to accompany H.R. 4113. 7 p. (96th Congress, lst session.

House. Report no. 96-709)

Federal Water Pollution Control Act extension; report to
accompany H.R. 6667, including cost estimate of the
Congressional Budget Office. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1980. 18 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. House.
Report no. 96-983)

Study of the effect of the industrial cost exclusion (ICE)
on the construction grants program (a report to Congress
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to

Public Law 96-483). Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981.
403 p.

At head of title: 97th Congress, lst session. Committee
print.

"Serial no. 97-4"

Elimination of the limitation on industrial waste treatment;
report to accompany H.R. 2957 including cost estimate of the

Congressional Budget Office. [Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off.] 1981. 17 p. (97th Congress. lst session. House.
Report no. 97-90)

Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1981; report
together with additional views to accompany H.R. 4503 including
cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office. [Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.] 1981. 35 p. (97th Congress, lst session.
House. Report no. 97-270)

LRS8l-10414

Congress. House.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Review.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Print. Off., 1981. 63 p.

At head of title: 96th Congress,
Committee print.
"Serial no. 96-71"

Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
Implementation of the
Washington, U.S. Govt.

2d session.

Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Implementation

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act: concerning the
performance of the municipal wastewater treatment
construction grants program; report. Washington,
Print. Off., 1981. 75 p.

At head of title: 97th Congress,

U.S. Govt.

lst session. Committee print.

Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public
Works. The Clean Water Act; as amended through December 1981.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 132 p.

At head of title: 2d session. Committee
print.

"Serial 1'10 .

97th Congress.
97-8"
A Legislative history of the Clean Water Act of 1977,

a continuation of the legislative history of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, together with a section-by-section

CRS-22 1379091 UPDATE-05/l2/82

index. V. 3 and 4. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1978. 1505 p.  

At head of title: 95th Congress, 2d session. Committee
print.

"Serial no. 95-14"

Industrial cost recovery; report to accompany S. 901.

6 p. (96th Congress. lst session. Senate. Report no.

96-200.)

Clean Water Act extensions; report to accompany S. 2725
including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 16 p. (96th
Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 96-744)

Clean Water Act amendments of 1981; report to accompany S. 1716.
[washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.] 1981. 20 p. (97th Congress,
lst session. Senate. Report no. 97-204)

LRS81-10224

Library of Congress. Environment and Natural Resources Policy
Division. Nonpoint pollution and the areawide waste treatment
management program under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act; prepared for the Subcommittee on Oversight and Review of
of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, House of
Representatives by the Environment and Natural Resources Policy
Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 52 p.

At head of title: 96th Congress, 2d session.
print.
"Serial no.

Committee

96-67"

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
N/A
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES
Barton, Kathy. The other water pollution. Environment,
v. 20, June 1978: 12-20.
Hall, Ridgway M., Jr. The Clean Water Act of 1977. Natural
resources lawyer, v. 11, no. 2, 1978: 343-372.
Keith, Larry L. Telliard, William A. Priority pollutants.
Environmental science and technology, V. 13, Apr. 1979:

426-423.

Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water Program
Operations. 1980 Needs survey: cost estimates for
construction of publicly—owned wastewater treatment facilities.
Washington, 1981. l v. 93 p. "PRD-19"

An Executive Summary: 16 air and water
report to the Congress by the
Washington 1978. 43 p.

General Accounting Office.
pollution issues facing the nation;
Comptroller General of the United States.

Westman,

CRS-23 IB7909l UPDATE-O5/l2/82

"CED-78—l48A, Oct. 11, 1978"
Many water quality standard violations may not be significant
enough to justify costly preventive actions; report to the
Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States.

July 2, 1980. Washington 1980. 78 p. (CED-80-86)

A new approach is needed for the Federal industrial
wastewater pretreatment program; report to the
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
[Washington] 1982. 18 p.

"CED-82-37, Feb. 19, 1982
LRS82-784

EPA should help small communities cope with Federal pollution
control requirements. May 30, 1980. Washington 1980. 65 p.
(CED-80-92)

-- insufficient
1981.

User charge revenues for wastewater treatment plants
to cover operation and maintenance. Dec. 2, 1981. Washington,
35 p. (CED-82-1)

Water quality management planning is not comprehensive and may

not be effective for many years. Washington, 1978.
"CED-78-167, Dec. 11, 1978"
Walter E. Problems in implementing U.S. water quality

goals. American scientist, v. 65, Mar.—Apr. 1977: 197-203.

LIBRARY
0

  F
WASHINGTON
umvensrrv
ST. LOUIS — MO.

Iu:—__.